Curiousity; What started Liturgical Abuses?

[MrS]

Original Sin and I believe they started about three or four days after one of the Apostles left an area to go somewhere else to teach…

 

[Traditional_Ang]

As a seminarian, I have the advantage of being able to directly ask (tactfully) questions like this. Based on some priests that I’ve spoken to, jbuck’s analysis is on target. Some heard God’s call to the priesthood before the council, but felt relieved when the highly stringent rubrics were relaxed. It was the sad case that some stopped caring about the rubrics altogether; others still wanted to be obedient to the Church, but were never taught how to properly celebrate the Liturgy. As a result, some have been doing things wrong for 37 years now (and counting). I should point out that the priest that I asked about this is one of Spiritual Directors here at the seminary and is a man of deep faith and love for the Church. He does faithfully celebrate the Liturgy as prescribed by the Church.

Cathsem:

I once saw a book from the 50’s discussing the liturgy. It never once discussed WHY anything was done, only that it is the way it was done. This was even in response to direct “Why?” questions where a true besides “This is the way we do it” was called for.

It’s only as I’ve understood how the Divine Liturgy causes heaven to be joined to earth as it’s joined to the Heavenly Liturgy (while the priest stands in persona Christi offering the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross at Calvery to God the Father so that He can feed the assembled body of Christ the Body and Blood of Christ Broken and Shed on that Cross), that I’ve understood why it’s important to do things the way they’re done.

It would be hard for me to follow these dozens of rubricks if I didn’t understand WHY I was supposed to do them.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Petergee]

The most profound and widespread abuses started with VII. I wasn’t there as I am too young (only 40 years old). I was told there were abuses here and there…but the widespread abuse grew out of the “spirit of Vatican II” . VII couln’t have happened at a worse time.

Do you want to be the one to tell the Holy Spirit that he made a boo-boo in its timing?

It concluded at the dawn of the the era where youth and young adults questioned authority of all kinds. you know the 60s revolution…free spirit, sex, drugs, rock and roll, and major social change. This is the generation that gave us Schutte, and the other song writers for OCP along with the youngish crop of theologians like curran, Mcbrein, Shcillebx (sic), and Kung. It was already a very tumultuous time in the world and VII fell victim to it…at least the “spirit” of VII. It seems as though the only thing people heard about VII was the word CHANGE. and they left everything else out.

Has it occurred to you that if V2 had not occurred, the influences which you mention may have had an even WORSE effect on the Church?

 

[Linuse]

In the Catholic Church–abuses of the liturgy–the first one that I read about often is contained in I Cor. 11. And I can remember lots of abuses before VII–the one that was most annoying to me–the rosary beads drumming against the pews that were a constant distraction during mass; And even worse–the rosary prayed out loud during mass while the priest was doing his thing quietly at the altar.

 

[Evan]

I remember in the 50’s we had a priest who had an injury that required he drink (he could not eat) some sustinence every 2 hours (24 hours a day). SO he had permission to remove many parts of the mass (Epistle, Gospel, Homily). One guy in the parish timed the mass.

Usually it was 22 minutes long, but on a quick day, it was as short as 18 minutes.

On the other hand the priest would offer a mass at any time of the day or night. Just stop by the rectory and ask him. He said he was either up, going to bed, or getting up all night long. SO anytime you want a mass, he was there.

I remember reading the history of the mass and there was a point when Rome promulgated the correct form (the Roman mass). It went to France where Charlemange and his bishops ‘fixed’ it. (They thought bells sounded better during the consecration rather than a mallet hitting a log). This would be considered an abuse today…thus creating the Franco-Roman mass. The Germans like the modifications, but they made a few changes: to get it right… More abuses and the Germanic-Franco-Roman mass. It was brought to Rome by a bishop who was elevated to cardinal and Rome liked it and made some fixes (more abuses) and thus generated the Roman-Germanic-Franco-Roman mass.

I think this mass was the basis (with a few fixes…or abuses) that eventually begat the Trindentine mass.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Do you want to be the one to tell the Holy Spirit that he made a boo-boo in its timing?

While the Church teaches the Holy Spirit protects ecumenical councils from promulgating error, she nowhere claims the *convoking *of a council to be a protected action. So we shouldn’t make the mistake of assuming that just because we had a council from '62-'65 we can somehow actually know that the Holy Spirit wanted a council to take place at that time.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

I remember reading the history of the mass and there was a point when Rome promulgated the correct form (the Roman mass). It went to France where Charlemange and his bishops ‘fixed’ it. (They thought bells sounded better during the consecration rather than a mallet hitting a log). This would be considered an abuse today…thus creating the Franco-Roman mass. The Germans like the modifications, but they made a few changes: to get it right… More abuses and the Germanic-Franco-Roman mass. It was brought to Rome by a bishop who was elevated to cardinal and Rome liked it and made some fixes (more abuses) and thus generated the Roman-Germanic-Franco-Roman mass.

I think this mass was the basis (with a few fixes…or abuses) that eventually begat the Trindentine mass.

Well, it’s true that the Mass changed as it moved from Rome to the Holy Roman Empire and back again, but it’s not true that this was the result of abuse. We would consider the same sort of changes abuse today if the missal were given to them under conditions as we are used to them, but the important thing to remember about liturgical books for much if not most of Christian history is that there was not a push for uniformity like we have today. Nearly every diocese had its own particular use. These would exhibit very great commonality, but liturgical regulation was seen as the bishop’s purview, not a matter for universal legislation. When Charlemagne requested the Roman books, the pope wasn’t requiring the Franks to use them - he just honored the emperor’s request. It was Charlemagne, not the pope, who was interested in achieving liturgical uniformity.

