What is the worst liturgical abuse you have seen personally?
#81
(05-11-2010, 12:23 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 10:15 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:29 AM)DrBombay Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:22 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:10 AM)DrBombay Wrote: A couple of years ago at a Traditional Latin Mass, the priest completely eliminated the consecration of the Precious Blood.  Was the Mass valid?  Was the Sacrifice complete?  I dinna kin.  All I know is I was scandalized like I've never been scandalized before and it is, without a doubt, the single worst abuse I've ever encountered at Mass.  Period.

How do you know that for sure every Mass I have been to this part is said silently by the Priest.

Because I've served enough Masses to know the rythym of the Canon and the priest in question does not say the Canon silently in any case.  He went from "hoc est enim corpus meum" to "unde et memores..." with no intervening elevation of the chalice. 

There's a big difference between omissions of malice and omissions owing to physical and psychical frailties.

The priest might not be culpable if it were due to frailty but that wouldn't make an invalid Mass valid.  I'm pretty sure that the Mass Dr. Bombay described was not valid.

Certainly the Mass was invalid, but from what information the poster gave, there's no indication that it was out of malice or negligence.
Reply
#82
(05-11-2010, 12:45 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 12:23 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 10:15 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:29 AM)DrBombay Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:22 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:10 AM)DrBombay Wrote: A couple of years ago at a Traditional Latin Mass, the priest completely eliminated the consecration of the Precious Blood.  Was the Mass valid?  Was the Sacrifice complete?  I dinna kin.  All I know is I was scandalized like I've never been scandalized before and it is, without a doubt, the single worst abuse I've ever encountered at Mass.  Period.

How do you know that for sure every Mass I have been to this part is said silently by the Priest.

Because I've served enough Masses to know the rythym of the Canon and the priest in question does not say the Canon silently in any case.  He went from "hoc est enim corpus meum" to "unde et memores..." with no intervening elevation of the chalice. 

There's a big difference between omissions of malice and omissions owing to physical and psychical frailties.

The priest might not be culpable if it were due to frailty but that wouldn't make an invalid Mass valid.  I'm pretty sure that the Mass Dr. Bombay described was not valid.

Certainly the Mass was invalid, but from what information the poster gave, there's no indication that it was out of malice or negligence.

Claro...only a priest who says the NO is capable of malice or negligence.  Priests who say the TLM have their errors excused, no matter how grievous.  I get it...thanks.  Tip o' the hat
Reply
#83
(05-11-2010, 12:50 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 12:45 PM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 12:23 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 10:15 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:29 AM)DrBombay Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:22 AM)Baskerville Wrote:
(05-11-2010, 01:10 AM)DrBombay Wrote: A couple of years ago at a Traditional Latin Mass, the priest completely eliminated the consecration of the Precious Blood.  Was the Mass valid?  Was the Sacrifice complete?  I dinna kin.  All I know is I was scandalized like I've never been scandalized before and it is, without a doubt, the single worst abuse I've ever encountered at Mass.  Period.

How do you know that for sure every Mass I have been to this part is said silently by the Priest.

Because I've served enough Masses to know the rythym of the Canon and the priest in question does not say the Canon silently in any case.  He went from "hoc est enim corpus meum" to "unde et memores..." with no intervening elevation of the chalice. 

There's a big difference between omissions of malice and omissions owing to physical and psychical frailties.

The priest might not be culpable if it were due to frailty but that wouldn't make an invalid Mass valid.  I'm pretty sure that the Mass Dr. Bombay described was not valid.

Certainly the Mass was invalid, but from what information the poster gave, there's no indication that it was out of malice or negligence.

Claro...only a priest who says the NO is capable of malice or negligence.  Priests who say the TLM have their errors excused, no matter how grievous.  I get it...thanks.   Tip o' the hat

No, unless you're omitting something, I have no reason to see that what the priest did was deliberate or malicious, and I've seen the same thing happen at a NO Mass once, both the Credo and the "This is my blood" were omitted,  UNINTENTIONALLY.

So, no, that's not it either. 
Reply
#84
It's getting pretty bad when I am dreaming about liturgical abuses now.  LOL
Reply
#85
(05-11-2010, 01:37 PM)Petertherock Wrote: It's getting pretty bad when I am dreaming about liturgical abuses now.  LOL

That gives me an idea for a new personal slogan:  "I start threads that give people nightmares."  That should properly terrorize everyone.  LOL
Reply
#86
(05-10-2010, 09:39 PM)JayneK Wrote: One thing this thread is making me realize is just how much liturgical abuse I have been part of.   And sometimes it was more than simply witnessing abuses, but actually participating in them.  The case that I described as the worse abuse was subjectively the worst because it upset me the most, but I was immersed in liturgical abuses from my first exposure to Catholicism.  It just all seemed normal to me.  I was too ignorant to know it was wrong.  

Now that I understand, should I be confessing these things?  Or does the fact that I did them in ignorance mean they don't need to be confessed?

No, you don't need to confess these - and do you know why? - because the Church permits if not encourages most of this irreverent crap!

More's the pity.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)