Abuses and Irregularities in EWTN Masses?

[Rickwood]

Many of us consider the daily televised EWTN Masses on EWTN to be fairly good examples of Masses with few abuses or irregularities.

Some on these forums are now suggesting that if something is not specifically directed in the GIRM or RS that it should NOT be done during the Mass. That doing so is an “abuse” (or more likely an irregularity.)

While I resolutely reject that mindset, I’m wondering how the EWTN Mass measures up to such a standard? Following are some of the things I see on televised EWTN Masses:

• The processional cross is not “put away.”
• Two corporals are used on top of the altar cloth.
• The inside of the chalice is wiped after wine is poured into it.
• Some of their servers prostrate themselves during the consecration.
• They briefly ring the sanctus bells as the priest consumed the Precious Blood.
• People process-up for and receive blessing during communion.
• An ablution cup is placed on the altar and it is used by those distributing Mass.

Could these seemingly pious/harmless practices and materials actually constitute “liturgical” abuses?

 

[bpbasilphx]

*** The inside of the chalice is wiped after wine is poured into it.**

I would imagine this would be to get stray drops that might be clinging to the side of the chalice.

 

[Rickwood]

*** The inside of the chalice is wiped after wine is poured into it.**

I would imagine this would be to get stray drops that might be clinging to the side of the chalice.

OK, but it’s not directed in the GIRM/Sacramentary.

 

[palmas85]

Many of us consider the daily televised EWTN Masses on EWTN to be fairly good examples of Masses with few abuses or irregularities.

Some on these forums are now suggesting that if something is not specifically directed in the GIRM or RS that it should NOT be done during the Mass. That doing so is an “abuse” (or more likely an irregularity.)

While I resolutely reject that mindset, I’m wondering how the EWTN Mass measures up to such a standard? Following are some of the things I see on televised EWTN Masses:

• The processional cross is not “put away.”
• Two corporals are used on top of the altar cloth.
• The inside of the chalice is wiped after wine is poured into it.
• Some of their servers prostrate themselves during the consecration.
• They briefly ring the sanctus bells as the priest consumed the Precious Blood.
• People process-up for and receive blessing during communion.
• An ablution cup is placed on the altar and it is used by those distributing Mass.

Could these seemingly pious/harmless practices and materials actually constitute “liturgical” abuses?

I’m not sure as to the intent of your post but I will point out a few things.

There is no need to “put away” the processional cross and you said . In fact in many Churches without a Crucifix in the Sanctuary the processional cross is routinely left next to or near the altar so that the rubrics concerning the necessity of having a crucifix there are satisfied.

Several religious orders routinely prostrate themselves at various points in the Mass. Religious orders often have their own adaptations to the Mass that seem foreign to oursiders. Isn’t the EWTN Mass done at a monastery or convent or some religious order?

Ringing of the Sanctus bells is not rigidly regulated and never has been. While originally used to signal that the consecration had occurred they have historically been rung to advise the laity of certain things happening in the Mass. Perhaps the ringing was done to let the faithful know that the priest had communed and they could now approach. the Altar

Many people these days receive blessings instead of Holy Communion. I don’t know why and I really don’t understand the practice but they do. There were always a few that did, mainly small children and a few adults here and there, often military, police or firefighters as I recall.

Wiping the Chalice after pouring could be as meaningless as they forgot to do wipe it beforehand as required and noticed some dirt or a stray insect inside…

The use of two corporals as stated could be the use of a pall and a corporal, . The corporal is placed beneath the Chalice and the pall on top. You may have also seen the chalice being prepared to be moved. That would have the purificator on top of the chalice, the paten on top of that, then the pall, the chalice veil, then the corporal and burse on top. The corporal is folded inside the burse.

The cleansing of the fingers throughout the distribution process by the servers seems a bit over the top but does show great reverence.

I don’t see anything wrong with any of these things.

Do you?

