More liturgical abuses in Norwalk, CT

This is a follow-up to a previous post of mine about potential liturgical abuses at a Catholic parish in Norawlk, CT.

I went back one more time and there was a new priest there. He was a little wishy washy in his homily but overall, nothing was out of place. A poster on the last thread familiar with the parish suggested that the priest I had issues with was not the regular pastor there, so I was a little relieved.

So I went back last Sunday and lo and behold Fr. Ha-Ha (as I've taken to referring to him as, based on the constant "humorous" asides he makes) was back.

So here's what I noticed at the Mass. Some of the same abuses as before, but a few potentially new ones that I'd love to hear your thoughts on. I again put out the disclaimer that I'm not encylopedic on what is invalid vs. what is just illicit or even irregular, so your responses will be educational for me. Here we go:

At the beginning of Mass, the Deacon handled most of the Penitential Rite, with the Priest handling the last part leading to the "Amen".

In lieu of the homily, a baptism was performed by the Deacon, with the Priest sitting in the front pew with other parishioners. It seemed that day the Priest tended to do a lot of sitting back and letting the Deacon and Eucharistic Ministers handle things where possible. The Deacon did follow the Baptismal Rites right out of the book but interrupted it several times with asides to the congregation and a somewhat jocular attitude.

Also, this was the third straight Mass presided over by this priest where no Homily was delivered. The first Mass had some sort of blessing with oil of the congregants. Unfortunately due to the acoustics of the building, I couldn't hear much of what it was about. The second time there was a brief marriage ceremony, and this time the Baptism. In all three cases, the homily was omitted.

After the omission of the homily, we jumped straight to the Intentions, skipping the Creed.

Again we had the "public intentions" with people yelling out from the crowd. One thing I didn't touch on last thread was that aside from this being a bit novel, it was a bit awkward in practice, with several people trying to get their intentions out at the same time, so that the quieter person tried three or four times to get his out, each time being drowned out by someone louder and closer to the sanctuary. Also, one person droned on, leading the priest to cut to the "Lord, hear our prayer."

During the consecration, the Deacon handled the sung "Let us proclaim the mystery of faith" instead of the priest.

Also, both the Deacon and the Priest sung out in unison the "Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of faith....forever and ever".

After the glass wine flutes (not chalices, per the previous thread) were placed on the altar, the EMs were the ones filling them with wine.

The priest again changed rubrics by saying "When you do this, remember me" instead of "Do this in remembrance of me."

Pinging you to this thread, as you have some familiarity with the Catholic parish (er, "Christian Community") in question.

To respond to what you mentioned about the priest and deacon being substitutes, it was Fr. Bocacchio and the regular Deacon there. Both had beards with Fr. being a white-haired gent. I don't have the bulletin in front of me so I don't have the Deacon's name, but it was something long and ethnic (Italian maybe?).

Yeah, definitely some deviation. Just for some further background, I'm a knowledgeable enough practicer of my faith, and am not going back to this Church just to post these threads or be a glutton for punishment.

After the previous week's rather normal Mass, I figured that per another Freeper, the deviating priest was just a visiting substitute. At this point I'm going to stay away as by changing the words at Consecration I believe he is invalidating the Mass.

But would love to know if the Deacon participating in some of these prayers and invocations is itself considered a serious matter. My understanding was the Deacon was allowed to read the Gospel, give a Homily, say the "Mass is ended go in peace" and "Let us share with each other a sign of peace", hold the chalice during the Consecration, and that's about it.

In C.S. Lewis' THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS, a young devil, on his first tour of duty through the world "seeking the ruin of souls," writes back with some alarm to the senior devil at headquarters, concerned that his "client" - whose soul he is trying to steal - is always going to church. In fact, going from church to church, but always going to church.

The senior devil writes back to the younger devil, telling him to calm down, and saying something like - and I don't have the book in front of me - don't worry about all the church going, because your client is EVALUATING the different services he goes to . . . "In other words, your client is really not a DISCIPLE, which is what our Enemy (God) wants him to be, but a CONNOISSEUR - and we (the devils) lose nothing at all if that's what his church-going is about."