Even when Pius V suppressed all books younger than 200 years old, this would have preserved an incredible diversity of diocesan and religious rites. It just so happened, though, that most dioceses decided to adopt the Roman usage. The point even of the Pian missal, though, was not to achieve uniformity but to combat abuse, which is why any venerable rite could still be celebrated (in its proper locale).

 

[rwoehmke]

Reading this thread put me in mind of the Jewish practices of offering sacrifices in the Temple when God spoke through one or more of the prophets that it was not sacrifice that he wanted but their love. They were basically in my opinion following "rubrics"but their hearts were far from Him. Then you have at least some of the pagan religions in Rome where they, like some Christians I have known today, “have god in a box.” If we do the ritual, rubrics , and prayers just so then the god has no choice but to give us what we ask for. I am not saying that rubrics and forms of prayer are unimportant, but merely pointing out that sometimes, some folks get so tied up in the details that they are more focused on them than on the God we worship. I have to wonder that if the rules before Vatican II were so detailed and strict, how could the poor priest pay any attention to the God he was bringing down upon the altar? I would add lest I get chopped to pieces on this that Polka Masses, Liturgical Dance, etc. are things I also find repugnant. So I am not advocating that any old innovation is fine with me. My daughter attended a funeral Mass for a friend at the infamous Joan of Arc in St. Paul and came home and said to me that she wasn’t sure it was a Catholic Church so obviously some standards are necessary. .

 

[Ecclesiasticus]

The current abuses started with VII, but I can remember things that could be considered abuses long before that. Two priests come to mind who tried to see how fast they could finish mass, so much so that one of them was nicknamed “Quick Nick” by his peers. While they fulfilled the technical requirements for mass, it certainly wasn’t the reverent and reflective celebration it should have been. I’m sure other older members can come up with some other stories.

[Edited by Moderator]

Actual liturgical abuses are a product of three things: pride, ignorant and/or actual necessity. I would suggest the latter is quite rare.

 

[Phemie]

This is strictly my opinion, but I don’t think it has so much to do with VII as it does with the path Society has taken toward relativism. It’s an anything goes world out there. A priest or a layperson reads a book by somebody who is not writing with Church permission, but has a collar or teaches at a Church-sponsored school. People see stuff like Willow Creek, for example, and other megachurches, see the crowds, and they begin to wonder how they can apply it. All of the sudden, the bright idea for innovation leaps up- usually a bad idea. Somebody attends Mass someplace else and carries the innovation with them as a “bright idea” or uses it at a Mass for a particular group or function. And it spreads. It doesn’t make it right. It just means it happens.

What you describe is how the Tridentine came to have the form it has. Accretions from other places/rites brought into it over the years. NO, I’m not suggesting that that was abuse, just that it’s how we came to have the Extraordinary Rite we have today.

 

[Phemie]

Saying the Low Mass too fast was one I hear from people at my TLM parish…other than that here in America you possibly could find some omitting liturgical kisses.

Other than that there was no possible way to have any liturgical abuses, in the mannar they have been happening today- because the actions of the priest were strictly controlled by the Roman Missal.

As a former MC at the TLM I can tell you that alongside the words the priest says at certain places there are instructions- even to instruct him where to look at certain times (at the crucifix several times in the Roman Canon), how to hold his hands, when to kiss the paten.

So it seems impossible for any “abuses” to take place.

Ken

The thing is that back in those days nobody would have known the difference anyway and there would have been no discussion of it even if they had known because you didn’t criticize Father. Actually in our home you didn’t speak of the priest at all the motto being 'not even to say something good in fear that you might say something bad".

 

[buffalo]

Messing with the Mass: The problem of priestly narcissism today

Since Vatican II the Mass has fallen victim to various kinds of irregularities. This issue has been much discussed from various perspectives, but in this article we will examine a previously neglected aspect of the situation — namely, the psychological reasons why priests have introduced these changes. We will not deal with theological explanations for why the Mass has been subject to liturgical experimentation, nor will we discuss liturgical rationales for such innovations. Instead, we will focus on the psychology of the priest and those assisting at the liturgy — that is, on the psychological motives as distinct from theological and liturgical reasoning. We propose that the primary motivation behind many of these changes derives from underlying narcissistic motives — that is, extreme self love — found in many people in contemporary culture. This is especially the case with the relatively small changes introduced in an idiosyncratic way into the Mass. We first summarize and describe the nature of this narcissism, then apply it to the situation found among priests.

more…

 

[Joannm]

I agree, however I should have put emphasis on WIDESPREAD abuses. THere have been abuses throughout the centuries but they have never been this widespread. WHole entire practices have been allowed to creep into our Liturgy. Hand holding is a perfect example of widespread meaning it is done almost everywhere.

i only know of one parish in our diocese where hand holding is a regular occurance. In others maybe a family or a group of friends does it. SO it is not as widespread as you think.

 

[ElizabethPH]

I remember as a kid at one parish we sometimes attended the priest would gather the children in the sanctuary for the whole Mass. We would just sit around on the floor. I never liked that…mainly because it was uncomfortable we had to sit on a cold marble floor and with a dress on that just didn’t work so well for me; and even at such a young age I felt it wasn’t right to do. This was in the 50’s.

 

[palmas85]

Anybody know when Liturgical Abuses started to happen? Was it before Vatican Council II or was it always around?

Whenever a Priest or a layperson in some area of the Liturgy thought they knew a better more relevant way and proceeded to try to impose that on the congregation and the Mass itself. It has always been around to one degree or another.