You have to pick your battles. The biddies eating Jesus with the priest wasn't so much the abuse, as having that many EMHCs (or any?) to begin with. And I'm not sure that's even a black-letter-law violation; just a gross lapse in taste. I've seen parts of the Ordinary left out willy-nilly, recorded music played behind the homily and the distribution, "This is "the" Body..." said at the consecration (over and over, so it wasn't just a slip) ...all in the wonderful Diocese of Youngstown. I dropped the dime once, but if I did so even at the most flagrant abuses, I'd soon be dismissed as a crank, because it really is that bad out there.

Oh, and weekly distribution of the Eucharist under both species has been a black-letter violation since 2005. You want to go to the mat for that one?

As they say, the difference between a liturgist and a terrorist, is that you can reason with the terrorist. It's impossible to reason with some of these folks because they don't realize they are doing anything wrong to begin with. We are the ones who are wrong because we are uncharitable, judgemental, etc., and on and on. I have no answer to this.

and on:

[7.] Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.[18] This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.[19]

(the more you read this, the more weighty it becomes to deal with the abuse and ignorance that abound.)

So in a parish of 2,000 families with ONE resident priest, who has to celebrate one daily mass each day, 4 - 5 weekend masses, take Communion to the sick, counsel people, hear confessions, and attend to all spiritual matters in the parish on a daily basis, the priest should also PERSONALLY be responsible for every single thing that a trained and competant liturgist could do?

Be careful what you say. A trained liturgist who is FAITHFUL to the Church and obedient to his or her pastor, who, ideally, is also faithful to the Church, can not only be a welcome relief to a priest, but can greatly enhance parish liturgies and add great reverance, beauty, and solemnity to them.

Yea, nutty is a problem. Are there more nutty ones than good?

good Adam. Can you send this to all diocesan offices for their files?

@ Francis
I second the motion.

ah, ok. good to know.

I would hope that goes without saying? but yeah. of course, that.

the original question still stands, though. how do you guys deal with liturgical abuse?

How do the Orthodox deal with problems in your Church?

My apologies to Jam, but I can't help imagining a very old Russian priest with a heavy accent:
"There are... no problems in our Church."

I think I may have met that priest, Mr. Wood. :)

I guess I'm asking because I know it's not my place to say things but I still can get uncomfortable and I simply cannot imagine what it would be like for a faithful Catholic to sit there being uncomfortable and I guess I was really sad that the liturgy did not match the architecture for beauty and mystery and tradition and transcendence but the people are certainly faithful in their devotions to the saints and the blessed virgin and I don't even know because I don't want to sound judgemental but it's just something I wanted to talk about because I can't just sit down and see it and carry it around on my heart for forever

*deep breath*

okay. In the Orthodox church, first order of business would be to approach the priest about it. Second order of business would be to approach the bishop. Bishops have a lot fewer priests to deal with, so they can develop more personal relationships with more of their priests, in my experience. (priests also have fewer parishioners to deal with per priest.) Priests usually listen to the bishop. If not, then discipline happens.

I haven't seen any liturgical abuse in Orthodoxy during my years as Orthodox--the worst I've seen is the so-called "heretical" icons of the holy trinity that depict God the Father as an old man, or really kind of strange translations of certain liturgical texts.

There was, however, an instance where a priest in Greece directly defied his bishop by reading the Gospel in a modern Greek translation, even though there was a long discussion over the pros and cons of this and it was ultimately decided that even though the uneducated could not understand it, it was better to read the original Greek in liturgy. Once the people realised what was going on they began shouting at the priest to read the "real" Gospel. When he argued with them there was some manner of riot.

So, there's that.

have you tried rioting?

just a thought.

(joke!!)

Even if it was a relatively minor but obnoxious abuse like the recorded music playing during the consecration.

That's two sins! Recorded music is a no-no. And even in the EF, playing music during the consecration is a no-no.

What a doofus.

@dad29: In the EF durign consecration grave and dignified organ music is permitted, unless diocesan statutes impose different rules.

In the EF durign consecration grave and dignified organ music is permitted, unless diocesan statutes impose different rules.

This is forbidden by 1957's De musica sacra et sacra liturgia (though the law may not be obeyed everywhere) e.g. at no. 27:

During the Consecration, the singing must stop, and there should be no playing of instruments; if this has been the custom, it should be discontinued.

In the Ordinary Form, instrumentals are also forbidden during the Consecration, per Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Ben:

You may be absolutely correct, but WHERE is the documentation about organ music at Mass!!!! I have asked this numerous times on this forum and no one seems to know where to point me to the black and white.

Not sure if you are now talking about the OF or EF, but for the OF, pertinent rules include the following from the GIRM:

32. The nature of the "presidential" texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention. Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.

And of course, there IS such a thing as "too much music"--it's kinda negatively-highlighted by the OF instruction, but (sadly) not in the EF rules.

So some priests (and Orders) seem to think that if the organ isn't playing, or the choir isn't singing, (or both) that it's just not Mass.

They, too, are doofusses. Not Maroons. Doofusses.

Francis

Music is generally presumed to be vocal in the ritual books and relevant documents, and purely instrumental music is given comparatively little attention (though not none) because it's an exception to the general conceit that Catholic liturgical music is essentially vocal as a foundational matter.

I remember an Easter Vigil where a parishioner had a seizure. We had to pause the liturgy to wait for the medics to arrive. The celebrant (who was getting irked because the prolongation of the service meant a delay to his next cigarette) asked the organist to play cover music. The organist declined to do so by pretending not to understand the request, understanding the role of instrumental music in the liturgy is not to provide a mental distraction. We waited in silence. The organist was correct.

Francis asked:

Is there a chronological compilation of directives concerning Sacred Music in one publication that deals with all of it?

The book Papal Legislation on Sacred Music (Roman Catholic Books, Ft. Collins, CO) covers up to 1977.

During Lent, the GIRM and Musica Sacram state that the organ should be silent and only used to support the singing (if needed). Furthermore, there should not be any instrumentals during that season.

B-gal: the exceptions to that rule are Gaudete and Laetare Sundays, when the organ may be played. Thanks for the note to GIRM--didn't know it existed, but that's b/c I'm a member of the congregation at OF Masses and that rule is rarely, if ever, obeyed.

Liam: your take: 'vocal' v. 'instrumental' is correct. However, we can also learn from historical practices. The French, in particular, used organ to 'cover' a lot of the Mass; so much so that Rome finally banned 'cover' music at the Consecration.

The point, however, is this: one can use 'cover' music (during the right seasons, etc.) BUT one must exercise a good sense of balance between music and silence.

Your comments clearly come from a NON-organist, by the way.

"If you have a choir or congregation that can't sing without the support of organ, then they can't sing WITH the organ either, and that needs to be changed."

I find this to be true.

EDIT:

reading your link. I find this to be interesting: "(i.e. other non-priests at the Altar during the Eucharistic prayer with the intent to "co-consecrate" with the priest will also invalidate the consecration)"

that is not what happened at this Mass I was talking about (the EMCs approached the altar after the consecration took place)--but I wonder if I haven't seen this before somewhere.

query about EMCs:

say there is one priest available. but the parish communicates under both species. Is it licit to have one EMC every week to handle the chalice?