Not justifying what's going on at that parish - I wouldn't go near a place like that - but you really come off sounding like "Joe Theatre Critic Goes to Mass" - or like a Captain in THE LITURGY POLICE:

absolutely nothing about worshipping God, and absolutely everything about critiquing the Mass point by point by painstaking point.

I mean, did you go to another Mass somewhere else that weekend to fulfill your obligation?

Because, quite apart from whatever the clergy did, it sure didn't sound like you were doing anything a layman is supposed to be doing at Mass.

I hate that joking around during the Mass that priests aer so fond of. If it's any consolation, clerical disrespect during the mass has been a problem throughout the history of the Church. One of the reasons for the liturgical reforms of Trent (as well, in fact, as for the Inquisition) was the appalling behavior of the clergy, not only in the area of morality, particularly sexual morality, but in the liturgy. Inspectors described things such as the priest being so hung over in the morning that he threw up in the chalice during Mass, for example.

Some things never change. I think we need another Council of Trent - undo some of the ghastly pseudo-reforms of Vatican II and slap these clergy upside the head.

Not justifying what's going on at that parish - I wouldn't go near a place like that - but you really come off sounding like "Joe Theatre Critic Goes to Mass" - or like a Captain in THE LITURGY POLICE:

And you're coming off real, real judgmental. I went to a Mass at a new parish to fulfill my Sunday obligation and noticed that something seemed amiss. Not wanting to throw off blind accusations like "This is a bad Church" I came on FR and actually listed the things that I thought might be questionable, wanting to know if the practices I saw were merely irregular, more troublesomely illicit, or heaven forbid, completely invalidating.

It's for my knowledge as well as for discussion.

Now from what I have read, the Consecration and Transubstantiation may be completely invalid at this Church due to changing of the rubrics. If you find that to be nothing worth discussing, then it's on your soul.

Yes, we're not supposed to be acting like theater critics, but when one sees something that might invalidate the Mass, do you think it should just be ignored completely? The laity do have a right to a valid Mass.

If you want to say that I'm some sort of false Catholic (and frankly, you pretty much did), then all I have to say is how dare you, sir.

And I feel no need to justify to some keyboard stranger what I was doing at Mass. But if it soothes your conscience, I was participating in the Mass as I always do. It's not my fault that the priest decided to possibly perform liturgical abuses and that I noticed them. I'm sure he would have been doing it regardless of my presence on any given Sunday. I feel sad for those that are attending that Church in good faith possibly for years and do not notice that they may be invalidly receiving the Eucharist.

Good day to you, sir.

Oh come on. You're so busy looking for "traditionalists," who in your book are all eeevil members of the SSPX, that you can't be objective about genuine problems in current liturgical practice. This man - or woman - simply wants to be able to go to church but is disturbed by what is being offered. Why not answer the questions honestly and provide a little help? (For example, interjections in the midst of the Mass are not permitted; neither is it permitted for the priest to sit down and let the laypeople or deacons give Communion without him, etc.)

BWT, were you sinkspur in another life? Are you sinkspur now?

Oh come on. You're so busy looking for "traditionalists," who in your book are all eeevil members of the SSPX, that you can't be objective about genuine problems in current liturgical practice.

Just to confirm, I'm no big "T" traditionalist if that is who he is after, but more of a conserviatve, orthodox Catholic.

I was starting to think Taxachusetts might be correct in his assessment of me, but honestly I'm trying to act in good faith here, and not play a game of gotcha. I already understand I probably should stay away from a Church like this one, but in the event that I do consider taking action, I want to make sure I'm really only pointing out the gravest of abuses and not just some of the weird things I see. I figure it would help my case to hit on where there is no doubt as to where a grave abuse is occurring, and not water down my case by citing things that are merely irregular and make myself look like "Joe Theater Critic".

BTW, I'm a man.

