Abuses in the Extraordinary Form?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Frbrendan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Frbrendan

Guest
I had the good grace to catch the Solemn High Mass in the Extraordinary Form that was on EWTN yesterday. The Celebrant was perspiring rather heavily–I can excuse that, I know the lights have to be pretty good for TV, and they are hot. However, three times after he had Consecrated the Bread & Wine into Body & Blood, I saw him pluck a handkerchief out of his sleeve pocket, and wipe his face, and he did this once while giving Communion! Even this Eastern Rite Christian (who spent 8 years going to Roman Catholic School) knows that the index finger and thumb of each hand are kept together after the Elevation until the Ablution. And I can forgive a mistake once. But did he burn that handkerchief afterward? And what about the Alb, how would that have been purified?

I am not trying to gainsay those who say that there are no abuses, I am just reporting the what I saw. Anyone who recorded it can see for himself that I am right.

Thanks for listening!
 
What makes you think that the priest’s fingers separated when he used the hanky? :confused: I see priests do this all the time and they never separate their fingers. And sweating under all the vestments occurs, regardless of TV lighting.
 
i seen that he kept wiping his brow, but i would rather have him do that than to keep dripping all over the place 🙂
 
The title of this thread caught my eye, and I nearly had to laugh when I read of the “abuse”.

Even if he DID separate his fingers, he did it out of a sort of necessity - of physical discomfort. Now, you could most certainly argue he should not have wiped his face at all, but still this sort of thing is not even in the same league as the abuses many have seen in American NOs - changing Scripture, changing rubrics, ignoring the Church’s rules on the Eucharist, etc., etc. - serious, premeditated, entirely intentional abuses.

So, even if he did separate his fingers - for which I see no evidence - this is a mistake or a small failing, not an abuse.

OTOH, one would be foolish to think TLM could be or ever was entirely immune to abuses!

I haven’t seen one yet, tho. 😉
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
The title of this thread caught my eye, and I nearly had to laugh when I read of the “abuse”.

Even if he DID separate his fingers, he did it out of a sort of necessity - of physical discomfort.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the priest is not supposed to separate his fingers, as they might have some small fragments of the Body of Christ. I know that he can use the three other fingers to pull and mop his face.

Before I came back to the Catholic fold, I was an independent Orthodox priest, and I would sometimes celebrate in the Western Rite. I kept those fingers glued together! If I needed to wipe my face, (and I needed it often, in the Arizona heat) I would have a handkerchief between alb and cassock, and I would grab it claw-wise using the last 3 fingers of my right hand. Now if I can figure out how to do this, then the Celebrant should be able to.

I have to say I will not obsess over this. The abuse (if any) is between the Celebrant and God. I am going to let God figure it out.
 
Frbrendan said:
My understanding is that the priest is not supposed to separate his fingers, as they might have some small fragments of the Body of Christ. I know that he can use the three other fingers to pull and mop his face.

Before I came back to the Catholic fold, I was an independent Orthodox priest, and I would sometimes celebrate in the Western Rite. I kept those fingers glued together! If I needed to wipe my face, (and I needed it often, in the Arizona heat) I would have a handkerchief between alb and cassock, and I would grab it claw-wise using the last 3 fingers of my right hand. Now if I can figure out how to do this, then the Celebrant should be able to.

I have to say I will not obsess over this. The abuse (if any) is between the Celebrant and God. I am going to let God figure it out.
Click to expand...
Fr.,

First of all, welcome back, and I’m sure bring a unique perspective via your experience in the Eastern rite!

What I was trying to say is that I would not see this behavior as an “abuse”, as I would have to conclude it was neither premeditated nor intentional: the priest didn’t set out to separate his fingers! Or at least I would think it safe to assume so.

Blessings to you.
 
The priest at my TLM uses a hand towel frequently for sweat, but only after the Host is back in the tabernacle.

Liturgical abuses in the TLM are extremely rare- changing the wording is pointless because no one could understand the difference anyway, and the type of priest who takes the time to learn the TLM usually isn’t interested in being “creative”.

The only thing that happens semi-frequently is that the Canon of the Mass is said audibly- whether on purposely or because the priest doesn’t know better I don’t know.
 
lol, we’re worrying about a little perspiration when we have liturgical abuses galore in the so called “ordinary rite.” I wish that would be our biggest concern, but there are bigger battles.
 
stuart12 said:
i seen that he kept wiping his brow, but i would rather have him do that than to keep dripping all over the place 🙂
Click to expand...
Amen! Don’t care who you are or what you’re doing, if you’re sweating wipe yourself off! I don’t think that was an abuse, nor that Our Lord or anyone else would mind in the slightest.
 
I have noticed that examples of so-called “abuses” in the EF Mass are generally minor things like this. Other examples are rushing through the Mass, mispronouncing the Latin, flubbing some aspects out of laziness, and things like that. Since the EF does not allow room for much variation in the rubrics, there isn’t really a lot one can get away with in the name of “the Spirit of the Council of Trent” or “Spirit of Vatican I.”

