liturgical abuse..

[coastalwanderer]

Hmm. I am really not keen on the shaking hands at the sign of the peace thing at all, but (except when I am in my favourite church, 40 miles from home, where they omit it entirely) generally haven't worked up a way to participate silently or without touching. (A nod will suffice - but in some cases even that might appear rude.) When I lived in Ukraine the nodding and not shaking hands seemed to be the norm (although there the done thing was also to kiss the base of a crucifix on entering the church)

The point is that it is the peace of Christ being shared: too often (when shaking of hands goes on and on and on) it appears to be something more (principally, or over-emphatically) of this world.

But something I like very much about most Catholic churches I have attended over the years is that sense that everyone is there to worship God, celebrate the recreation of Christ's sacrifice, and so on; and not to make idle, unnecessary conversation (maybe that makes me sound really stern and serious...but maybe I AM really stern...). As such, silence - at least within the church itself, before and after the service, is welcome and not "rude". The more social stuff (even if just a casual "hi" belongs outside - which is not to say that it is not important, but that it is distinct from the reason why we go to mass: at least that is how it seems to me, although I may well be wrong)

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

No one is required to shake hands if they don't want to. Even at the sign of peace. There are actually some very good reasons for not doing so; if one has a contagious illness such as the flu for example.

Are you talking about the meet and greet before Mass starts?

No. No, we don't have one of those. I mean at the sign of peace, only it wasn't because the Agnus Dei had already started but the woman in front of me had only just got back from going to everyone else's pew to shake their hand and now thought it should be my turn, but I figure after the Agnus Dei starts no more of that hand shaking.

But really I am more embarresed about the other bit, me being rude in general, this is just icing on the cake.

 

[AMDG]

No one is required to shake hands if they don't want to. Even at the sign of peace.

Oh my gosh, I wish all knew that. It would have saved pain and embarrassment. About two and a half years ago, I broke my the ring finger on my right hand, but it wasn't wrapped up or anything. At the sign-of-peace, the man next to me grabbed my hand and squeezed. Believe me, both of us (and probably all around us) were very sorry. Sometimes I wonder who makes up these touchy-feely things in Mass--they certainly were never injured.

 

[JoabAnias]

No. No, we don't have one of those. I mean at the sign of peace, only it wasn't because the Agnus Dei had already started but the woman in front of me had only just got back from going to everyone else's pew to shake their hand and now thought it should be my turn, but I figure after the Agnus Dei starts no more of that hand shaking.

But really I am more embarresed about the other bit, me being rude in general, this is just icing on the cake.

If you were just trying to do the right thing in Mass then I wouldn't worry about it.

A few weeks back a woman behind me didn't shake anyones hand at the sign of peace. I took no offense but was a bit disappointed when I held out my hand and it was refused but it was hardly anything to take offense at. I thought it was strange at the time and hope my expression didn't tip off my initial thoughts but bah, its her choice and she smiled and said "peace be with you". I just figured she had a good reason and its not for me to worry about and went right back to paying attention to the Mass.

There is an old saying, "don't sweat the small stuff".

 

[JoabAnias]

Oh my gosh, I wish all knew that. It would have saved pain and embarrassment. About two and a half years ago, I broke my the ring finger on my right hand, but it wasn't wrapped up or anything. At the sign-of-peace, the man next to me grabbed my hand and squeezed. Believe me, both of us (and probably all around us) were very sorry. Sometimes I wonder who makes up these touchy-feely things in Mass--they certainly were never injured.

Its a cultural custom and tradition. I believe liturgically its still called the "kiss of peace" and its believed to have originated in early Christian culture as an actual peck on the cheek. The French still greet this way and its a normal custom for them and completely platonic.

The general custom of greeting in the U.S. is a hand shake and some families hug or kiss. Its minor and if I had a wife beside me I am sure I would be giving her a kiss and hugging my kids and do when they are with me.

I do go to Mass with friends almost always though and since there is no bond of marriage there I shake hands as to not show an inappropriate sign of affection though I have no problems personally hugging anyone in a platonic sense.

I just don't want to give any reason to cause another to think scandalous thoughts though I also realize if they and not knowing my intentions might so if they did it would probably be their problem never the less I try to keep the sensitivities of everyone in mind.

