Pope Francis moves to suppress liturgical abuses

[Southern Comfort]

The Holy Father Pope Francis, on 7 June, 2014 approved and confirmed the contents of which is contained in this Circular Letter...

I am sure you are not suggesting that Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera and + Arthur Roche fabricated the concluding text. Therefore we should accept that the Holy Father endorsed this circular and its content.

Noting the strange punctuation and even stranger English of the bold-type statement quoted above, I'm quite sure that Archbishop Roche never read the final document; but I am certainly not suggesting that anyone fabricated anything. I merely note that Cardinal Llovera had a chat with the pope on the morning of 7 June (according to the daily Vatican bulletin). I expect he said to him something along the lines of "Arthur and I are putting out a little clarifying letter on the Sign of Peace, following Benedict's request nine years ago. Hope that's OK with you." The Pope was not asked to sign it, and never did so, since this is a letter from the Congregation, not the Pope.

It's very easy for a Vatican dicastery to issue documents which imply that the Pope has read and approved every word of them — this happened all the time with JPII and to a lesser extent with Benedict when in fact the reality was quite different. As I said before, Francis simply doesn't have the time to spend on such a p*ddling matter.

[BobHayes]

As I said before, Francis simply doesn't have the time to spend on such a p*ddling matter.

Seemingly you are fully cognisant of the Holy Father's daily commitments and therefore able to assert with confidence that 'Francis simply doesn't have the time to spend on such a p*ddling matter'. It is implicit that you believe the Pope shares your view that reverence in the Liturgy is 'a p*ddling matter'. That is a shame.

[mcb]

...the thin end of a wedge that can produce plausible arguments to reduce the Liturgy to a simple ceremony of the Word and Eucharist. After all accounts of the Last Supper do not seem to refer to processions, choirs and complex musical repertoire.

Surely the Liturgy is a (nobly) simple ceremony of the Word and Eucharist?

The article on Pray Tell concerning the term liturgical abuse (which I think SC mentioned above) injects a sensible note of proportionality and perspective.

[JW]

Not much new in the instruction and I have no doubt that priests will continue to apply pastoral common sense. Whether or not the Pope approved it, he'll still go his only way. Most priests will, quite rightly IMHO, continue to exchange the sign of priests with bereaved families at funerals, and with newly married couples at nuptial masses. I know a priest (not in my diocese) who insists on exchanging the sign of peace with every member of his congregation - this takes so long that they have a song during it; his congregation love him for it and he isn't going to start changing his ways. By the way, it's worth mentioning that the word 'abuse' has much stronger connotations in English than in Latin: paedophilia and rape were almost acceptable in Roman times, provided it was kept in family or done to slaves and others who weren't Roman citizens.

There seems to be a certain amount expectation in the original post that things will change as a result of this instruction. But priests aren't actually very accountable to anyone. There is no real auditing system for parishes and if there were it would apply to far bigger issues than the sign of peace, e.g. providing proper lay consultation, providing proper support and companionship for priests, priests threatening to leave if they are told to move parishes, not saying a main Sunday Mass in the EF when the local laity don't want it, ensuring priests don't eat meat on Fridays, addressing the lack of proper liturgical commemoration of WW1, introducing a proper appraisal system for priests, auditing that money donated in collections and legacies is wisely used , and, if we want to start nit-picking at liturgy, they shouldn't be adding prayers at whim after Communion, nor allowing the Hail Mary to be said in Bidding Prayers, nor allowing old-translation music settings.

Now you might be of the persuasion that Dioceses should appoint teams of 'OFSTED' type inspectors to make sure that parishes are properly run. More expense and the lawyer-types would love it. But actually, that's not what our great Church is about. We are about giving people freedom to worship God "in Spirit and in Truth". As Pope Francis said in a mediation on 26 June, Jesus "wasn't a casuistic and moralistic Pharisee."

[BobHayes]

As Pope Francis said in a mediation on 26 June, Jesus "wasn't a casuistic and moralistic Pharisee."

That would be the day after the Holy Father said:

In the Church there is no “do it yourself”, there are no “free agents”.

w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audie...dienza-generale.html

Cut-and-paste quotes from the Supreme Pontiff may not be the way to go in this discussion!

[BobHayes]

...the thin end of a wedge that can produce plausible arguments to reduce the Liturgy to a simple ceremony of the Word and Eucharist. After all accounts of the Last Supper do not seem to refer to processions, choirs and complex musical repertoire.

Surely the Liturgy is a (nobly) simple ceremony of the Word and Eucharist?

The simplicity of the Eucharist given to us by Christ Jesus is quite evident from Scripture. But do we believe the nobility of the Liturgy originates in Christ or in the embellishments added by the Church down the centuries?