 

[Rickwood]

I’m not sure as to the intent of your post but I will point out a few things.

There are some on this forum that suggest NOTHING may take place during the Mass that is not specifically spelled out in the official liturgical documents. While that’s obviously not true, I wanted to see how they rationalize their absolutist position with EWTN’s daily Mass – generally considered to be fairly orthodox.

If it’s not in the GIRM or other official documents it’s an abuse to them.

There is no need to “put away” the processional cross and you said . In fact in many Churches without a Crucifix in the Sanctuary the processional cross is routinely left next to or near the altar so that the rubrics concerning the necessity of having a crucifix there are satisfied.

You’re simply mistaken here:

GIRM122. On reaching the altar, the priest and ministers make a profound bow. The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise it is put away in a dignified place. In addition, the candlesticks are placed on the altar or near it. It is a praiseworthy practice that the Book of the Gospels be placed upon the
altar.

Several religious orders routinely prostrate themselves at various points in the Mass. Religious orders often have their own adaptations to the Mass that seem foreign to oursiders. Isn’t the EWTN Mass done at a monastery or convent or some religious order?

I agree, but it’s not in the GIRM.

Ringing of the Sanctus bells is not rigidly regulated and never has been. While originally used to signal that the consecration had occurred they have historically been rung to advise the laity of certain things happening in the Mass. Perhaps the ringing was done to let the faithful know that the priest had communed and they could now approach. the Altar.

Here you are simply mistaken. Their use is well defined:
**
GIRM 150.** A little before the consecration, when appropriate, a server rings a bell as a signal to the faithful. According to local custom, the server also rings the bell as the priest shows the host and then the chalice.

Many people these days receive blessings instead of Holy Communion. I don’t know why and I really don’t understand the practice but they do. There were always a few that did, mainly small children and a few adults here and there, often military, police or firefighters as I recall.

And it happens at EWTN Masses too, yet it’s not in the GIRM.

Wiping the Chalice after pouring could be as meaningless as they forgot to do wipe it beforehand as required and noticed some dirt or a stray insect inside…

They do it at EVERY Mass unless their is a “guest” celebrant. Anyway, it’s not in the GIRM.

The use of two corporals as stated could be the use of a pall and a corporal, . The corporal is placed beneath the Chalice and the pall on top. You may have also seen the chalice being prepared to be moved. That would have the purificator on top of the chalice, the paten on top of that, then the pall, the chalice veil, then the corporal and burse on top. The corporal is folded inside the burse.

A pall is not a corporal. They use one pall and two corporals at every Mass. There is nothing in the GIRM about using two corporals.

The cleansing of the fingers throughout the distribution process by the servers seems a bit over the top but does show great reverence.

I don’t see anything wrong with any of these things.

Do you?

I think it’s great and NOT “over the top”, but again, it’s not in the GIRM.

 

[palmas85]

There are some on this forum that suggest NOTHING may take place during the Mass that is not specifically spelled out in the official liturgical documents. While that’s obviously not true, I wanted to see how they rationalize their absolutist position with EWTN’s daily Mass – generally considered to be fairly orthodox.

If it’s not in the GIRM or other official documents it’s an abuse to them.

You’re simply mistaken here:

GIRM122. On reaching the altar, the priest and ministers make a profound bow. The cross adorned with a figure of Christ crucified and perhaps carried in procession may be placed next to the altar to serve as the altar cross, in which case it ought to be the only cross used; otherwise it is put away in a dignified place. In addition, the candlesticks are placed on the altar or near it. It is a praiseworthy practice that the Book of the Gospels be placed upon the
altar.

I agree, but it’s not in the GIRM.

Here you are simply mistaken. Their use is well defined:
**
GIRM 150.** A little before the consecration, when appropriate, a server rings a bell as a signal to the faithful. According to local custom, the server also rings the bell as the priest shows the host and then the chalice.

And it happens at EWTN Masses too, yet it’s not in the GIRM.

