Liturgy Abuse?


#1

Yesterday I visited a local Catholic parish. It was, well, interesting. The priest promised “no sermon” and delivered on it. He also omitted the Creed and we were out of mass in under 40 minutes. I have been to mass where he was there before and he has never done the peace or a blessing for those of us who aren’t Catholic. (I went forth one time and he just tapped me on the head.) Would these be considered examples of liturgical abuse?


#2

Yes, it is typical “New Order” garabage you get these days in the Novus Ordo. I am not sure the Novus Ordo is even really Catholic. I am sorry you had that experience. I am afraid until we get a new Pope who is Catholic these things will stay the same.

Might I suggest going to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church?

God Bless!


#3

I’ve been to Novus Ordo services before, and never had problems like this. Even some of my Catholic friends seem to have a less-than-stellar view of this priest. (And he isn’t the pastor, who I’ve only heard mass from once and he was fantastic!)

I would love to visit a Byzantine Church sometime, but the nearest one is more than six hours away, so no dice on that one.


#4

[quote=aByzantineCatho]I am afraid until we get a new Pope who is Catholic these things will stay the same.
[/quote]

The homily should not be omitted on Sundays “without good reason.”

The sign of peace “may” be omitted.

The “tap on the head” may well have been meant as a blessing; how to bless non-receivers in the Communion line may vary in some places.

And finally…(drum roll please)…People who calumny the Pope have bigger faith problems than liturgucal abuses.


#5

Fortiterinre

There are many Catholics who never learned there faith. As a result
some have become “Pope worshippers.” I for one do not fall into that
category. I see the Pope for what He is the “Bishop of Rome” and first
among equals.

God Bless!


#6

This is so sad. Though I am sure there will be the relativists who will always say all is fine, no problem, it’s okay for a priest to do this, I say, that is is masses like the one you described (AS RECENT AS YESTERDAY, SO THE DISOBEDIENCE TO THE VATICAN CONTINUES, DESPITE CARDINAL ARINZE’S NEW DOCUMENTS: THESE WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THEIR ARE BISHOPS WITH…COURAGE, AND THE VATICAN ENFORCES IT.)may even be illicit. I would not take a priest like that seriously and will not attend anymore of his masses. If he claims a right to democracy in the church, I claim I also have the right to NOT attend his Masses. By the way you have the right to attend any parish you so wish, or shop around for real priests in real parishes. I don’t know how many orthodox TRUE Catholic parishes you have in your diocese, but you can attend a good novus ordo, or search out a Tridentine Latin mass of Indult, maybe which is celebrated by FSSP priests.

Interesting, which diocese is that parish in? Sounds like a liberal diocese?


#7

[quote=aByzantineCatho]Yes, it is typical “New Order” garabage you get these days in the Novus Ordo. I am not sure the Novus Ordo is even really Catholic. I am sorry you had that experience. I am afraid until we get a new Pope who is Catholic these things will stay the same.

Might I suggest going to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church?

God Bless!
[/quote]

The problem is not in the rite itself. The problem is in the lack of Faith in those who use it, a lack of respect for what happens in the Mass, and a lack of humility.

The creed cannot be omitted unless a renewal of Baptismal promises takes place.

P.S. JPII is definitely Catholic!


#8

With all due respect, I in SOMEWAYS agree with Byzantine here. We do need a new Pope who is even more conservative than this one(though this one has done a lot of great things, we must love him and pary for him) I would love to see a Cardinal Arinze’, or Ratzinger as Pope.

We need a Pope who travels less, and stays home to fix the problems within the church.  Also a farmer type Pope, like Pope Pius X is what is needed.

#9

spetreopn,

You might be correct. But like my dad always told me, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck then it must be a duck.”

God Bless!


#10

[font=Verdana]I agree that there are many very serious problems that have occurred and are still occurring. I personally like the Tridentine Rite better than the Novus Ordo, and I have a friend who is of the Byzantine Rite. Priests need better training so that they understand why they must do exactly what the Church says, and we need stronger bishops, who are not afraid to discipline priests and the laity when they fall into error.

[/font]


#11

[quote=aByzantineCatho]I see the Pope for what He is the “Bishop of Rome” and first
among equals.
[/quote]

This is NOT the Catholic definition of what the Pope is. This is actually how the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Patriarch of Constantinople would describe the Pope, not a Catholic, whether Latin Rite or Byzantine.


#12

Byz,

It seems to me that any Mass whether Novus ordo or old order must be said by a priest. I have yet to see a liturgy say itself. I also have yet to see a liturgy abuse itself. Some one has to act for the abuse to occur. That person is the priest. Obviously, any priest who would abuse the liturgy could be said to be ill-formed.

Get it right. It’s a formation problem not a problem with the Mass itself.


#13

[quote=misericordie]I would not take a priest like that seriously and will not attend anymore of his masses. If he claims a right to democracy in the church, I claim I also have the right to NOT attend his Masses.
[/quote]

I didn’t know that he was doing mass that night. Next time I’ll make sure to call ahead to see who’s doing what when.

I don’t know how many orthodox TRUE Catholic parishes you have in your diocese, but you can attend a good novus ordo, or search out a Tridentine Latin mass of Indult, maybe which is celebrated by FSSP priests.

The parish I occasionally visit is considered pretty orthodox, but this one priest in charge (and older fellow) is not thought of highly by my Catholic friends. The other priests and deacons I’ve heard have been from decent to excellent. (I count the Sr. Pastor as one of the latter!) And as there are no Byzantine rite churches in my area, there are also no Latin masses in my area.

Interesting, which diocese is that parish in? Sounds like a liberal diocese?

