One term I find grossly inaccurate and in need of retirement is “liturgical abuse.”
Recently, one of the retired priests with whom I work appeared to get a bit distracted while preparing altar and gifts. He tends to take time with rituals and texts. We got through all four verses of a hymn, and I signaled my musicians to continue playing. We did one instrumental verse and stopped. The hand washing had not been done. It was an early Mass, and the one server was standing behind with water, basin, and towel. My guess is that the priest was not used to the music being done, and maybe it was early, too. He continued with the post-lavabo text and the dialogue. The server returned her items to the credence table and Mass went on.
I’ve known liturgical sticklers to go apespit over far lesser infractions. In this instance, I think “liturgical error” would be a stretch. I’ve served at a few weddings here in the Northwest in which the presider skipped over the prayers of the faithful. I’ve asked them each about it, and their assessment was that these prayers are part of Mass, but not the rite with Liturgy of the Word. I would characterize that belief as an error. Hardly an abuse.
Abuse is a term I reserve in the church context for sexual or other attack by clergy or other leader on a vulnerable person.
Errors can be serious or not. They can involve quality of performance or mistakes. Certainly there are clergy and other liturgical personnel who know what the ritual instructs, but then choose to do it their own way anyway. Even then, “abuse” is the wrong word.
Let’s reserve the term “abuse” for the instances when it causes actual harm to a person, and not their sensibility for perfection, correction, or similar attitudes.