Hi CTID,

Thanks for the ping. My family was at the mass last week (10/15) and saw the same folks as you. Fr. Boccaccio was indeed the white haired gentleman, is mustaschioed but beardless, and Deacon Chiapetta is the gent with the beard.

Fr. Boccaccio performed the baptism, not Deacon Chiapetta - who sat down. Yes, Father has an interactive and engaging manner - I would label it joyful, not joking. His jovial nature did not extend into the formal liturgy of the mass, but was evident during the welcome, the baptism and the announcements afterward. Deacon Chiapetta is somewhat quieter and studious. St. Philips is a very family oriented parish and you will often see three generations of a family (occasionally four!) attending mass together. This interaction reflects the close relationship Father has with his flock. Despite the interaction, I (a 54 yr. old catechumen, and a former church elder) could see a level of holiness to the baptism that was somewhat absent in baptisms I have seen and participated in previously. I explained to my wife that I had seen the difference between ceremony and sacrament.

I cannot comment on the fine details of the mass - glass vs. precious metal chalice, precise wording and the penalties for straying from the script. I did notice that the celebrants said "for us and for our salvation", leaving out "men". I agree that the folks sharing their prayerful intentions corporately was a bit awkward. But I also found that my response was directed upwards with that specific person's need in mind.

As I mentioned last week, my knowlegable in-laws would recommend St. Mary's on West Ave. if formality is what you seek. There are eight other parishes in Norwalk besides St. Philips, so I'm hopeful that you will find one that meets your needs. Then, too, you are welcome to join my family and I at 10:00 at St. Philips anytime. Freepmail me if you would like.

I'm not a "Traditionalist," either, but it seems that anybody who expresses any remotely conservative opinions seems to qualify as a member of the SSPX for certain people on FR. I have actually stopped responding to Taxachusetts, which was my way of dealing with the now-banned sinkspur, too. He was always insulting, interested in inflaming situations, and very quick to hurl insults and innuendoes.

I thought your questions were quite reasonable, and they are obviously a concern to many, including our current Pope.

Another consideration - the sacred vessels at St. Philips are crystal as opposed to plain glass, and is a material that could be considered noble here in CT. You may consider this a minor distinction, but there is a distinction, nonetheless. The 2002 GIRM issues a "guidance" on sacred vessels rather than a mandate, and offers a great deal of latitude to the individual parish. Here's a quote:

"329. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, sacred vessels may also be made from other solid materials that, according to the common estimation in each region, are precious, for example, ebony or other hard woods, provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break or deteriorate."

The GIRM goes on to say "Rome's purpose seems evident. In poorer countries it may be necessary to have some latitude owing to the cost and availability of the material. What is considered noble in a region is fit for use in the liturgy, though the articles should be made for sacred use and not be profane vessels pressed into sacred service."

Using this guidance, I would submit that crystal vessels are probably not out of line, and would not be considered liturgical abuse.

When it comes to being judgmental, I couldn't hold a vigil light to you.

And as for validity/invalidity: by all means, make your concerns known to the local Ordinary - the Bishop of that diocese, whatever one it happens to be.

Take some comfort, however, in the old canonical maxim, "Ecclesia supplet" - the Church supplies for the benefit of the good faith of the people.

And you read WAY MORE into my observations than I intended - and in a way that says a lot more about your own self-perceptions.

Good day to you, too - in fact, try to have a good life.

No, I'm not sinkspur (?) or anybody but TaxachusettsMan.

But I do seem to have a struck a chord here.

If the "Joe Theatre Critic" or "Liturgy Police" shoe fits either one of you, by all means wear it.

Wear it to whichever Mass you're critiquing or policing this Sunday.

But make sure you go to another one just to fulfill your obligation, because it's one thing to hold a Missal in order to follow the Mass, but it must be very distracting to have a notebook and a red pen while jotting down rubrical violations!

Using this guidance, I would submit that crystal vessels are probably not out of line, and would not be considered liturgical abuse.

I'm afraid you're wrong -- they are not allowed at all. As you quoted: "provided that such materials are suited to sacred use and do not easily break..."

Glass and crystal are forbidden for that very reason.

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.