They do it at EVERY Mass unless their is a “guest” celebrant. Anyway, it’s not in the GIRM.

A pall is not a corporal. They use one pall and two corporals at every Mass. There is nothing in the GIRM about using two corporals.

I think it’s great and NOT “over the top”, but again, it’s not in the GIRM.

Since I don’t watch mass on EWTN I have no way of knowing exactly what they do. I actually prefer going to the real thing, but thats just me. All I did was try to offer an explanation as to why these things could happen. As far as the bells, they are often rung at different places in the Mass in different parishes and are merely a way of letting the faithful know something has happened. Why some parishes use them when the Priest walks in . I agree, if they are using two corporals that is odd. Can’t think of any reason for that at all… As to wiping the Chalice, who knows and the apparent constant hand cleaning during the distribution is also odd…

So I guess that you are right:thumbsup: . The EWTN Mass is a cesspool of abuses and should be halted immediately:bigyikes: .

Is that what you wanted to hear?

 

[maurin]

There are some on this forum that suggest NOTHING may take place during the Mass that is not specifically spelled out in the official liturgical documents. While that’s obviously not true, .

May one ask you to specifically cite GIRM # ?__ that supports your statement, “While that’s obviously not true…” ?

 

[Rolltide]

I haven’t been able to find the information to back this up, but I think I remember a post about the processional cross on the EWTN question and answer board at one time that said that EWTN received a special dispensation to have the processional cross near the altar, since the normal crucifix above the altar cannot be seen by the home viewers in all shots.

 

[Rickwood]

Since I don’t watch mass on EWTN I have no way of knowing exactly what they do. I actually prefer going to the real thing, but thats just me. All I did was try to offer an explanation as to why these things could happen. As far as the bells, they are often rung at different places in the Mass in different parishes and are merely a way of letting the faithful know something has happened. Why some parishes use them when the Priest walks in . I agree, if they are using two corporals that is odd. Can’t think of any reason for that at all… As to wiping the Chalice, who knows and the apparent constant hand cleaning during the distribution is also odd…

So I guess that you are right:thumbsup: . The EWTN Mass is a cesspool of abuses and should be halted immediately:bigyikes: .

Is that what you wanted to hear?

I was talking about stanctus bells, not introit bells. Apples and oranges. Not only are sanctus bells rung at specific times, their purpose is NOT to let people know something has happened – it is to create a celebratory tone in response to the miracle atop the altar.

 

[Rickwood]

I haven’t been able to find the information to back this up, but I think I remember a post about the processional cross on the EWTN question and answer board at one time that said that EWTN received a special dispensation to have the processional cross near the altar, since the normal crucifix above the altar cannot be seen by the home viewers in all shots.

Cool – good info. Just goes to show the GIRM and RS are not always the final word.

 

[Rickwood]

May one ask you to specifically cite GIRM # ?__ that supports your statement, “While that’s obviously not true…” ?

LOL!!!

Good one!

 

[scylla]

I agree that in an absolutist fashion we could say that those things could be considered abuses, yet these are not the sort of things specifically pointed out in documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum as abuses, or done to diminish Christ for selfish enjoyment.

The vast majority of threads concerning abuses are those things which have been specifically pointed out by Redemptionis Sacramentum are ignored and done in defiance of the Church.

No Priest has any excuse to be ignorant of documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Not every single action is specified in the GIRM, I think Father Z made a joke about this a little while ago on his blog. If we take an absolutist view of the GIRM it can be certainly interpreted to even not allow breathing, I am pretty sure it doesn’t address that.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[sancte_joseph]

Many of us consider the daily televised EWTN Masses on EWTN to be fairly good examples of Masses with few abuses or irregularities.

Some on these forums are now suggesting that if something is not specifically directed in the GIRM or RS that it should NOT be done during the Mass. That doing so is an “abuse” (or more likely an irregularity.)

