M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Anybody know when Liturgical Abuses started to happen? Was it before Vatican Council II or was it always around?
- Status
G
geezerbob
Guest
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.
J
jbuck919
Guest
I was around though very young when this started, but that’s true of a number of people, so I am not trying to have an authoritative say, but here are some thoughts for what they are worth, and they are not back-constructions but things I recognized even at the time they were first becoming apparent.
One thing that has to be understood is how desperate many younger priests were at the time for some freedom from the stringency of the TLM (I am not evaluating this, just reporting it). They couldn’t wait until the day when they did not have to hold their thumb and index finger together after the consecration. It was very much analogous to, say, the Rumsrpinga of an Amish adolescent. Give them an inch, and they took a mile. And who in a modern society can honestly blame them? The problem is, they are now our senior pastors and bishops, if not already themselves retired.
To someone for whom every syllable of worship was prescribed in a language he never properly learned even after years of alleged study and every bodily motion prescribed by a strict rubric, the prospect of being able to “do it” in the vernacular and with less stringent rubrics was irresistable. That is why we have an informal (and execrable) standard of priests making things up as they go along. In the plainest possible English, liturgical abuses are an enduring legacy to an overreaction to previously existing liturgical stringencies and the accidentals surrounding them. And nobody, including apparently three successive popes (JP I being out of the picture), quite how to stop it.
One thing that has to be understood is how desperate many younger priests were at the time for some freedom from the stringency of the TLM (I am not evaluating this, just reporting it). They couldn’t wait until the day when they did not have to hold their thumb and index finger together after the consecration. It was very much analogous to, say, the Rumsrpinga of an Amish adolescent. Give them an inch, and they took a mile. And who in a modern society can honestly blame them? The problem is, they are now our senior pastors and bishops, if not already themselves retired.
To someone for whom every syllable of worship was prescribed in a language he never properly learned even after years of alleged study and every bodily motion prescribed by a strict rubric, the prospect of being able to “do it” in the vernacular and with less stringent rubrics was irresistable. That is why we have an informal (and execrable) standard of priests making things up as they go along. In the plainest possible English, liturgical abuses are an enduring legacy to an overreaction to previously existing liturgical stringencies and the accidentals surrounding them. And nobody, including apparently three successive popes (JP I being out of the picture), quite how to stop it.
C
cathsem
Guest
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.
D
decn2b
Guest
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. 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.
L
LittleRose
Guest
Liturgical abuses have existed since the beginnings of liturgy. Just read some of the stuff the early church fathers dealt with during the first centuries of the church. Most of the things people post about here are unique to this time period in church history, and on these forums, most of the ones you will hear about here are going to be dated from Vatican II, but since it is in sinful human nature to twist things, liturgical abuse is an ancient phenomenon.
D
decn2b
Guest
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.
O
OutinChgoburbs
Guest
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.
N
netmilsmom
Guest
In my humble opinion, EGO starts Liturgical Abuses.
The thought that “This is good, but I can do it better.”
The thought that “This is good, but I can do it better.”
M
MrS
Guest
That is quite right (IMHO). The “bad seeds” were planted using Vatican II as an excuse… and the “fertilizer” that made the stuff grow was the serious lack of oversight/backbone of too many priests and bishops.
Water that with laity whose pride, or zeal, or whatever caused them to promote their own agenda… and
Let’s just say that B16 has a lot to handle… let’s pray that he
returns the liturgy to its proper place
returns the clergy to its proper place
returns the laity to its proper place.
.
D
decn2b
Guest
Looks like we all agree then 
The onset of the new relativism was brought on by the culture of the 60s.
The onset of the new relativism was brought on by the culture of the 60s.
E
Elzee
Guest
I think the root of it is arrogance. Any priest or lay person who wants to disregard the rules of the Mass because they have a ‘better idea’, has a bit of arrogance.
Our American society, in particular, is very independent-minded - people do not like submitting to authority. This mindset carries on into the faith life of many when it comes to “Rome”.
Our American society, in particular, is very independent-minded - people do not like submitting to authority. This mindset carries on into the faith life of many when it comes to “Rome”.
K
kleary
Guest
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
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
What started liturgical abuses? The Fall.
When did they start? The acts of Trent have lists of abuses we could not even imagine today, but I’m assuming abuses date back even farther, essentially to as soon as fixed texts and rubrics came into being.
When did modern abuses start? Well, I know the liturgical movement before Vatican II involved some individuals who, for instance, used dialogue Masses before they were officially allowed, but the ball really got rolling when people heard after the council that experimentation was allowed. Granted, experimentation was supposed to be a tightly controlled phenomenon at select locations, but Abp. Bugnini’s history of the reform gives the impression that the Consilium’s attitude was much closer to “Hey, how are we gonna stop 'em?” There was a fever at the time, as we can see best in the (at the time) grossly illicit introduction of communion in the hand in the Netherlands, to the effect that everything was up for grabs and permission would be coming sooner rather than later, so why not start now.
When did they start? The acts of Trent have lists of abuses we could not even imagine today, but I’m assuming abuses date back even farther, essentially to as soon as fixed texts and rubrics came into being.
