O
Ockham
Guest
Emphasis mine.
- Status
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree that it can get complicated, especially since most wouldn’t recognize an abuse of the Mass if they saw or heard one, much less report it. It’s no wonder abuses are so rampant, since certain congregations accept much of them as part of the “norm.” Who is willing to rock the boat on a Sunday morning?
O
Ockham
Guest
There may be the odd duck who goes to Sunday Mass looking to rock the boat, but I’m sure the vast majority of us don’t. Yet the Church has given us a duty to ensure the liturgy is being respected and free of abuse. Most people know when something different has occurred, but do they know about their duty to complain?
During this past year I’ve seen things that I should have reported. Thankfully the Novus Ordo Masses I attend now are said by younger, reverent priests and I’d be shocked to see any abuse at the TLMs.
The liturgy is the Church’s worship of God. It isn’t the personal toy of a modernist priest or self-indulgent parish liturgy minister. As Catholics we have a duty to know the liturgy and help protect the integrity and tradition of our Church.
Z
zab
Guest
As a devout Catholic, I feel compelled to bring any abuse to the attention of the pastor or bishop. I don’t have to see something written in the documents that say that I have a duty to do so. And I have written some letters in my time. I used to be a volunteer in Detention Ministry that was run by nuns and former nuns who dissented from Catholic teaching in several areas and engaged in many liturgical abuses. And I endured persecution from some of them because of my devout Catholic Faith. During that time, my letters were directed to the chancery. As far as my parish is concerned, my past three pastors have been very good. The abuses that crept in after Vatican II were all corrected. The only question of abuse that remains is that our pastor still blesses non-Catholics who come before him during Communion. But that is not anything worth complaining about. He is aware of the controversy over this issue and praises those who are concerned about liturgical abuses but says “There are bigger fish to fry.” Not even the CDWDS has issued any document to have this matter corrected. And then there is the occassional visiting priest who doesn’t alway do things perfectly. Most recently, we had an elderly visiting priest who put a young altar boy on the spot by insisting that he purify the sacred vessels at the altar. (Probably something he picked up in another parish where he assists.) We are very fortunate to have a good pastor. I truly feel sorry for those who constantly experience all of the abuses that we have heard about on these forums.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I agree but I would say this. If I were to make a comparison with the Mass I remember right after its promulgation in Latin, I could find quite a few deviations with every Mass today. How many of them are actual abuses I don’t know but if I were to present the bishop with my list, I’m sure he’d just find ways to embarrass me by saying “this or that is allowed.” I’m sure that feeling can be expressed by others.
Of course there’s another way out of doing your duty. Attend the EF or some Eastern rite. If you don’t see the abuse, there’s no duty to do anything.
O
Ockham
Guest
I agree that finding a TLM is the easiest solution for those looking for an abuse free Mass, but not every parish or diocese offers it yet. I don’t think many of us here want to become liturgy police and it’s true our focus at Mass is supposed to be worshipping the Holy Sacrifice not watching Father’s every move. However, if the priest is freelancing, liturgical dancers suddenly appear, or non-Catholic preaching is going on then we indeed have a duty to report such abuses.
L
Lormar
Guest
Endure? A priest that allows these things to go on during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or does things like this is enough to make any sane Catholic question what it is that he believes or doesn’t believe.
Endurance has its limits. I would seek out another parish.
Pray for this priest too. He has much to answer for.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Its really funny that non-Pope Paul VI Liturgies are seen as magic solutions to abuse. The abuse comes from the person (laity or clergy), not the form of Mass.
Eastern Liturgies easily have many abuses, mostly from Latinizations. For every Roman Catholic complaining of people not kneeling during Consecration, there’s an Eastern Catholic complaining why people are kneeling at all during Divine Liturgy. To think that a form of Liturgy is abuse-free is a terrible false assumption. The Mass doesn’t abuse itself.
Eastern Liturgies easily have many abuses, mostly from Latinizations. For every Roman Catholic complaining of people not kneeling during Consecration, there’s an Eastern Catholic complaining why people are kneeling at all during Divine Liturgy. To think that a form of Liturgy is abuse-free is a terrible false assumption. The Mass doesn’t abuse itself.