If I am on a retreat its usually much more affectionate and I have no problem with that as well. Its just that during the regular liturgy I prefer to go by what I know the liturgy calls for to not set an example of introducing an emotional response by personal initiative into the Mass.

We should have no problem with appreciating anyones space and comfort zone.

These are actually a couple of reasons why I prefer not to practice the "meet and greet" before Mass as some liberal pastors encourage because its redundant and will be done at the "sign of peace" as well as holding hands at the Our Father because not only will it be immediately followed by the sign of peace where we will greet those around use with affection but also I feel it detracts from my concentration on the prayer itself.

Others should respect this as well. I foremost go to Mass to commune with Jesus and avoid anything that causes it to lean toward a social event. There is plenty of chance for that after Mass and at Church gatherings and functions as well as in normal every day living with family and friends. The Mass is to worship Jesus and that is my priority.

Call me over analytical or a prude if you like. It matters not to me because I know what my purpose for being at Mass is and its only about anyone other than Jesus at that sign of peace where its intended and there is plenty of time for fellowship after communion. (Unless of course its one of those folks who rush out asap. But even then there may be good reason for it. A many of time I have had to leave Mass directly because of work or other engagement). I would expect most folks to have some level of understanding about such things.

As far as a pratical reasons for not shaking hands such as broken finger, open sores, having the flu or even if one has a fobia of germs etc etc then clasping ones hands and a smile while saying "piece be with you" or even a wave or gesture should more than satisfy anyone without offense and convey the same congenial spirit of unity and brotherhood without actually having to touch someone. (Though it may make them wonder, and your not bound to explain so if they judge beyond that then I would say it is them that has the problem).

If one reads the GIRM and Redemptionis Sacramentum, these documents should stipulate what is required participation and what is optional. You may even notice where its stipulated that the celebrant should not leave the sanctuary to greet anyone.

This article may also be helpful.
The Struggle for Uniformity in the Liturgy

 

[Globalnomad]

Look, if you are going to risk offending people and making AHs out of yourselves, better make onethousand percent sure that you know what you are doing. Interpreting the GIRM and understanding which are the things legitimately left to the decision of the bishop, or the parish priest, or simply don't matter that much, are trickier than most of us know if we have not done many years' liturgical studies.

And one thing I can tell you with some authority: NEVER write an anonymous complaint letter. Any official worth his salt will throw such letters into the wastepaper basket with contempt. If you don't have the courage to put your name to it, don't say it. Get someone else to say it who CAN put his/her name to it.

 

[Globalnomad]

P.S. To my knowledge, there is a very definite, and not very nice, opinion in Church circles about the "overeager Lizzies" who write anonymous complaint letters to the hierarchy. For some reason, apparently most anonymous letters come from the conservative side.

 

[JoabAnias]

NEVER write an anonymous complaint letter. Any official worth his salt will throw such letters into the wastepaper basket with contempt. If you don't have the courage to put your name to it, don't say it. Get someone else to say it who CAN put his/her name to it.

I agree. It will do no good if your not willing to back up your claim with integrity and honor. One will need to go well beyond that too. Do not assume you are interpreting the liturgical norms correctly on your own without first consulting with others who have some knowledge and expertise in the area. Its very easy to see a liturgical abuse where there is none. I have done this several times and fortunately I have not taken that to my Pastor before I found out the difference through sound advice or I would definitely have had egg on my face and been eating crow.

Lastly, if you can confirm without a shadow of a doubt that it is an error/abuse have the courtesy to go talk to your pastor about it. Its easier to do this by getting involved with the Parish in a ministry and establishing a rapport with the priest or requesting spiritual direction from him rather than approaching him with accusations. If he is unreasonable then Scripture tells us to take two or three with you. Parish council meetings are open forum. Its only after all of those reasonable attempts are made that anyone should then write to the Bishop. And if it does come to that, document all thats been attempted along the way. Its also important to note that if in an Arch diocese one must first address the particular sub office of the Vicariate before the Arch diocese itself. If all else fails after that, you may find that the Bishop is well aware of whats going on and your simply ignored then one may solicit outside help from such agencies who advocate for liturgical reform such as Adoremus or the St. Joseph Foundation

If you make it that far then more power to you. I just changed parishes.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Is it liturgical abuse if the priest consecrates the wine for the congregation while it's still in the glass vessel, and then the Eucharistic ministers pour it into the metal things..? (chalices?)

just something I've seen somewhere

 

[katholikos]

There is only so much one can do on thier own.

