Did abuses exist pre-Vatican II?

[Daprato]

Probably not the horrible Offertory though.

Who are you to label any part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as “horrible?” C"mon…

I believe the poster was making a point of abuses that became so out of control that it finally lead to tolerance by the Church. I really doubt there was an MP issued by the Pope to approve such liberal novelties.

I’m not at all sure that the approval of either communion-in-hand nor female altar servers by the Holy See was a product of abuse. In the former, many suggest it was a desire by the Church to give the option of what was allowed in the early church.

 

[daeve]

Who are you to label any part of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as “horrible?” C"mon…

I’m not at all sure that the approval of either communion-in-hand nor female altar servers by the Holy See was a product of abuse. In the former, many suggest it was a desire by the Church to give the option of what was allowed in the early church.

I’ve got to echo that first statement. Maybe a legacy from when I was a kid, but it’s part of the Mass, and not up to me to criticize.

Dancing in the aisles is one thing, but the parts of the Mass that are authorized shouldn’t be constantly put down. If I don’t like some part of the Mass, I think I’ll just keep quiet. This would seem to fall under obedience to me.

 

[bear06]

There’s always been ups and downs.

Read the unabridged version of St. Catherine of Siena’s Dialogue. Priests would omit the words of consecrations since no one could hear them anyway. Priests and bishops would bring their mistresses and children and sit them in the front pew. Bishops would make their illegitimate sons priests and not train them at all–they wouldn’t even know Latin. They’d just butcher the whole Mass just uttering gibberish so it wasn’t even recognizable,

The feigned Masses (no words of consecration) were so widespread they received a formal condemnation from Pope Innocent III. The Fourth Lateran Council also had to address the abuses involving filthy churches and sacred vessels, and churches used for all sorts of profane uses like storing furniture and the priest’s personal junk. There was so much squalor it would “horrify” people according to the Council.

The acts of the Council of Trent also list a great many liturgical abuses.

In the early Church, we see St. Basil calling churches “schools of impiety” lamenting all the traditions unlawfully cast aside and the innovations introduced into worship (letters 90 and 92).

Then there were the Mass of Asses where a donkey was brought in the sanctuary and the people hee-hawed the responses and the Mass of Fools where youth pretended to be bishops and priests and essentially put on a burlesque show in the church.

Anyway, where there are sinful men, there will be rebellious or lazy men. This is not to downplay abuses, but just to keep a proper perspective. Pray for priests…

Yes, we need to take ourselves off our own personal timeline and look at history. We are definitely going through a rough period. There have always been bad periods and there will always be so thanks to original sin. History repeats itself endlessly. Hopefully we can learn from it and learn how to react properly to it because, unfortunately, peoples’ improper reactions to the abuses also repeats itself. What’s the saying? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

The words to the canon can be changed in the Tridentine Mass as well. Either can be abused.

Well for instance, the credo goes back centuries and many canonized saints have prayed it…

Yes, technically either canon can be abused, it’s just that I’ve actually heard of examples of it being done in the Novus Ordo.

Yes, the credo goes back centuries, however I was wondering about the Saints who have prayed the prayers specific to the Pauline Mass. Thanks.

 

[daeve]

Yes, technically either canon can be abused, it’s just that I’ve actually heard of examples of it being done in the Novus Ordo.

Yes, the credo goes back centuries, however I was wondering about the Saints who have prayed the prayers specific to the Pauline Mass. Thanks.

I hope I’m not showing my ignorance or lack of education, but how about the Our Father, Holy Holy Holy, Lamb of God. Don’t those count?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

I hope I’m not showing my ignorance or lack of education, but how about the Our Father, Holy Holy Holy, Lamb of God. Don’t those count?

I’m basically asking what canonized Saints have prayed the Pauline Mass that was instituted in the 1960’s, and more specifically the prayers that were added or altered to form that Mass.

 

[Daprato]

Yes, we need to take ourselves off our own personal timeline and look at history. We are definitely going through a rough period. There have always been bad periods and there will always be so thanks to original sin. History repeats itself endlessly. Hopefully we can learn from it and learn how to react properly to it because, unfortunately, peoples’ improper reactions to the abuses also repeats itself. What’s the saying? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it?

