What is the worst liturgical abuse you have seen personally?
#11
(05-09-2010, 04:23 PM)ketchum Wrote: what if we wrote a letter to our holy father telling him all the terrible things that have happened becasue of the dumb indult?

I'm pretty sure he knows.
Reply
#12
Hmmm, probabaly a bunch of African girls dressed in short shorts and tight tops dancing up and down the aisles during the Offertory. Or possibly the preist giving a homily saying there is no mortal sin and it was damaging when the Church used to teach mortal sin could cut you off from God's Grace.

Or maybe the priest leaving the Altar to give his homily. I am sure there are others I could come up with.

Reply
#13
Two things are tied for the very worst I have personally seen:

1) Priest denying the miracle of the loaves and fishes, and

2) Priest denying Communion on the tongue and requiring the communicant to receive in the hand.

For the out-&-out all time list of liturgical abuses, newer forum members should peruse the thread "How bad is your local N.O.?", which I haven't seen surface for over a year or so.  I do believe that it remains in the top 2 or 3 threads of all (forum) time for both views and responses.

http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...039.0.html
Reply
#14
(05-09-2010, 04:57 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Or maybe the priest leaving the Altar to give his homily. I am sure there are others I could come up with.

You mean leaving the sanctuary? That's not a liturgical abuse. At my Anglican Use parish, the pulpit is outside of the sanctuary; that's the case with most "crystal goblet pulpits".
Reply
#15
I've seen First Communicants (in shorts and tee shirts) standing round the altar with their hands on it for the Consecration. The abuses there are too numerous to remember really, it wasn't really a Catholic parish. Having 'When The Saints Come Marching In' as a hymn on All Saints Day stands out in my memory also, though!

At the other, more "conservative" parish, I though the priest was orthodox.... until he denied the Ressurection of the Dead...
Reply
#16
I guess I'm fairly blessed to have not seen any abuses, just poor liturgy.  I've only been going to Mass for about 3 years, though, but very quickly found myself a parish that was liturgically sound, not because of any theological issues (I wasn't even close to becoming Catholic then, so I didn't know or care), but because sound liturgy is beautiful, deep, and meaningful, and poor liturgy is banal, contrived, and cliche.  You don't have to be Catholic or care about theology to recognize the superior beauty and ritual of the TLM.  Bad NO liturgy often reminds me of adults trying to be cool kids.  It never works and ends up being "less cool" than if they would just be themselves (I see this all the time at the high school I teach at, especially when it is time to talk to the kids about drugs or whatever).  Kinda like when Richard Nixon would give the peace sign  LOL

There might have abuses when I first starting attending, but I wouldn't have had a clue that they were abuses.

I did go to a weekday Mass once at a church that had a drumset and amps in the area for the choir, but since it was a weekday Mass there was no music so I didn't get the chance to rock 'n' roll.  Ah, but now I remember that that priest said "shalom" instead of "peace be with you," so I guess there was an abuse, though I didn't recognize it at the time.  It just seemed weird to me, that's all.  I never went back to that parish.

I took a friend who was not Christian to a midnight mass once and the entire sermon was about how the priest used to have these two Christmas albums he listened to as a kid but then lost them, but then at seminary he was assigned to clean out a room and there they were in the closet.  I kid you not, the ENTIRE homily was on this.  The only mention he made of God was the last sentence, which come after a long dramatic pause as we were supposed to be in awe, I suppose, that those albums were in the closet.  He said:  God watches over us.  I was rather embarressed because my friend had wanted to go because of my interest, to see what I was getting excited about, and instead of hearing about Christ, and the light of the world, and hope and salvation, and celebration, we got that instead.  Not abuse, but poor poor liturgy.

Pax,
Jesse


Oh, I know it's a sacrilegous movie, but Dogma's "Buddy Jesus" is an excellent satire on the spirit of VII.

Reply
#17
(05-09-2010, 03:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: A distinction was made in another thread between internet stories and personal experiences. That made me wonder what liturgical abuses people had seen personally.  I'm not restricting this to NO, although that is my personal experience.

