Abuses and Irregularities in EWTN Masses?

[Atreyu]

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.

Cat posted this after I started writing my first post in this thread, and so I missed it at the time of my posting. However, it is a good example of what I was talking about. Cat, forgive me for singling you out here, but I think you have missed the point of this thread. Rickwood was not suggesting that receiving a blessing on EWTN is an abuse. In fact, he clearly stated the opposite. And so EWTN has nothing to defend, because no accusations have been made against them.

 

[Atreyu]

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 would suggest that the sequence of sentences I have highlighted in this post is the point where charity broke down in this thread. Palmas, why would you make such a sarcastic and unhelpful remark? Rickwood was stating that the EWTN was a standard of orthodoxy, not the opposite! So what’s your problem?

In my opinion, you owe Rickwood an apology.

 

[musicmantg11]

I don’t watch the Daily Mass everyday but sometimes if I don’t have anything to do, I might turn on EWTN and watch maybe a half or longer if it’s a good show I like.

The Daily Mass on EWTN is different, but I do enjoy watching it every once in a while. There is no church law that says that you cannot wipe the chalice after you pour in the wine. The priest just wipes the edges for drops of wine. The other things that you mentioned, some are right and some are wrong. Three words for you, LOOK IT UP!

God Bless!

 

[nightwalker]

I would suggest that the sequence of sentences I have highlighted in this post is the point where charity broke down in this thread. Palmas, why would you make such a sarcastic and unhelpful remark? Rickwood was stating that the EWTN was a standard of orthodoxy, not the opposite! So what’s your problem?

In my opinion, you owe Rickwood an apology.

Atreyu,

Our friend Rickwood has been harping on those he calls “Liturgical Auditors” or the “GIRM/RS only crowd” for at least the past week. This thread, if it were honestly intended would have been about rectifying any “abuses”, not about glorifying them.

So yes, perhaps Palmas was not as charitable as he could have been, but he was provoked.

 

[maurin]

LOL!!!

Good one!

so glad I was able to lighten your evening.

But may one ask you to specifically cite the GIRM # which supports your statement, “While obviously that isn’t true…”?

thanks. it’s a sincere question.

 

[RickAstley]

I remember this being covered before, hold on, I’ll grab a link for you:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4055654#post4055654

I Hope this helps out

 

[Lee_M]

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.

No, they don’t do retakes. It is a Mass. It is a very small chapel and probably holds about 40 to 50 people. But the point I’m trying to make is they don’t do retakes like they’re making a movie. What you see is what it is.

 

[benedictgal]

No, they don’t do retakes. It is a Mass. It is a very small chapel and probably holds about 40 to 50 people. But the point I’m trying to make is they don’t do retakes like they’re making a movie. What you see is what it is.

Furthermore, the Mass televised at 8AM (EST) is live. What you see at Noon EST, 6PM EST and Midnight EST is a rebroadcast.

The Papal Masses are initially broadcast live, but, then they are rebroadcast throughout the day.

Now, there is a document from the USCCB for regulating Masses that are broadcast. The Mass on EWTN used to be celebrated ad orientsum, but the bishop at the time used the document to forbid the friars from using this posture, even though there is nothing in the GIRM, as pointed out by the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, that would prohibit a priest from doing so.

 

[Rickwood]

so glad I was able to lighten your evening.

But may one ask you to specifically cite the GIRM # which supports your statement, “While obviously that isn’t true…”?

thanks. it’s a sincere question.

You were being serious?

 

[Rickwood]

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

You are wrong about the use of sanctus bells. Read the GIRM.

 

[Rickwood]

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.

None of the things I mentioned are “abuses” – the most horribly misused word on these forums.

I also don’t think they are irregularities. I believe the things I noted are prime examples of things/area where there is leeway in the Mass. Things that are not stapled down by the GIRM.

The “if it isn’t in the GIRM then it’s an abuse!” mindset is so terribly ignorant. It does damage – certainly more than the perceived “abuses.”

[Edited]

 

[Lee_M]

None of the things I mentioned are “abuses” – the most horribly misused word on these forums.

I also don’t think they are irregularities. I believe the things I noted are prime examples of things/area where there is leeway in the Mass. Things that are not stapled down by the GIRM.

The “if it isn’t in the GIRM then it’s an abuse!” mindset is so terribly ignorant. It does damage – certainly more than the perceived “abuses.”

I’m not at all surprised that said people would be afraid to comment substantially on this thread.

I agree with you 100% on this. The word “abuse” is over-used on the forums. I commented on this in another thread when one member said that calling an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion a Eucharistic Minister is an abuse. I’m sure that 99% of the people that call an EMHC a EC are doing it out of ignorance. I was accused of trying to derail the thread because I believed that some people spend way too much time during Mass trying to find abuses. So I was accused of being a Liturgical Abuser.