You’re very correct to say we need to take things in context – time being very important.

I really don’t think the Church is in that bad a shape in the USA from a liturgical standpoint at least compared to other periods – say the late 1960’s through 2000 or so. Many of the old excuses just no longer hold water…

 

[bear06]

I’m basically asking what canonized Saints have prayed the Pauline Mass that was instituted in the 1960’s, and more specifically the prayers that were added or altered to form that Mass.

Here’s some on St. Escriva:

Towards the liturgy

Monsignor Escrivá saying Mass
Cover image from the book Homelias eucaristicas de San Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, commented by Msgr. Javier Echevarría, 2003.Escrivá considered the Mass as the “center and root of the Christian’s interior life,” a terminology which was later used by the Second Vatican Council.[13] According to Giovanni Battista Cardinal Re, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, “St. Josemaría strove with all his strength to make the Eucharist the center of his life…For him, Jesus was not an example to imitate from afar, an abstract moral ideal, but his Jesus, a person we should live alongside continuously.”

The present Opus Dei prelate Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez said that Escrivá strove to follow whatever was indicated by the competent authority regarding the celebration of Mass. When the new rites were adapted by the Catholic Church after Vatican II, Echevarria said that Escrivá “accepted the reform with serenity and obedience.” Since his prayer was much integrated with the liturgy for the past 40 years, Escrivá found the shift difficult and asked Álvaro del Portillo, one of his assistants, to coach him in celebrating the new rites. Although he missed the practices of the old rites, he prohibited del Portillo to ask for any dispensation for him “out of a spirit of obedience to ecclesiastical norms.” However, when Msgr. Annibale Bugnini, Secretary of the Consilium for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, found out about Escrivá’s difficulties, he granted Escrivá the possibility of celebrating the Mass using the old rite. Escrivá celebrated this rite only in private.[14][15][16]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josemar%C3%ADa_Escriv%C3%A1#_note-12

I find it funny that anyone would expect a bunch of saints to have prayed the Novus Ordo because if there were a bunch of them, then people would be up in arms that there were a bunch of them because they would consider them to have been canonized too quickly.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Here’s some on St. Escriva:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josemar%C3%ADa_Escriv%C3%A1#_note-12

I find it funny that anyone would expect a bunch of saints to have prayed the Novus Ordo because if there were a bunch of them, then people would be up in arms that there were a bunch of them because they would consider them to have been canonized too quickly.

Yes, I don’t think there would be many because the time frame is too short.

 

[Pious_Mat]

I’m not at all sure that the approval of either communion-in-hand nor female altar servers by the Holy See was a product of abuse. In the former, many suggest it was a desire by the Church to give the option of what was allowed in the early church.

Not exactly true…

Communion in the hand was originally started by Bishops in certain countries with “progressive” views. In an attempt to stop any conflict, Paul VI (who is generally regarded as a passive Pope, and whom B. John XXIII called “Our Hamlet” for his indecisiveness) decided to grant those countries an indult to legitimize the practice. The United States, which had no Bishops vying for the practice, asked to fall under the indult, and believe it or not, go it. We in North America seem to forget that the indult does not cover all countries, and that in some parts of the wold, recieving in the hand is an abuse. Pope John Paul II, who came from a country that does not fall under the indult, had some resevervations about communion in the hand.

As for altar girls, the 1917 Code of Canon Law prohibits it, and since the 1983 Code of Canon Law says it should only occur when necessary. It was only in 1994 that the practice was validated, but in many parishes has been practiced since the 1970s. What prompted the 1994 allowance? Given the fact that it was not JPII who issued the document, but rather one his subordinates, it is altogether possible that this was a deja vu of the communion in the hand incident.

 

[Daprato]

Not exactly true…

Communion in the hand was originally started by Bishops in certain countries with “progressive” views. In an attempt to stop any conflict, Paul VI (who is generally regarded as a passive Pope…

Not exactly true. Communion-in-hand began with Jesus Christ at the Last Supper – “TAKE, eat, this is My Body…”

As for altar girls, the 1917 Code of Canon Law prohibits it, and since the 1983 Code of Canon Law says it should only occur when necessary. It was only in 1994 that the practice was validated, but in many parishes has been practiced since the 1970s. What prompted the 1994 allowance? Given the fact that it was not JPII who issued the document, but rather one his subordinates, it is altogether possible that this was a deja vu of the communion in the hand incident.