When did modern abuses start? Well, I know the liturgical movement before Vatican II involved some individuals who, for instance, used dialogue Masses before they were officially allowed, but the ball really got rolling when people heard after the council that experimentation was allowed. Granted, experimentation was supposed to be a tightly controlled phenomenon at select locations, but Abp. Bugnini’s history of the reform gives the impression that the Consilium’s attitude was much closer to “Hey, how are we gonna stop 'em?” There was a fever at the time, as we can see best in the (at the time) grossly illicit introduction of communion in the hand in the Netherlands, to the effect that everything was up for grabs and permission would be coming sooner rather than later, so why not start now.
C
ComradeAndrei
Guest
As well as priests and bishops from France and the Netherlands coming up with new Eucharistic prayers without any permission. Priests in Germany started saying Mass towards the people in the 1930’s. All the horrid church architecture started in the 1920s (with the TLM still firmly established, mind you). The problems existed well before the Council but were certainly exacerbated by the zeitgeist of the 1960’s.
When the rubrics were loosened up, everything festering underneath a veneer of reverence and piety burst out into the open. Then you have the iconoclasm of destroying all things traditional in order to be amongst the “newest is best” crowd of progressive modernist types. You don’t know whatcha got, 'til it’s gone…
When the rubrics were loosened up, everything festering underneath a veneer of reverence and piety burst out into the open. Then you have the iconoclasm of destroying all things traditional in order to be amongst the “newest is best” crowd of progressive modernist types. You don’t know whatcha got, 'til it’s gone…
H
Holland
Guest
I agree. It is an easy mistake to make. Well meaning, very good people seek to make the Liturgy more uplifting and meaningful by changing it. We don’t have to change the Liturgy, if our hearts are open, the Liturgy will change us!
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
In my opinion, there was a “confluence” of factors.
Vatican II (or, rather, a “mistranslation” of Vatican II) was merely one of them.
The Vietnam War was another factor. A lot of men who wanted to avoid the draft went to seminaries instead. And they took their “anti-war” ideology and agenda with them. The result was inocculation of an “anti-establishment” movement into the heart of the Church, as these men moved up within the Church hierarchy.
Another factor was Liberation Theology … sort of a quasi-socialist/Marxist/leftist/romanticized-Che-Guevara collection of feelings. It appealed to certain cultural groups and also migrated to the United States.
Another factor was the “go with your feelings/Woodstock” movement that got into the Church.
Some priests have also complained to me about the “encrustation” of practices that had crept in … for example, the rubric required that the bread for the Consecration be blessed three times prior to the actual Consecration.
Another factor was the influence of what I will call “psychotherapy” on the religious orders. There were specific individuals who went in and used their authority of vocabulary to cause the religious to question themselves and to accept secular ideas as being equal to religious thought.
There was this effort at “democratization” (small D) … we are all equal and the priest is just one of us. Priests were encouraged to engage in “happy talk” similar to what happened to news broadcasts …
There were other factors as well.
The result was to undermine the authority of pastors, an effort at “horizontal prayer” (whatever that is) to flatten out the rubrics [the result is that laypeople would say the words of Consecration or hold their hands in the say way as prescribed for the Priest].
Somewhere around here I have a copy of a 100-year-old encyclical on Secular Humanism but which is relevant as it describes many of the issues that have actuall come to pass.
In the words of the Pope, “the smoke of Satan has come under the door of the Church”.
Vatican II (or, rather, a “mistranslation” of Vatican II) was merely one of them.
The Vietnam War was another factor. A lot of men who wanted to avoid the draft went to seminaries instead. And they took their “anti-war” ideology and agenda with them. The result was inocculation of an “anti-establishment” movement into the heart of the Church, as these men moved up within the Church hierarchy.
Another factor was Liberation Theology … sort of a quasi-socialist/Marxist/leftist/romanticized-Che-Guevara collection of feelings. It appealed to certain cultural groups and also migrated to the United States.
Another factor was the “go with your feelings/Woodstock” movement that got into the Church.
Some priests have also complained to me about the “encrustation” of practices that had crept in … for example, the rubric required that the bread for the Consecration be blessed three times prior to the actual Consecration.
Another factor was the influence of what I will call “psychotherapy” on the religious orders. There were specific individuals who went in and used their authority of vocabulary to cause the religious to question themselves and to accept secular ideas as being equal to religious thought.
There was this effort at “democratization” (small D) … we are all equal and the priest is just one of us. Priests were encouraged to engage in “happy talk” similar to what happened to news broadcasts …
There were other factors as well.
The result was to undermine the authority of pastors, an effort at “horizontal prayer” (whatever that is) to flatten out the rubrics [the result is that laypeople would say the words of Consecration or hold their hands in the say way as prescribed for the Priest].
Somewhere around here I have a copy of a 100-year-old encyclical on Secular Humanism but which is relevant as it describes many of the issues that have actuall come to pass.
In the words of the Pope, “the smoke of Satan has come under the door of the Church”.
B
buffalo
Guest
When we started expecting the Mass to be entertainment.
L
LSK
Guest
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…
- Status