If so those who are critical of people who are critical are doing it because they almost always are the people behind the abuses and they want to deflect their “guilt” onto someone else.

Abuse is a strong word that is slung around. A priest who does a q & a column said that 90% of the time, people who write to him about what they think is an abuse is actually not a Liturgical Abuse. It turns out that it is an acceptable practice. So 9 out of 10 times, when you hear the word abuse used, it will not be an abuse.

 

[Rickwood]

I agree with you 100% on this. The word “abuse” is over-used on the forums. I commented on this in another thread when one member said that calling an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion a Eucharistic Minister is an abuse. I’m sure that 99% of the people that call an EMHC a EC are doing it out of ignorance. I was accused of trying to derail the thread because I believed that some people spend way too much time during Mass trying to find abuses. So I was accused of being a Liturgical Abuser.

Abuse is a strong word that is slung around. A priest who does a q & a column said that 90% of the time, people who write to him about what they think is an abuse is actually not a Liturgical Abuse. It turns out that it is an acceptable practice. So 9 out of 10 times, when you hear the word abuse used, it will not be an abuse.

So true.

Misusing words like “liturgical abuse” takes a toll and it’s very common here. Searching out the Mass for perceived “abuses” also takes a toll. Making pronouncements about “abuses” when one lacks the knowledge and authority to do so also takes a toll. An often times grave toll.

Thankfully I think most that make these mistakes do so out of abject ignorance and not to intentionally hurt the Church or others.

 

[ralphinal]

I have been to mass there, though it has been a while. It is too crowded most of the time. Anyway, the main cross is not seen in most shots. The processional is seen. For what it is worth, the only way to remove that cross is to put it in the hall, completely out of the Church (that is how it is built). That is more than likely unacceptable.

AS far as the other things go, I would not worry about them for two reasons. First. do you think people like Cardinal Arzine would say mass there and not mention the issues? Too many high ranking bishops partake in EWTN or at least watch it. Trust me on this: there have been enough who wanted it gone that any little abuse would have become a major issue. Second, some things in the GIRM are it has to be this way. Some are it cannot be that way. And there are many things that it is silent on. For now, if it is not prohibited, it is allowed.

Finally, there is no prohibition on people getting blessings in the Communion line. In Alabama, where I am and EWTN is (15 minutes from me), it is very common for this to occure. We represent less than 10% of the population, and many non-Catholics do go to mass and some even visit EWTN.

 

[benedictgal]

Finally, there is no prohibition on people getting blessings in the Communion line. In Alabama, where I am and EWTN is (15 minutes from me), it is very common for this to occure. We represent less than 10% of the population, and many non-Catholics do go to mass and some even visit EWTN.

I would take issue with your final statement because, according to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

You are incorrect in your assertion regarding the blessing in lieu of receiving Holy Communion. We line up to receive Our Lord. That is why it the communion line and not the blessing line, as another poster either in this thread or another one noted.

Furthermore, there is no liturgical document that allows such a thing to be inserted into the Mass. This is not an EWTN issue. This is something that is far-reaching.

Regarding the other points you made in your posts, that is true. However, to introduce something into the Mass that has no organic precedent is wrong. That’s like letting the camel stick its nose into a tent when it doesn’t belong there.

 

[palmas85]

You are wrong about the use of sanctus bells. Read the GIRM.

You know you’re right.

I’m a complete idiot. I apologize for even posting here.

There is no way that I can compete on a level field with one who has multiple EWTN Masses recorded and apparently goes through them with a fine tooth comb and a stop watch looking for irregularities and abuses. You have done a great job and should feel quite proud of yourself…

I can only answer about what I have seen with my own eyes and read about in my own reaseach.

You might want to read up on the bells though, at least from a historic position.

Oh and since we are calling out who is wrong, where exactly in the GIRM does it say that the processional cross cannot be left in the Sanctuary during Mass? I know what it says, and that is that it is to be stored in a dignified area correct? I believe that the sanctuary is a pretty dignified area right? So why couldn’t the cross be placed there during the Mass?

OOPS, there I go again:shrug:

Oh well, what can you expect?

 

[palmas85]

I would suggest that the sequence of sentences I have highlighted in this post is the point where charity broke down in this thread. Palmas, why would you make such a sarcastic and unhelpful remark? Rickwood was stating that the EWTN was a standard of orthodoxy, not the opposite! So what’s your problem?

In my opinion, you owe Rickwood an apology.

Why?. He pointed out that the EWTN Mass is riddled with abuses,and/or irregularities and took the time to point out in the GIRM exactly where it indicates that they are in fact abuses and/or irregularities. More than that, he obviously took a lot and I do mean a lot of time to document these things. In fact, just from the amount of stuff he posted he must have been doing little else for a good while.