It’s speculation on your part about what drove the 1994 change. The fact is, nothing in the Church’s deposit of faith prohibits (or has ever prohibited) women from serving at the altar.

What bothers me greatly is that the 1994 allowance was not clearly and directly communicated and EXPLAINED by the Pope. It was a white-hot issue and it deserved strong leadership for people to better accept it. Some of this “subtleness” nonsense does far more harm than any actual change, and does nothing but fuel speculation.

 

[Linuse]

Abuses–pre-VII. definitely. As a kid and looking back now I can see some horrendous abuses–that were even sanctioned. When praying the Rosary is more important than participating in the Mass–what an abuse! As a kid, I can remember the beads clicking against the pew at every Mass.
In the minor seminary, we had one priest that his daily mass was 5 minutes–as impossible as that sounds. When he had the solemn Sunday High Mass–Deacon, subdeacon, and sermon–15-20 minutes. The Sanctus would still be in the singing stage as he approached the great Amen.
Benediction–a non-liturgical prayer service was made to appear more important than the main litugical service of the Church–the Mass. We even lit more candles and brought out the incense for that even before Mass was over.
As a server in grade school, I don’t think I ever finished one of the response the servers said before the priest cut us off. And we were always trying to race through them to get them said before we were cut off.
The people part of the Mass–forget it. It was the priest, the servers, and the organist soloist &/or choir. The people just sat there–that’s not quite true–they were praying the rosary, often out loud.
I find the present Mass so much more respectful and meaningful. We now unite in praying (some still don’t join in) and celebrating the Mass. We no longer have a reason to withdraw into our own private corner, praying whatever private prayers we choose. Now we are encouraged to be a community celebrating God’s presence and activity in our lives.

 

[Daprato]

Abuses–pre-VII. definitely. As a kid and looking back now I can see some horrendous abuses–that were even sanctioned. When praying the Rosary is more important than participating in the Mass**–what an abuse! ** As a kid, I can remember the beads clicking against the pew at every Mass.
In the minor seminary, we had one priest that his daily mass was 5 minutes–as impossible as that sounds. When he had the solemn Sunday High Mass–Deacon, subdeacon, and sermon–15-20 minutes. The Sanctus would still be in the singing stage as he approached the great Amen.
Benediction–a non-liturgical prayer service was made to appear more important than the main litugical service of the Church–the Mass. We even lit more candles and brought out the incense for that even before Mass was over.
As a server in grade school, I don’t think I ever finished one of the response the servers said before the priest cut us off. And we were always trying to race through them to get them said before we were cut off.
The people part of the Mass–forget it. It was the priest, the servers, and the organist soloist &/or choir. The people just sat there–that’s not quite true–they were praying the rosary, often out loud.
I find the present Mass so much more respectful and meaningful. We now unite in praying (some still don’t join in) and celebrating the Mass. We no longer have a reason to withdraw into our own private corner, praying whatever private prayers we choose. Now we are encouraged to be a community celebrating God’s presence and activity in our lives.

No question it goes both ways. There are highly reverent and solemn Tridentine Masses AND Pauline Masses, and highly profane versions of each as well. My absolute hands-down favorite would be the Pauline Mass as celebrated on EWTN is a gorgeous cathedral-setting.

BTW, I think praying of the Rosary was (is?) actually permissible, albeit certainly not encouraged. It’s certainly not an “abuse.”