The worst liturgical abuse that I personally witnessed was when the priest changed the prayers of the "Preparation of the Gifts" (they start "Blessed are You, Lord of all creation...").  He substituted the Jewish blessings over bread and wine, in Hebrew, which actually are somewhat similar in meaning.  He probably meant to be making some sort of point about Jesus having Jewish heritage, but the message that I got was that we was saying that Catholic and Jewish are interchangeable.  It felt like he was saying that I needn't to have bothered becoming a Christian.  I was very upset.

On that Mass Jesus Christ was present. Did the change, remembering his national origin hurt him? (The quite solid theological opinion is, that not even a sacrilegious communion hurts Him, it hurts only the one who commit sacrilge).

When you were upset, instead of concentrating on the presence of Our Lord, what service did you made to His case?

I do not say, that to change the Liturgy without the authority of the Holy See is not sin, but say that to denounce 1 million weakly Mass because the visible clothes of His presence, the Liturgy is not spotless,  is certainly worse. This says to teh poeple whom you reach, and who attend New Mass, that their Mass is inferior.

For the Sumerians in Uruk,  it was OK that they believed that their God Innana is higher and stronger God that the Gods or other cities, but for us Catholics, there is only One Jesus Christ, equally the same regardless of the visible outside.

We shall worship our Lord, not the visible, temporary, changeable clothes, the Liturgy. The Pharisee worshiped the Law, and rejected the Son of God.
Reply
#18
(05-09-2010, 05:44 PM)glgas Wrote:
(05-09-2010, 03:15 PM)JayneK Wrote: A distinction was made in another thread between internet stories and personal experiences. That made me wonder what liturgical abuses people had seen personally.  I'm not restricting this to NO, although that is my personal experience.

The worst liturgical abuse that I personally witnessed was when the priest changed the prayers of the "Preparation of the Gifts" (they start "Blessed are You, Lord of all creation...").  He substituted the Jewish blessings over bread and wine, in Hebrew, which actually are somewhat similar in meaning.  He probably meant to be making some sort of point about Jesus having Jewish heritage, but the message that I got was that we was saying that Catholic and Jewish are interchangeable.  It felt like he was saying that I needn't to have bothered becoming a Christian.  I was very upset.

On that Mass Jesus Christ was present. Did the change, remembering his national origin hurt him? (The quite solid theological opinion is, that not even a sacrilegious communion hurts Him, it hurts only the one who commit sacrilge).

When you were upset, instead of concentrating on the presence of Our Lord, what service did you made to His case?

I don't know if it hurt Jesus Christ, but it hurt me.  The priest had no business doing that.  I do my best to concentrate on Our Lord, but however much I may have failed on that occasion, it does not excuse what the priest did.

(05-09-2010, 05:44 PM)glgas Wrote: I do not say, that to change the Liturgy without the authority of the Holy See is not sin, but say that to denounce 1 million weakly Mass because the visible clothes of His presence, the Liturgy is not spotless,  is certainly worse. This says to teh poeple whom you reach, and who attend New Mass, that their Mass is inferior.

I do not denounce the New Mass because of this kind of abuse.  I say that that it is inferior because when celebrated as written it obscures important Catholic doctrines.  I have specifically mentioned the removal of all explicit references to the propitiatory nature of the Mass.  You never address this point.  You just keep making straw man arguments. 

Also, the number of people attending the Mass is irrelevant. 
Reply
#19
there are two parishes and a campus mass here in B-ham, and I normally attend the campus mass, although I was catechized/attended easter week services at the South End parish.

The South end parish has kneelers, a fairly traditionally minded priest (he's said so in multiple homilies, has said he appreciates my wearing of a suit to mass and my receiving kneeling and on the tongue, wishes others would do the same, etc.), and the rites for confirmation and baptism were...acceptable and validly performed (although first communion had a requirement for reception under both species and EM's...I accepted both species, but only from the priest, and kneeling).