By pointing out these numerous irregularities and loudly proclaiming that they were in fact irregularities no matter what anyone else said or pointed out, ie: **religious orders having different postures in various parts of the Mass, and the Sanctus bells only being rung at the elevation of the sacred species **would indicate to me that he wasn’t exactly championing the orthodoxy of these Masses in the slightest, or even interested in finding out if there was any merit to the actions and if they were allowed at all…

No it appeared that he was making the point that these reverent Masses have numerous irregularities in them, probably with an eye towards justifying irregularities of other types in other Masses.

And no, I don’t think I owe him an apology at all.

 

[Rickwood]

I have been to mass there, though it has been a while. It is too crowded most of the time. Anyway, the main cross is not seen in most shots. The processional is seen. For what it is worth, the only way to remove that cross is to put it in the hall, completely out of the Church (that is how it is built). That is more than likely unacceptable.

Putting it in the hall (like they do the incense) would be fine – but that doesn’t mean their current practice is an “abuse.”

AS far as the other things go, I would not worry about them for two reasons. First. do you think people like Cardinal Arzine would say mass there and not mention the issues? Too many high ranking bishops partake in EWTN or at least watch it. Trust me on this: there have been enough who wanted it gone that any little abuse would have become a major issue. Second, some things in the GIRM are it has to be this way. Some are it cannot be that way. And there are many things that it is silent on. For now, if it is not prohibited, it is allowed.

That is actually an excellent point. Like it or not, EWTN has a profound and worldwide impact on the Church and many, many individual Catholics. It would be quite reasonable to suggest that a request would come from many different places to eradicate any actual abuses in their daily Masses – if there were any of course.

Finally, there is no prohibition on people getting blessings in the Communion line. In Alabama, where I am and EWTN is (15 minutes from me), it is very common for this to occure. We represent less than 10% of the population, and many non-Catholics do go to mass and some even visit EWTN.

You’re absolutely correct. I just wanted to see how the “it must be in the GIRM or it’s an ABUSE crowd” views the daily EWTN Masses is all.

 

[Rickwood]

Why?. He pointed out that the EWTN Mass is riddled with abuses,and/or irregularities and took the time to point out in the GIRM exactly where it indicates that they are in fact abuses and/or irregularities. More than that, he obviously took a lot and I do mean a lot of time to document these things. In fact, just from the amount of stuff he posted he must have been doing little else for a good while.

You clearly don’t comprehend what I typed even though it was quite clear. I don’t believe the daily EWTN Masses are “riddled with abuses,and/or irregularities.” I made that quite clear on a number of postings on this thread.

Their Masses include actions and materials that are not specified in the GIRM or RS. That does not make them abuses or irregularities EXCEPT in the eyes of those confused souls who believe “if it’s not in the GIRM it MUST be an abuse!”

Given that EWTN Masses are generally accepted as being quite orthodox, I wanted to see how the “if it’s not in the GIRM it MUST be an abuse!” would react. Atreyu clearly understood my posting – it’s quite clear.

By pointing out these numerous irregularities and loudly proclaiming that they were in fact irregularities no matter what anyone else said or pointed out, ie: **religious orders having different postures in various parts of the Mass, and the Sanctus bells only being rung at the elevation of the sacred species **would indicate to me that he wasn’t exactly championing the orthodoxy of these Masses in the slightest, or even interested in finding out if there was any merit to the actions and if they were allowed at all…

Yes it’s clear. You do not grasp what I posted.

No it appeared that he was making the point that these reverent Masses have numerous irregularities in them, probably with an eye towards justifying irregularities of other types in other Masses.

One wonders if these Masses are “reverent” to the “if it’s not in the GIRM it MUST be an abuse!” group?

And no, I don’t think I owe him an apology at all.

Actually you do, but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[Rickwood]

You know you’re right.

I’m a complete idiot. I apologize for even posting here.

There is no way that I can compete on a level field with one who has multiple EWTN Masses recorded and apparently goes through them with a fine tooth comb and a stop watch looking for irregularities and abuses. You have done a great job and should feel quite proud of yourself…

I can only answer about what I have seen with my own eyes and read about in my own reaseach.

You might want to read up on the bells though, at least from a historic position.

Oh and since we are calling out who is wrong, where exactly in the GIRM does it say that the processional cross cannot be left in the Sanctuary during Mass? I know what it says, and that is that it is to be stored in a dignified area correct? I believe that the sanctuary is a pretty dignified area right? So why couldn’t the cross be placed there during the Mass?

OOPS, there I go again:shrug:

Oh well, what can you expect?

Trying to play the martyr is never productive in these discussions…

I never said the processional cross could not be left in the sanctuary. It must however be “put away” under some circumstances and that would strongly suggest “out of view.”