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Abuses–pre-VII. definitely. As a kid and looking back now I can see some horrendous abuses–that were even sanctioned. When praying the Rosary is more important than participating in the Mass–what an abuse! As a kid, I can remember the beads clicking against the pew at every Mass.
In the minor seminary, we had one priest that his daily mass was 5 minutes–as impossible as that sounds. When he had the solemn Sunday High Mass–Deacon, subdeacon, and sermon–15-20 minutes. The Sanctus would still be in the singing stage as he approached the great Amen.
Benediction–a non-liturgical prayer service was made to appear more important than the main litugical service of the Church–the Mass. We even lit more candles and brought out the incense for that even before Mass was over.
As a server in grade school, I don’t think I ever finished one of the response the servers said before the priest cut us off. And we were always trying to race through them to get them said before we were cut off.
The people part of the Mass–forget it. It was the priest, the servers, and the organist soloist &/or choir. The people just sat there–that’s not quite true–they were praying the rosary, often out loud.
I find the present Mass so much more respectful and meaningful. We now unite in praying (some still don’t join in) and celebrating the Mass. We no longer have a reason to withdraw into our own private corner, praying whatever private prayers we choose. Now we are encouraged to be a community celebrating God’s presence and activity in our lives.

Again, this goes to the type of abuse. Yes, it is too bad that some priests rushed through the Mass. And yes, it is best to, as St. Pius X said, “pray the Mass.” However, the rosary is obviously not some god-awful prayer and while it may not be best to pray at Mass it’s not like it’s a horrific abuse. And perhaps Benediction was overemphasized in your parish, yet I’d say that’s a darn sight better than having no Benediction at all.

Further, the prayers one finds in the old missals used with the TLM are quite good and designed to help one participate in (and understand) what is going on at Mass.

I am reminded of this paragraph written by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei:

1. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html

Also, having experienced the TLM (Dominican rite) where the priest, choir, and people all sang parts of the Mass in Latin, I can say that I know of no greater liturgical practice which brings about a sense of community, not just with the people in the pews, but with the Saints throughout the ages.

 

[BobP123]

I’ve got to echo that first statement. Maybe a legacy from when I was a kid, but it’s part of the Mass, and not up to me to criticize.

Well, if I’ve been reading factual material, I’d say the Pope is/has been one of the biggest critics of the New Mass. In fact, he calls it a fabrication. How flattering is that?

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

It’s speculation on your part about what drove the 1994 change. The fact is, nothing in the Church’s deposit of faith prohibits (or has ever prohibited) women from serving at the altar.

What bothers me greatly is that the 1994 allowance was not clearly and directly communicated and EXPLAINED by the Pope. It was a white-hot issue and it deserved strong leadership for people to better accept it. Some of this “subtleness” nonsense does far more harm than any actual change, and does nothing but fuel speculation.

When push comes to shove an altar boy is just another kid in the congregation.
That’s how it should be. If the roof need repairing it’s the adults who have to decide how to raise the money. If some disruptive person enters Mass the adults must protect the host from desecration. If there is no priest an adult must organise prayer. We mustn’t put these burdens, or the privileges that go with them, on the shoulders of young boys.

However it is an insult to altar boys to suggest that their ministry is so ritually unimportant that the sex of the server doesn’t even matter. That’s the truth, but we should pretend that server is only a tiny step below priesthood.

 

[Daprato]

When push comes to shove an altar boy is just another kid in the congregation.
That’s how it should be. If the roof need repairing it’s the adults who have to decide how to raise the money. If some disruptive person enters Mass the adults must protect the host from desecration. If there is no priest an adult must organise prayer. We mustn’t put these burdens, or the privileges that go with them, on the shoulders of young boys.

However it is an insult to altar boys to suggest that their ministry is so ritually unimportant that the sex of the server doesn’t even matter. That’s the truth, but we should pretend that server is only a tiny step below priesthood.

No matter how you slice it, matters like formally allowing female altar servers was and is a white-hot issue. I won’t speculate on whether I think they should be allowed, but I will say that once the decision was made, the Pope should have done a far better job of communicating the decision.

Subtly is not always a replacement for courage and resolve. Had the Pope come out strongly in support of the decision, perhaps there would have been far less grumbling on the matter today.

 

[Daprato]

Well, if I’ve been reading factual material, I’d say the Pope is/has been one of the biggest critics of the New Mass. In fact, he calls it a fabrication. How flattering is that?

Never has Pope Benedict XVI ever even hinted at the notion that the Tridentine Mass is in any way better or more of a gift than the Pauline Mass – or vice versa.