The OF Mass, on the other hand, allows for a lot of variation/“incultration”, and fosters a sort of familiarity that invites abuse. If the OF was more standardized, and the myriad of options, variations, and “incultration” elements removed, we would probably see fewer abuses there as well (Pope Benedict seems to be moving in this direction - however, he should issue a direct order to the Bishops to comply, under pain of excommunication, as that is the only way his directives will ever be implemented in some dioceses…).
 
The man who is accused of committing an “abuse” is actually my parish priest.

He is the most intelligent, most committed priest I think I have ever met in my entire life.

He’s recently been promoted to head up the ICKSP seminary in Italy, and everyone will miss him.

He took a closed parish in the middle of the ghetto and turned it into the most healthy, most orthodox parish in the country, in my opinion.

As for the sweating, he would wipe his brow from time to time in our Church, because we didn’t have air conditioning and had several hundred folks at every Mass, in which he was decked out in all the vestments in 95 degree weather. It’s no matter though, because he is the best homilist and has the most easy-flowing Latin of anyone I’ve heard.

I was thrilled and saddened to see him on EWTN.
 
PrayforMallory2 said:
The man who is accused of committing an “abuse” is actually my parish priest.

He is the most intelligent, most committed priest I think I have ever met in my entire life.

He’s recently been promoted to head up the ICKSP seminary in Italy, and everyone will miss him.

He took a closed parish in the middle of the ghetto and turned it into the most healthy, most orthodox parish in the country, in my opinion.

As for the sweating, he would wipe his brow from time to time in our Church, because we didn’t have air conditioning and had several hundred folks at every Mass, in which he was decked out in all the vestments in 95 degree weather. It’s no matter though, because he is the best homilist and has the most easy-flowing Latin of anyone I’ve heard.

I was thrilled and saddened to see him on EWTN.
Click to expand...
Anyone who’d pick on him must have an ulterior motive.

Why ‘saddened’ to see him on EWTN? Because you lost him?
 
PrayforMallory2 said:
The man who is accused of committing an “abuse” is actually my parish priest.

He is the most intelligent, most committed priest I think I have ever met in my entire life.

He’s recently been promoted to head up the ICKSP seminary in Italy, and everyone will miss him.

He took a closed parish in the middle of the ghetto and turned it into the most healthy, most orthodox parish in the country, in my opinion.

As for the sweating, he would wipe his brow from time to time in our Church, because we didn’t have air conditioning and had several hundred folks at every Mass, in which he was decked out in all the vestments in 95 degree weather. It’s no matter though, because he is the best homilist and has the most easy-flowing Latin of anyone I’ve heard.

I was thrilled and saddened to see him on EWTN.
Click to expand...
A-freaking-men. Go Father lenhardt!

I will wholeheartedly agree with everything save for the homilist part. Fr. Karl is a great homilist but the provincial ICRSS superior, Monsignor Schmitz, is probably the best homilist I’ve ever heard.

Reichsjager
 
Paul_Folbrecht said:
Anyone who’d pick on him must have an ulterior motive.

Why ‘saddened’ to see him on EWTN? Because you lost him?
Click to expand...
Precisely. When I hear “priest”, I automatically think “Fr. Karl”, he’s all that and a bag of chips, everything someone in Holy Orders should be. It should say enough about him that his own order wants him to personally run their Motherhouse. The list of things he has done for his flock and the St. Louis Church are too numerous to post on here.

St. Louis has really gotten hosed in the past year. First we lose one of the best Archbishops we’ve ever had (Abp. Burke) and now the diocese is losing its best Priest. Sux for us.
 
Fr Brendan, if you have a concern about this priest’s actions, instead of complaining to people who either know nothing about the alleged ‘abuse’ or could do nothing about it even if they had watched the Mass, why don’t you contact EWTN with your concerns.? :mad:

But did he burn that handkerchief afterward? And what about the Alb, how would that have been purified?

How on earth would anyone on these forums know the answer to those questions? Pick up the phone and call the priest; you have his name from this thread. :mad:
 
I think Fr. Brendan’s post is a tongue-in-cheek twitting of those people who think there is no such thing as abuses in the EF.
 
bpbasilphx said:
I think Fr. Brendan’s post is a tongue-in-cheek twitting of those people who think there is no such thing as abuses in the EF.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, then it was a ludicrous and absolutely insulting exercise. Fr. Karl is a great and pious priest. Accusing him of “abuse” is slander. End of. :mad:
 
Anacletus said:
If that’s the case, then it was a ludicrous and absolutely insulting exercise. Fr. Karl is a great and pious priest. Accusing him of “abuse” is slander. End of. :mad:
Click to expand...
If that IS the case, maybe we should pause, pray— and pray fervently that this mockery of that which is Holy ceases. Since when did it become ok to mock the making present again of Christ’s Self-Sacrifice?

I do realize that this fact is not at all “in your face” in the new Mass as it is in the Mass of the Ages, but the Mass is Calvary. Archbishop Fulton Sheen wrote a book explaining it. Check amazon.com for “Calvary and the Mass.”
 
Hey,

I just checked the “game tape” he clearly reaches in his sleeve with three fingers and draws the cloth out keeping his thumb and forefinger together.

Fr. Lenhardt rocks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top