What would you suggest besides setting the example and or discussing it with the Pastor?

Band together and petition the USCCB maybe? Maybe have a nice fat petition show up at their next bi-annual meeting?

 

[JoabAnias]

Band together and petition the USCCB maybe? Maybe have a nice fat petition show up at their next bi-annual meeting?

I think this has to be attacked at a parish level.

Two things I have seen work;

One is to gather a group of friends. prayer group members and other parishioners together and get a meeting set up with the Pastor and or deacons first if the parish has any.

Joining a ministry at the Parish and get involved enough to build a rapport with the clergy and bit by bit bring these things up humbly in converstaions around the Church.

Often times, pastors are just burned out and have gotten lax.

I don't think this should ever be done as a grievance or with that kind of attitude because the likely result will be to make ones self a pariah and no change for the good will ever happen that way.

I can give you some examples;

A Rosary group from my home parish convinced our elderly pastor to not move the tabernacle from the sanctuary into a private chapel. He was under the influence of a couple of Franciscan nuns to do so. But he heard us and understood our interpretation of the GIRM though both had merrit. Many of us were involved with obtaining the funds for and constructing the new wing with the Chapel in it and the consensus of the majority was that we wanted the true presence in the tablernacle to remain prominently in the sanctuary.

Another example was with a fine priest who I had asked to be my spiritual director when I was going through some tough times.

Through my discussions with him, he replaced Earthen/glass communion vessels with precious metals, corrected the practice of EMHC's entering the sanctuary before they were called to be there and made sure that only he reposed or retrieved the Eucharist from the tabernacle and purified the vessels himself all according to the rubrics.

All rather minor things by some standards but never the less were departing from the rubrics. He was a great priest and I miss him.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Is it liturgical abuse if the priest consecrates the wine for the congregation while it's still in the glass vessel, and then the Eucharistic ministers pour it into the metal things..? (chalices?)

just something I've seen somewhere

Yes, if you look in Redemptionis Sacramentum, it says that first of all only precious metals are to be used to hold the sacred species, for instance gold or silver, but not ceramics or glass. Also, the wine should be in the specific chalices prior to consecration. It is forbidden to have the wine in a large pitcher, consecrate then pour Our Lord into the individual chalices. So yes, these are clear and precise violations of the liturgical regulations.

 

[JoabAnias]

Is it liturgical abuse if the priest consecrates the wine for the congregation while it's still in the glass vessel, and then the Eucharistic ministers pour it into the metal things..? (chalices?)

just something I've seen somewhere

I looked up a couple of things for you.

I couldn't find where it says the consecration must be in the Chalices only after pouring but I know its there somewhere.

EMHC's are not even supposed to approach the altar. See bolding.

NDRHC

38. If extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are required by pastoral need, they should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion. After the priest has concluded his own Communion, he distributes Communion to the extraordinary ministers, assisted by the deacon, and then hands the sacred vessels to them for distribution of Holy Communion to the people.

160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

162. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, e.g., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose.97 In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.98

These ministers should not approach the altar before the priest has received Communion, and they are always to receive from the hands of the priest celebrant the vessel containing either species of the Most Holy Eucharist for distribution to the faithful.


III. Sacred Vessels
327. Among the requisites for the celebration of Mass, the sacred vessels are held in special honor, especially the chalice and paten, in which the bread and wine are offered and consecrated, and from which they are consumed.

328. Sacred vessels are to be made from precious metal. If they are made from metal that rusts or from a metal less precious than gold, then ordinarily they should be gilded on the inside.

334. The practice is to be kept of building a sacrarium in the sacristy, into which are poured the water from the purification of sacred vessels and linens (cf. above, no. 280).

​

 

[Fantine]

Should we expect that over a billion Catholics living on six continents and ranging in age from 0 to over 100 will interpret "beauty and reverence the same way you do?"