While I resolutely reject that mindset, I’m wondering how the EWTN Mass measures up to such a standard? Following are some of the things I see on televised EWTN Masses:

• The processional cross is not “put away.”
  This does not mean where it can’t be seen…and they do put it away
• Two corporals are used on top of the altar cloth.
  well i don’t know about this i’ll have to look next time
• The inside of the chalice is wiped after wine is poured into it.
  I’ve seen this…but again IDK
• Some of their servers prostrate themselves during the consecration.
  Some religious orders are allowed to do this…and it does not need to be in the GIRM because it specific to that order
• They briefly ring the sanctus bells as the priest consumed the Precious Blood.
  I’m sure i read this in the GIRM the other day… look it up
• People process-up for and receive blessing during communion.
  well you can’t blame EWTN for that…the people choose to go up…and what is a priest to do refuse them a blessing…of course NOT
• An ablution cup is placed on the altar and it is used by those distributing Mass.
  I don’t know about this…but shouldn’t there be an ablution cup…if not on the Altar then close to it
  Could these seemingly pious/harmless practices and materials actually constitute “liturgical” abuses?

 

[Rickwood]

I agree that in an absolutist fashion we could say that those things could be considered abuses, yet these are not the sort of things specifically pointed out in documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum as abuses, or done to diminish Christ for selfish enjoyment.

No. I seriously doubt any of them are “abuses.”

The vast majority of threads concerning abuses are those things which have been specifically pointed out by Redemptionis Sacramentum are ignored and done in defiance of the Church.

And?

No Priest has any excuse to be ignorant of documents such as Redemptionis Sacramentum.

Ignorant? No. Must each do absolutely nothing that is not contained in the GIRM or RS? Hardly.

Not every single action is specified in the GIRM, I think Father Z made a joke about this a little while ago on his blog. If we take an absolutist view of the GIRM it can be certainly interpreted to even not allow breathing, I am pretty sure it doesn’t address that.

God Bless
Scylla

Yes it CAN be interpreted many ways and that is lost on many here.

 

[Rickwood]

• The processional cross is not “put away.”
  This does not mean where it can’t be seen…and they do put it away
• Two corporals are used on top of the altar cloth.
  well i don’t know about this i’ll have to look next time
• The inside of the chalice is wiped after wine is poured into it.
  I’ve seen this…but again IDK
• Some of their servers prostrate themselves during the consecration.
  Some religious orders are allowed to do this…and it does not need to be in the GIRM because it specific to that order
• They briefly ring the sanctus bells as the priest consumed the Precious Blood.
  I’m sure i read this in the GIRM the other day… look it up
• People process-up for and receive blessing during communion.
  well you can’t blame EWTN for that…the people choose to go up…and what is a priest to do refuse them a blessing…of course NOT
• An ablution cup is placed on the altar and it is used by those distributing Mass.
  I don’t know about this…but shouldn’t there be an ablution cup…if not on the Altar then close to it
  Could these seemingly pious/harmless practices and materials actually constitute “liturgical” abuses?

You are wrong on so many points:

• No, “put away” means not seen when it comes to the processional cross.
• I quoted the GIRM on the use of santus bells. You are wrong on that too.
• The prostrations are not in the GIRM.
• The ablution cup on the altar is also not in the GIRM or RS.

I have nothing against the practices – I’m just wondering how the “it’s gotta be in the GIRM or it’s an abuse” crowd view these points?

The only thing I don’t like are those who feel they are the authority on what is an abuse and what is not – “Could these seemingly pious/harmless practices and materials actually constitute “liturgical” abuses?”

 

[nightwalker]

Rickwood,

I think you more hold the stereotype of the rigid auditor more firmly than most of us who notice the discrepancies between the books and the practice in the liturgy.

You are so ready to expose us for the hypocrites you think we are, that you, yourself become a mockery of the position you oppose.

I strongly urge you to remember charity, even if other posters do not.