[BobHayes]

Not much new in the instruction and I have no doubt that priests will continue to apply pastoral common sense. Whether or not the Pope approved it, he'll still go his only way. Most priests will, quite rightly IMHO, continue to exchange the sign of priests with bereaved families at funerals, and with newly married couples at nuptial masses. I know a priest (not in my diocese) who insists on exchanging the sign of peace with every member of his congregation - this takes so long that they have a song during it; his congregation love him for it and he isn't going to start changing his ways. By the way, it's worth mentioning that the word 'abuse' has much stronger connotations in English than in Latin: paedophilia and rape were almost acceptable in Roman times, provided it was kept in family or done to slaves and others who weren't Roman citizens.

There seems to be a certain amount expectation in the original post that things will change as a result of this instruction. But priests aren't actually very accountable to anyone. There is no real auditing system for parishes and if there were it would apply to far bigger issues than the sign of peace, e.g. providing proper lay consultation, providing proper support and companionship for priests, priests threatening to leave if they are told to move parishes, not saying a main Sunday Mass in the EF when the local laity don't want it, ensuring priests don't eat meat on Fridays, addressing the lack of proper liturgical commemoration of WW1, introducing a proper appraisal system for priests, auditing that money donated in collections and legacies is wisely used , and, if we want to start nit-picking at liturgy, they shouldn't be adding prayers at whim after Communion, nor allowing the Hail Mary to be said in Bidding Prayers, nor allowing old-translation music settings.

Now you might be of the persuasion that Dioceses should appoint teams of 'OFSTED' type inspectors to make sure that parishes are properly run. More expense and the lawyer-types would love it. But actually, that's not what our great Church is about. We are about giving people freedom to worship God "in Spirit and in Truth". As Pope Francis said in a mediation on 26 June, Jesus "wasn't a casuistic and moralistic Pharisee."

I for one would certainly not like to see the Church embrace a huge swathe of 'management standards' for the conduct of priests.. Nonetheless I think it is reasonable to expect priests to shepherd their flocks in a way that reflects that these men have taken a vow of obedience. They will have had seven years to consider whether they are called to serve God in the hierarchical Church.

[BobHayes]

By the way, it's worth mentioning that the word 'abuse' has much stronger connotations in English than in Latin: paedophilia and rape were almost acceptable in Roman times, provided it was kept in family or done to slaves and others who weren't Roman citizens.

Sorry, I am at a loss to know the point you are attempting to make here.

[High Peak]

Now you might be of the persuasion that Dioceses should appoint teams of 'OFSTED' type inspectors to make sure that parishes are properly run. More expense and the lawyer-types would love it. But actually, that's not what our great Church is about. We are about giving people freedom to worship God "in Spirit and in Truth". As Pope Francis said in a mediation on 26 June, Jesus "wasn't a casuistic and moralistic Pharisee."

As a "recovering teacher" I am not in favour of OFSTED-type anything. However, the danger of no monitoring is that parish priests are free to run their parishes almost in any-such way as they please. I would not want to quash individuality at all, yet I know many of us here have been thwarted from doing things within the liturgy, that we know are good and proper, by PPs who just don't fancy it for no good reason.
The danger is, I guess, that the only time a parish is seen (inspected?) is for Confirmations, etc., when every best effort is being made. From where do PPs get feedback on how they are running things on a week-to-week basis?

[BobHayes]

From where do PPs get feedback on how they are running things on a week-to-week basis?

The $64,000 question! As a fellow teacher I know that even when you receive feedback - whether from managers, peers or students - analysing and acting upon it is fraught with difficulties.

[mcb]

The simplicity of the Eucharist given to us by Christ Jesus is quite evident from Scripture. But do we believe the nobility of the Liturgy originates in Christ or in the embellishments added by the Church down the centuries?

Sorry, Bob, I don't know what your point is here. Is that a rhetorical question? I think it's off target, in any case. The nobility of the liturgy isn't orthogonal to its simplicity: it's the simplicity which gives it nobility. You're surely not suggesting that we add all the flummery in order to compensate for our Lord's ignoble lack of sophistication?

Here's Sacrosanctum Concilium:

34. The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity; they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension, and normally should not require much explanation.

[BobHayes]

Why do 'we add all the flummery'? Custom and practice? Jobs for the boys and girls? A desire to give everyone a part in the 'performance'?

[BobHayes]

An alternative perspective to the debate on the Prey Tell Blog is offered by Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith here:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/comment ... all-costs/

[alan29]

Anyone who thinks that it is an abuse when the celebrant at a requiem leaves the altar to wish the bereaved peace, is clearly more interested in "doing the red and saying the black" than in common humanity.

[Dom Perignon]

I have deleted certain of the most recent posts because, in my view, they drifted off topic and began to drift towards becoming personal attacks. Can we please return to the debate.