L
Layman
Guest
The fact the the Novus Ordo is itself a major re-write of the Roman rite I think gives licence to people to be ‘creative’. If the Mass can change so drastically my little variation is hardly a big departure.
How the old rite is said helps stop obvious abuse.
- The priest faces the altar. He doesn’t have to perform.
- Any laity in the sanctuary are vested. They’re impersonal.
- ‘Audience participation’ is minimal.
- Ad-libbing Latin is harder than the vernacular.
- It’s much quieter overall.
- Also, attempts to jazz up the rite would now look like what they are: the work of dabblers who don’t appreciate the sanctity of the Mass.
- And: The old rite congregations won’t take it. They’ll stop coming.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I don’t see anywhere in the rubrics of the Pauline Mass that says “abuse me, please.” Seriously, if one wants to break the rules, they will break it regardless of what they have. I don’t see a re-write as something that will invite abuse. We have to get it out of our system that a certain form is better or worse or that the OF by itself is a magnet for abuse.
Case in point → gmanews.tv/story/193829/fake-priest-known-for-good-homilies-excommunicated
Sure, he followed the rubrics to a tee in the EF. Exept for the fact that hes not an ordained priest.
This is a false assumption. An abusive priest will abuse. If he can’t respect the rubrics of the Pauline Mass, why will he respect the rubrics of the Tridentine Mass?
Abuses are hardly about performance. Also where the priest faces doesn’t affect his intention to get things right, or to intentionally innovate.
While proper vestments do cover up undesirable clothing, thats not the only source of abuse among the laity.
There is more ‘audience participation’ in the Divine Liturgy but I don’t see that as being the source of the abuses there. Mostly its Latinization which has nothing to do with participation.
Depends if you don’t consider mumbling words as ad libbing. Sure he may not be able to substitute one word with another, but what if he’s substituting words with non-words to feign actual words.
Nothing to do with the EF. I’ve been to very quiet OFs, even very quite non-Catholic services. Its not an EF thing. If someone in the pews wants to make noise, there’s nothing in the EF that will prevent him from doing so.
Besides, if you don’t hear some of the prayers, how do you know they are being said correctly?
I agree. But the abusive tone that you usually see in the OF can also be easily done in the EF. It works both ways.
This is only true today where the truly devout seek the EF. If the EF is the norm and is the only form of the Roman Mass available, the same abusive priests and the same abusive laity will be in the same EF Mass, and you will get an abused Mass regardless. The EF today is shielded by the fact that it is only the devout who attend it. But that doesn’t mean it cannot be abused in the hands of the careless.
The Mass is not a free market product to be competed against one another.
S
Shin
Guest
Not to interrupt the flow of conversation to much, but… emotionally… yes… in reality, of course, it was necessary… to know what was truly going on… to see with clear eyes.
But emotionally I totally understand. Completely there.
Like a dagger in the heart it was.
O
Ockham
Guest
That’s an astute observation shared by Pope Benedict XVI:
“Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.”
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20070707_lettera-vescovi_en.html
N
ncstevem
Guest
get yourself a good TLM missal and pray it during the Mass. It’s what I do to get through the new Mass I’m stuck going to with my wife.
I focus on the prayers in the missal and bend over in the pew so I’m not distracted by others or the nonsense that typifies many celebrations of the new Mass. I follow the postures of the old missal and I don’t participate in the ‘bidding prayers’, holding hands during the Pater Noster or the hand shaky thing.
Obviously not ideal but it helps somewhat to get through the irreverence.
I focus on the prayers in the missal and bend over in the pew so I’m not distracted by others or the nonsense that typifies many celebrations of the new Mass. I follow the postures of the old missal and I don’t participate in the ‘bidding prayers’, holding hands during the Pater Noster or the hand shaky thing.
Obviously not ideal but it helps somewhat to get through the irreverence.
C
CradleCath
Guest
I “endured” for 40 years & it does something to one’s heart. I was born in 1941, so I knew what Mass should be. 28 yrs. of daily Mass had formed me & it was gone in a flash.