What percentage will be well-educated enough to follow along with missals if Mass if celebrated in Latin? (And of that percentage, how many could afford missals?)

How many churches in Africa, South America, and parts of Asia afford organs? Or even pianos?

How can Nigerians who have always worshipped with drums and dance because that is their idea of "beauty and reverence" learn to sit still because it's the European idea of beauty and reverence?

Nigerian priests have told me that their typical Masses last 2-3 hours because the people are so "reverent." How many Americans would sit through 3 hours of their style of beauty and reverence (except at St. Alphonse Roc Church in St. Louis where the Gospel Mass, which you probably would not consider to be beautiful and reverent, is celebrated in enthusiastic style?)

Why should we expect that people from other cultures who want to become Catholic should have to subordinate their culture, their aesthetic ideals, and their spirituality to suit a centuries-old western European concept of "beauty and reverence?"

 

[katholikos]

Should we expect that over a billion Catholics living on six continents and ranging in age from 0 to over 100 will interpret "beauty and reverence the same way you do?"....

No. What we DO expect is that American Catholics obey what the American Bishops laid out in the GIRM

But some Catholics just can't bring themselves to follow the rules, can they (ahem)

 

[Fantine]

Not only this, but also liturgical abuse really takes away the beauty and reverence of the Mass. For example, I know most people receive Communion in the hand, but everyone seems to ignore that it's an 'indult' and not the norm. It's treated like the norm though. Same with the Eucharistic ministers - sometimes there ARE enough priests to give out Communion! And many things were done after VII that were not even talked about in VII, and they're STILL done that way regardless. I'm sure if the Mass was celebrated EXACTLY as VII decided, it would still be as beautiful and reverent as the Latin Mass.

When will all the liturgical abuse stop and when would things balance out? I know that after every Church council there was a lot of unrest and people always took things too far.. but eventually, it all levelled out again. When is this going to happen? Will the Vatican do more to bring the Church back to an AUTHENTIC interpretation of VII...will the Latin Mass become more popular, and will some of the reverence be brought back, at least in church architecture? So often the new parishes look so..well, Protestant..

Is the "Latin Mass" "an AUTHENTIC interpretation of VII?"

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Is the "Latin Mass" "an AUTHENTIC interpretation of VII?"

Latin Mass with readings in the vernacular? Sure

 

[tansy]

Latin Mass with readings in the vernacular? Sure

Hi, I'm not sure if I really should butt in here, but when I was a child Iwent to a Catholic church, and the masses were in Latin, also an hour and a half long. (You'd sometimes get kids fainting in the service, maybe from the warmth , plus length of service, without moving much, I don't know)
Anyhow, I was really glad when the masses changed to English...at last I wasn't bored out of my mind for the whole service other than the Eucharist and the sermon and Bible readings (which of course WERE in English)
I remember in my boredom, imagining fairies running up and down the church pillars, and jumping from hhat to hat that the women were wearing (it was prior to hats not having to be worn).
Don't get me wrong. I actually quite enjoyed the services, but especially if childrenare there, I would have thought reintroducing Latin generally would not be a helpful step.

 

[Rhamiel]

Tansy

I remember in my boredom, imagining fairies running up and down the church pillars, and jumping from hhat to hat that the women were wearing (it was prior to hats not having to be worn).

I used to do something kinda like that too, i had little moster toys when i was a kid, i would think about mosters and fairies and all kinds of stuff when i was a very small child, also we were in a large church and we sat near the back, and i was tiny so I could not see much, when I was about 5, I thought the bells being sounded at the concecation of the Eucharist was a miracle, like i said i could not see much, lol, I was very very dissapointed to find out that the bells were sounded by alter servers and not angels lol

 

[neeners]

liturgical abuse is also something which many people get caught up in complaining about, and that complaining embitters them, as well as making them miss the point of Mass. It twists them into people hyper focused on the letter of the law.

Perfect. These liturgical police kill me.

It would have to be an ongoing abuse that was incredibly abvious for me to get my knickers in a twist over.

And what's wrong with looking a bit Protestant? lol, maybe that's the way we can bring them over to our side