 

[Rickwood]

Rickwood,

I think you more hold the stereotype of the rigid auditor more firmly than most of us who notice the discrepancies between the books and the practice in the liturgy.

You are so ready to expose us for the hypocrites you think we are, that you, yourself become a mockery of the position you oppose.

I strongly urge you to remember charity, even if other posters do not.

I honestly believe you need to get your own house in order before you preach to others.

I am amazed yet not really surprised that the “it has to be in the GIRM/RS or it’s an abuse” crowd has not had the resolve to opine on this thread…

 

[palmas85]

I was talking about stanctus bells, not introit bells. Apples and oranges. Not only are sanctus bells rung at specific times, their purpose is NOT to let people know something has happened – it is to create a celebratory tone in response to the miracle atop the altar.

Actually I think your intent with the post has become pretty clear given some of the answers you have given.

 

[Cat]

I don’t have cable so I don’t watch EWTN unless I am staying in a hotel.

Considering how expensive television is to produce, I doubt very much that the EWTN people do anything thoughtlessly. I think that everything they film in the Mass has been discussed in full, and that there is a reason for what you are seeing, and it probably has to do with either technology, or taking care to not give non-Catholics ideas that could be used as an occasion of sin later.

Perhaps some of you have been present at at EWTN Mass taping and you’ll correct me if I’m wrong, please. But I’m guessing that several times during the Mass, things are halted while a camera, light, or mike is adjusted, something is re-arranged so that it all fits into the picture, something that was garbled gets repeated, a song or response was repeated for better balance, etc. Perhaps the priest or someone in the congregation gets a coughing fit, and the camera is halted, and then the “scene” is re-shot without the coughing fit.

These things would obviously be horrible in a parish Mass, but they are possibly necessary for a television broadcast. If they were not done, the television broadcast would look cheesy and possibly irreverent. Things that are not funny in real-life can look very “funny” on television, and why should EWTN give the YouTube crowd something for fodder?

I’m guessing that the bishop gives EWTN some dispensations (or whatever is necessary) to allow for the technology of television.

I’m guessingthat one reason why the people go forward for a blessing is that EWTN knows that many non-Christians and non-Catholics are watching, and EWTN is trying to demonstrate that ALL are welcome–not at Holy Communion, but to love Jesus. BUT…if they showed everyone receiving Communion, the non-Catholics watching might get the mistaken impression that they can walk into any Catholic Mass and receive Communion, too. So showing the blessing is a way that EWTN tries to prevent grave sin against Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament in real-life Masses. Just a thought.

If you are concerned, write to EWTN and ask. Or call them and ask. I think it would be interesting to hear their answer. Let them defend themselves. That’s probably the worse part of an online forum–things and people are debated, and those things and people aren’t here to defend themselves. Well, EWTN is probably a little more accessible than Pope Benedict XVI, or any of the bishops, so give them a call. See what they say. And tell us–I’m really curious now.

 

[Atreyu]

I honestly believe you need to get your own house in order before you preach to others.

I am amazed yet not really surprised that the “it has to be in the GIRM/RS or it’s an abuse” crowd has not had the resolve to opine on this thread…

Rickwood, I don’t usually follow the Liturgy forum very closely, but I happened to stumble across your thread. While I haven’t come across the “if it isn’t in the GIRM then it’s an abuse!” crowd, I think your point was well made. I also think that you showed charity at all times. I cannot understand why some people seem to think otherwise or seem to be offended by your well-made points. All I can conclude is that maybe somehow they missed your point and thought that you were somehow suggesting these practices are abuses. If anyone is reading this and thinks that Rickwood has been uncharitable, then I suggest you read through the thread again because it’s quite possible that you have misunderstood the point.

Oh, and correcting someone’s mistake in a non-condescending way is definitely NOT uncharitable. In fact it is the opposite, and we as Catholics are called to always accept a rebuke when it is rightly made.