From my understanding (which is limited) this diocese (Pensacola-Tallahassee) is considered orthodox. An anomaly perhaps? This priest doesn’t seem to do a whole lot of masses - I guess I just went at the wrong time…


#14

Liturgical abuses are painful for any faithful Catholic. This example contained some clear abuse (omission of the Creed, omission of the Sunday homily for no good reason), and some poorly chosen practices or gray areas (clumsy blessings, general hasty pace). This is possibly the first post I’ve ever seen complaining about OMISSION of the sign of peace as an abuse; it’s more typical to see complaints about how it is done. But none of the above logically gets us to, The Pope isn’t Catholic and the Novus Ordo is garbage. This is as anti-Catholic as anything else I would expect to find on the Internet, and I don’t expect to find it at “www.catholic.com”


#15

Ham,

I think the Bible is very clear when it says do not add or take away anything from this Book.

Jesus said,
“I do this for many”

My Byzantine Ruthenian Rite says,
“I do this for many”

The Novus Ordo English translation says,
“I do this for all”

Let’s see… hmmm… “Many” or “All”

Now what does the Bible tells us???


#16

[quote=aByzantineCatho]Ham,

I think the Bible is very clear when it says do not add or take away anything from this Book.

Jesus said,
“I do this for many”

My Byzantine Ruthenian Rite says,
“I do this for many”

The Novus Ordo English translation says,
“I do this for all”

Let’s see… hmmm… “Many” or “All”

Now what does the Bible tells us???
[/quote]

The Bible says “for many” in the gospels by Sts. Matthew and Mark and yet the same accounts by Sts. Luke and Paul do not include the words “for many.” This would seem to indicate that the words are not essential to the consecration as indeed the Church has taught and continues to teach.

First of all, the statement “for all” is not untrue. Christ’s death is sufficient to redeem all. Secondly, the “for all” or “for many” is not essential to the act of transubstantiation. The statement “for all” is not at all contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.

So, there isn’t really any truth to this old standby traditionalist argument. It has been refuted many many times.


#17

[quote=Ham1]The Bible says “for many” in the gospels by Sts. Matthew and Mark and yet the same accounts by Sts. Luke and Paul do not include the words “for many.” This would seem to indicate that the words are not essential to the consecration as indeed the Church has taught and continues to teach.

First of all, the statement “for all” is not untrue. Christ’s death is sufficient to redeem all. Secondly, the “for all” or “for many” is not essential to the act of transubstantiation. The statement “for all” is not at all contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church.

So, there isn’t really any truth to this old standby traditionalist argument. It has been refuted many many times.
[/quote]

Actually “for all” *had/I been addressed for many centuries as wrong, which makes its reappearance in modern English baffling. Even the Novus Ordo Missae has “pro multis,” not “pro omnibus.” It’s the English translation that is defective, and this error, to my knowledge, is not reproduced in any of the other vulgar tongues.

On a less pedantic note, can you give me some citations for the argument that “pro omnibus” is really what Jesus meant (despite what He said)? Seriously, I have not been able to find them, and I couldn’t get an answer in the apologetics forum. Many thanks.*


#18

Remember that out of four Gospels, two (Matthew and Mark) say “for many” while the other two (Luke and John) simply say “for you.” The Mass in its official Latin says “pro multis,” and one of the problems of not using Latin for these parts of the Mass is that the vernacular translations are not always the best. “For many”? “For the multitude”? “For (you) all”? The Book of Common Prayer and Eastern liturgies in English say “for many,” so the current ICEL translation is definitely a minority even in ecumenical circles. My Archbishop, Cardinal George of Chicago, is one of the reviewers of translations–there is much to be reviewed, and there have already been several changes to different English-speaking countries across the world.


#19

[quote=Minimus]Actually “for all” had

“Pro multis” can be legitimately translated as “for all.” Here is a good explanation:

"At first glance, the official Latin “pro multis” would seem to require “for many.” However,in addition to the fact that the translation “for all” is compatible with Christian doctrine, there is
also a linguistic rationale for it. In examining the fifth chapter of St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

For example, we find the following: "For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and
the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many "(Rom. 5:15).

It is necessary, however, to read the first half of this scriptural passage more carefully. St. Paul says that “many died through one man’s trespass.” Now, unless “many” here can actually be translated as “all men,” this phrase from St. Paul would actually constitute a formal denial of the Church’s dogma,
defined by the Council of Trent, that the original sin of Adam and its consequences were in fact transmitted to all men rather than just to “many!”

But an inspired—and therefore inerrant—letter of St. Paul would be the last place wherewe would expect to find denials of defined Catholic dogma. Indeed the Council of Trent used
a passage from Romans 5 in its definition on original sin! (Decree on Original Sin, no. 2)

Thus the phrase “for many” must be susceptible to more than one interpretation. And in Romans 5:12-13, St. Paul, introducing his discussion of the effects of Adam’s sin, actually employs the
phrase “all men” as a synonym for “many,” which, as noted earlier, he uses a few verses later in Romans 5:15. So even the inspired Apostle to the Gentiles himself demonstrates that it is possible to use the two phrases interchangeably."

-The Pope, The Council and The Mass, by Likoudis and Whitehead
[/quote]


#20

[quote=Fortiterinre]The sign of peace “may” be omitted.

[/quote]

Kinda. The rubrics require that the Priest offer Christ’s peace to use, and we to him. That part is required and ‘non-negotiable’, The deacon or priest may then indicate that we may offer each other a sign of peace. It is not a matter of omitting the sign of peace among the faithful, it’s a matter of including one or not.

Most Catholic Masses I’ve been to outside the US generally do not make use of this option.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.