 

[daeve]

Abuses–pre-VII. definitely. As a kid and looking back now I can see some horrendous abuses–that were even sanctioned. When praying the Rosary is more important than participating in the Mass–what an abuse! As a kid, I can remember the beads clicking against the pew at every Mass.
In the minor seminary, we had one priest that his daily mass was 5 minutes–as impossible as that sounds. When he had the solemn Sunday High Mass–Deacon, subdeacon, and sermon–15-20 minutes. The Sanctus would still be in the singing stage as he approached the great Amen.
Benediction–a non-liturgical prayer service was made to appear more important than the main litugical service of the Church–the Mass. We even lit more candles and brought out the incense for that even before Mass was over.
As a server in grade school, I don’t think I ever finished one of the response the servers said before the priest cut us off. And we were always trying to race through them to get them said before we were cut off.
The people part of the Mass–forget it. It was the priest, the servers, and the organist soloist &/or choir. The people just sat there–that’s not quite true–they were praying the rosary, often out loud.
I find the present Mass so much more respectful and meaningful. We now unite in praying (some still don’t join in) and celebrating the Mass. We no longer have a reason to withdraw into our own private corner, praying whatever private prayers we choose. Now we are encouraged to be a community celebrating God’s presence and activity in our lives.

I’d forgotten about people praying the rosary. Even when my grandmother watched the Mass on TV (old and sick, couldn’t even walk the block to church anymore), she still had her rosary in her hands.

Along similar lines, from third grade up, you could go to confession DURING Mass. You just got up, walked on over to the confessionals and waited in line. When you got back to the pew, you said the penance, THEN rejoined Mass already in progress.

 

[Pious_Mat]

Not exactly true. Communion-in-hand began with Jesus Christ at the Last Supper – “TAKE, eat, this is My Body…” QUOTE]

To go off-topic for a minute…
With all due respect, I never say that as a license to revive the practice. First of all, it is not explicitly said that Christ gave it to his Apostles in their hand. The word “take” does not necessarily mean “handle”, e.g. “I took some brandy with my supper.” Also, they easily could have taken it with their tongues. Also, Christ dipped some bread in wine, and gave it to Judas. It was have been rather messy to put that in his hand–combine this with the fact that it is a centuries old (before the time of Christ) custom in Near East to feed the first bite of meal to one’s guest.

This is not say that I am absolutely sure that the Last Supper saw communion on the tongue, just that it is altogether a possiblity.

Second, the Apostles were themselves priests, and as Ordinary ministers of the Sacrament would then (as well as now) be perfectly allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament and place it on their own tongues.

Also, to suggest that the Apostles at that moment fully grasped the magnitude of the Last Supper would be naive. They probably weren’t thinking that since every particle of the host is all of Christ, they ought to be very careful with it, since our knowledge of the Eucharist is the product of hundreds of years of scholarship and relevation through the Holy Spirit.

Also, contrary to what many progressives believe, Communion in the hand was not absolutely “the norm” of the Early Church. By the mid-400s, St. Leo the Great tell us that communion on the tongue is an established norm. Note that in the 400 years in which we apparently see communion in the hand as common, we also see that there is no definitive canon of scripture, dozens of heresies popped up all over the Chrisitian world, and for more than three quarters of that period, the Pope himself had live in hiding because of the persecutions of Chrisitians. That said, I’m not sure that I want to return to the practises of the Early Church. The Holy Spirit guided Trent, V2, and every council in-between, and they all reaffirmed that communion on the tongue is the norm, and a pious practise.

I ought to finish up by saying that I am not strictly against communion in the hand. The decision, after all, is not mine to make. If for some reason, that stimulates in you a greater appreciation of the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, then good for you. I just don’t see why the Host has to go from the priest’s hand to my hand to my tongue when it can go straight from his hand to my tongue.

Wishing the communion-in-the-hand-gang all Blessings,

Mat.

One last bit about pre-V2 abuses. We’ve established that they indeed took place, but were often not as dramatic as today. I am too young to have experience of those days, but I dearly love the EF, and would like to know if those attended mass before 1965 if the sort of abuses affected consecration as often as they do today.