Most of the homilies at campus mass and the South end are relevant to the passages, reverent, fairly deep, and as far as I can tell, theologically accurate.  The priest has a real passion for the real presence and kneeling for the canon is mandatory.  Recently they called in a pretty passionate priest to deliver what I would consider to be an accurate and conservative look at the Scandal in the church...he identified media persecution of the church and infiltration of the priesthood by unrepetent sinners and a "worldly" ideology as the causes.  The south end's music, while occasionally not up to scratch, is generally what I would consider to be "catholic" music.

That being said, there are major issues with the campus mass.  The music is often lame, obscure, and kitschy, and some of it is downright theologically ambiguous.  A few times, songs have been selected that have overt political messages...one in particular I refuse to sing, as it appears to lay the blame for what is wrong with the world at the feet of western civilization, and has a line, among others, about how "our hands are stained by pride of place and greed of market" or some rot.  This is exacerbated by the fact that the "peer minister of music" selects the tunes without consulting Father.  Plastic chairs and a composite/stainless steel table with a cloth are the typical MO (although out of necessity for the facility used, allegedly).  There is no dress code, and hand holding during the Our Father/hugging during the sign of peace is sort of imposed on those who don't want to participate (I play it by ear, I don't hold hands with people I don't know for example, and usually shake hands and say "peace be with you").  EM's are present, both genders, some of them wearing white bathrobe things and sneakers, but some of the people are just PM's who come up to "help" after consecration...in their street clothes.  I don't accept communion from anyone but priests.  And of course there are the usual translation issues with the vernacular. 

The North End parish is a travesty.  the alter is suspect and weirdly located, with the choir behind it.  EM's are commonplace, and the homilies are banal, oversimplified, and often completely unrelated to the passages.  About a third of the parish is mexican, I'm sure that the church is in the process of actively sheltering known illegal immigrants (no attempt to derail the thread, but it's a bugaboo of mine).  The impact of this is most visible in that about a third of the mass is randomly done in spanish, without much rhyme or reason as to which parts, and nowhere is there aid in the missal for people who don't speak spanish.  Note that the english portions are not translated, nor are the spanish ones...it's just...all of the mass is unintelligible to one part or another of the laity.  (I thought this was what the vernacular mass was supposed to fix?)

Probably the worst i've witnessed is not a "liturgical abuse" per se but the theological opinions of the north Priest.  Some highlights:

1) No true Catholic churches have a vernacular mass: those that do not are in schism.  He refused to acknowledge the existence of the Byzantine rite when I brought it up (i'm not sure he ever learned of it while getting his degree in theology in seminary)  Crazy

2) Vatican II is infallible.  In it's entirety.

3) Trent is pastoral.  In it's entirety.  This came up when he said that all catholics who believed in the death penalty are "contrary to catholic teaching of social justice."

4) Killing of another human being is always murder, including just war and self defense.  Just war theory is "irrelevant".

5) Fighting global warming is a "pro-life issue" morally equivalent to the fight against abortion or euthanasia (I suspect that this is part of a greater plot to marginalize the catholic position on true pro-life issues as well as being blatant environmental policy pushing.)

6) Rerum Novarum condemned all market economies as universally morally equivalent (read: bad).  When I pointed out the harsh language it targeted socialism with he said there were "considerations of social justice" to be made.

7) Disagreement with any of the above indicates "an overpoliticization of basic church truths".  Obviously not only does this beg the question that the above are truths, but also ignores the fact that more of his beliefs seem to come from Democratic party talking points than anything theological or Church originated.

Needless to say, I don't attend the North parish, nor would I take communion there.
Reply
#20
All from my NO days:

I've seen leaven bread broken into crumbly pieces, and even though I was fairly young and was never taught about such things, I questioned it.  It just seemed so wrong...

Aside from that, all I can think of is bad music and ugly vestments... alter girls too... but those are almost like citing the priest facing the wrong way.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)