Now, however, God & Pope Benedict have given me the Sacrifice of the Mass once again. So, here I am relearning & I LOVE it. If I hadn’t ever learned what the Mass is, I wouldn’t be as JOYFUL as I am now. I have been given back something of great value for I was like the lost sheep. **40 YEARS **of watching abuse & disrespect & posturing & performing…that’s hard when so much of one’s identity is Catholic.
“What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.”
DON’T GIVE UP!!!
C
CradleCath
Guest
O
Ockham
Guest
If liturgically abusive priests existed prior to V2 then why do we not hear about dancers, puppets, balloons, waterguns, etc until after?
P
Pregustator
Guest
There were no such issues prior to Vatican II, of course. That was a different era. The good liturgical reforms of the Council were presented to the Catholic world at precisely the wrong moment in history: the worldwide cultural upheaval of the late 1960s. The timing was a disaster. Had the liturgical reforms been introduced even so much as a decade earlier, the situation would have been rather different.
Had the revised Missal been published in 1959, would such abuses have happened anyway once the cutural upheaval hit a decade later? Probably. But they would have happened even had the New Missal not been published. I think the liberalism of the era with its protest environment caused by Vietnam, the Civil Rights Movement, Watergate and all the rest, would have impacted the Church as it did, regardless of the Missal used at the altar, and priests influenced by the spirit of the era would have introduced chaos in the sanctuary even with the 1962 Missal still in place.
The fault is not that of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and all the bishops of the world in Council, together, at Rome under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and the Missal that they produced, with every good intention for the liturgical reform and growth and edification of the Holy Church. The fault lies with the age. The fault lies not with what the Church did, but with her bad timing.
Had the Church never revised the 1962 Missal, the clergy–liberalized by the era–would have done as much damage as they did do…only there would be no liturgical reform to blame for it.
L
Layman
Guest
A priest ad-libbing the N.O. mass is not unusual. I’ve seen it myself and I don’t go to many. An assumed licence to do this has been granted by the fact of the Mass being re-written and by the subsequent populist accretions.
The idea was to get the congregation more involved, to remove hierarchial elements and to make it more ‘relevant’ to the times, I think.
**A priest ad-libbing the old rite, where no one can hear him, in a foreign language, has a serious problem and so do his parishoners. **
I think having one Sunday TLM in every parish and letting people choose which they want to worship at could help cure the fad for personal expession in the Mass.
L
Layman
Guest
Experimentation was going on before Vat. II, including using the vernacular. I get the impression the Church was fighting a rear-guard action to stifle Modernism but couldn’t hold it back. The N.O. Mass was an attempt to standardise these confections. We’ve all experienced the results.
By a quirk of fate or the Grace of God the old rite was left relatively intact and un-abrogated. If it had simply been progressively edited instead of a new rite made, priests would have had to deliberately rebel to revert to an older form.
Now they can say the 1962 in peace. Hopefully, the 1924 will be liberated in due course. This, AFAIK, is the last one before the editing became subtractive i.e. Fr. Bugnini harshly editing Holy Week for 1955.
By a quirk of fate or the Grace of God the old rite was left relatively intact and un-abrogated. If it had simply been progressively edited instead of a new rite made, priests would have had to deliberately rebel to revert to an older form.
Now they can say the 1962 in peace. Hopefully, the 1924 will be liberated in due course. This, AFAIK, is the last one before the editing became subtractive i.e. Fr. Bugnini harshly editing Holy Week for 1955.
O
Ockham
Guest
Perhaps, but you’re completely speculating now. The reality is liturgical abuse is associated with one form and not the other. I’ve seen people theorize God gave us the Novus Ordo as a vehicle for the rebellious thus protected the TLM by locking it away from them. The faithful have rebelled against God before its just unfortunate so many souls will suffer the eternal consequences.
“As in the provocation, according to the day of temptation in the wilderness: where your fathers tempted me, they proved me, and saw my works. Forty years long was I offended with that generation, and I said: ‘These always err in heart.’ And these men have not known my ways: so I swore in my wrath that they shall not enter into my rest.”
Psalm 94
- Status