Posted on 09/29/2006 4:15:39 PM PDT by Conservative til I die
no, not in connecticut! /sarc
I'm pretty sure the priest or deacon is required to give a homily.
...This was followed by several congregants shouting out their intentions.
Tacky and annoying and I hate it, but not illicit that I'm aware of.
During the Creed, the priest replaced "for us men and our salvation" with "for us and our salvation". This I know is in violation of explicit Church teaching.
Yep. Definitely against canon law to change the wording.
During the Consecration, instead of saying "Do this in memory of me" with "when you do this, remember me."
Big, big no-no not only because again it's against canon law, but this is the Consecration. An even bigger no-no than it would normally be anywhere else in the Mass.
The Blood was distributed in glass "chalices" that more resembled a regular wine flute (tall and thin with a long stem)
The vessels are supposed to be non-breakable. Period.
.
Sorry you ended up going to such a place.
My particular pet peeve with what's my geographical parish (which I never go to unless I can't get somewhere acceptable) is that they never say the Creed or the Gloria -- even on a major feast day, such as the Assumption.
Judging from the items listed, this may be a good time to re-indoctrinate the woman you are dating, to true catholicism. You could be describing any of the Masses normally offered up in the Diocese of Albany or Rochester or Los Angeles or ..... other dioceses 'shepherede' by progressive bishops. Inclusive language, glass chalices, etc. are all symptoms of a greater problem.
3. Levels of Abuse - Invalid and Illicit
Before getting into the specific abuses, it is important to understand the rules for celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. These rules are officially called rubrics. These rubrics are contained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)[1], and many clarifications have been made in other documents such as Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (Inaestimabile Donum).
The most serious type of abuse makes the Mass "invalid." For a Mass to be invalid, the Consecration of the Eucharist does not occur. Going to an invalid Mass is like not attending Mass at all since Jesus is not physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation[9]. The issue of fulfilling the Sunday obligation under such a circumstance will be dealt with later in this article.
The lesser abuse is called "illicit." These type of abuses are less serious and do not cause the failure of the Consecration of the Eucharist. There are a wide variety of these types of abuses which detract from the holiness and reverence in the Mass. However, an illicit Mass can still be a valid (as opposed to invalid) Mass.
In general, experimentation is gravely wrong, as stated in Vatican II's Instruction on the Orderly Carrying out of the Constitution on the Liturgy (Liturgicae Instaurationes):
"The effectiveness of liturgy does not lie in experimenting with rites and altering them over and over, nor in a continuous reductionism, but solely in entering more deeply into the word of God and the mystery being celebrated. It is the presence of these two that authenticates the Church's rites, not what some priest decides, indulging his own preferences."
"Keep in mind, then, that the private recasting of ritual introduced by an individual priest insults the dignity of the believer and lays the way open to individual and idiosyncratic forms in celebrations that are in fact the property of the whole Church."
Abuses of any kind causes scandal, meaning that such practices are obstructions to a person's way to increased Faith (see Matthew 18:6-9). As Inaestimabile Donum says, "The use of unauthorized texts means a loss of the necessary connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi" (translation: people believe as they pray).
On another Catholic forum, someone posted what she perceived as a terrible abuse of the Mass. She explained that a new pastor had been assigned to her parish and had begun making changes. He eliminated altar girls (something that devastated her daughter), he replaced the beautiful glass chalices with metal ones, he abolished liturgical dance .... and worst yet, women wearing chapel veils had begun to attend Mass at this church. She was totally outraged and wanted "her" Catholic Mass restored. It was interesting to read the posts in response to her complaint. Nearly everyone pointed out that the new pastor was indeed restoring the Catholic Mass as it was intended to be celebrated.
As to just how far your friend's parish has traveled down the path of liturgical abuse, I will refer you to this:
IS YOUR MASS VALID? - Liturgical Abuse.
Tragically too many Catholics are no longer aware of the Mass that conforms to the GIRM.
"- after Communion, I *think* I saw one of the Eucharistic Ministers drink the remaining Blood herself. I only *think* I saw this because she was partially obscured behind a wall by the Sanctuary. But it did look like that's what she did."
I'm not an expert but that's what I was taught to do as a Eurcharistic minister. Otherwise, what would you do with it? And in a large congregation, it would be too much for the priest to drink by himself.
According to EWTN, in 2004, the abuses of vessels, such as glass, were addressed by the Congregation for Divine Worship:
Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily.
Sacred Vessels and Furnishings
From my own knowledge, I have always thought that Sacred Vessels were to be from precious metals as the EWTN article states.
As to the people shouting out their intentions, wow! That's a new one on me. It's odd indeed.
I hate Sunday morning at the improv. Why can't they just stick to the script?
You're not wrong. The priest is supposed to consume what is left.
We started doing the same thing last fall at our Parish.
I would LOVE to read that exchange . . . what forum is it posted on?
The priest at that downtown parish did a marriage ceremony one time - a very brief one, during Lent - but he didn't do it during the Mass, after or before I can't remember.
That way you don't have lots of wine left over.
Even in our old Episcopal church (which was rather "high") the priest had to drink any remaining wine himself, not the chalicebearers, not the deacons. That's why the head count was so important! Even more so because the Whiskypalians use port rather than the "unadulterated" wine required by the Catholic church. Doesn't take much port to get you knee-walking, it's something like 20% alcohol.
My husband was head usher at the 11:15 service for quite awhile, he got to where he could sort of scan the crowd and give you a quite accurate count just by looking at how full the place was.
I don't know how long you've been away, but while some of the things you have reported are a little unusual, the rest are pretty standard now. I will add, however, that I don't think they should be.
In some parishes around here the priest no longer even gives Communion, but goes and sits down while the old ladies ("Eucharistic ministers") come down and do it all. I don't think our bishop approves, but the parish priests have been doing it for a long time and I doubt that the bishop could stop them.
Go to Mass more often, find out what's going on, and look for a more conservative parish somewhere.
LOL! Little did she know, her Catholic Mass had been restored.
The practical difficilties of communion under both kinds may be why it was dicontinued.
I hope he explained what he was doing. I don't approve of doing reforms with the attitude that the laity is owed no explanation. That is the way that liberals instituted changes: the public be damned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.