FSSP Priests using 2. eucharistic prayer (mass of Paul VI)

  • Thread starter Thread starter randomuser123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraLabora said:
Interestingly, one of the most common abuses cited on CAF about the pre-Conciliar Mass, is rushing it.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying and I understand saying Mass quickly can be considered an abuse if it is done purposefully. (some people talk faster than others)
I agree that is typically what is mentioned here at CAF when they talk about abuses to the pre-conciliar Mass, though IMHO compared to what happens today I would take a Mass said fast. As a matter of fact we have a visiting priest that can shave 10 minutes off of Mass and nothing is left out and gives very good homilies but speaks very fast. I would prefer he would slow down a bit.

As I said earlier, what would the author of that book think of the abuses seen today? We have gone way past Mass being said too fast.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
As I said earlier, what would the author of that book think of the abuses seen today? We have gone way past Mass being said too fast.
Click to expand...
To be honest, I can’t recall the last time I saw an egregious abuse in the OF Masses I attend. I’m not speaking only of the abbey, but also the parishes our schola visits. Nothing omitted, nothing added. Most often it’s something not to one’s taste, such as music, but that hardly constitutes an abuse.

By abuse, I mean an overt attempt to circumvent the rubrics, not just an honest mistake. Even the monks make those. Priests are, after all, human.
 
OraLabora said:
To be honest, I can’t recall the last time I saw an egregious abuse in the OF Masses I attend. I’m not speaking only of the abbey, but also the parishes our schola visits. Nothing omitted, nothing added.
Click to expand...
That is good to hear. I have seen different things over the years and not everything is going to be egregious. Sometimes it is the little foxes that spoil the vine. I could start listing them but I suspect you have heard these things before.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
I do agree; abuses have always been there, unintentional or intentional.
Click to expand...
In fact, the low Mass itself started as liturgical abuse. It was a way for monastic “Mass mills” to knock out more stipend sponsored Masses in less time. It spread, and managed insert itself as the norm at Trent.
 
I am not sure you are correct here. The lens you’re using tries to make a black-and-white statement that ignores other reasons for having low Masses, for endemic development, etc. etc.

One person’s ‘Mass mills’ done for ‘funding’ is another person’s, "in eras where we need many more Masses–i.e. the Black Death which had more than a little to do with needing more Masses said, n’est-ce pas?–let us examine ways in which we can offer poor souls in purgatory what we can here on earth’.
 
stpurl said:
I am not sure you are correct here. The lens you’re using tries to make a black-and-white statement that ignores other reasons for having low Masses, for endemic development, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
I believe that priests had to offer Mass daily pre-Council. Concelebration was only possible for ordination Masses. In monasteries, where several monks would be priests, this resulted in a conundrum: there was only one conventual Mass per day, and only one celebrant could offer it. What were the other priest-monks to do in order to fulfill their requirement? Well if you go into any monastery that existed prior to the council, there would be several altars, and the priests would be saying their own private Mass at one of the altars, every day. These would always be Low Masses by necessity.

Of course these Masses could be a source of income (stipends), but the basic reason was the requirement to say one Mass per day, and the inability to concelebrate the Conventual Mass.

Now that concelebration is allowed, it is no longer a problem. At our abbey, the Conventual Mass is concelebrated by all the priests and since the church was consecrated in 1994, there’s only one more altar in it, in the. Blessed Sacrament chapel where a 6 am Mass would be celebrated for the monks who could not attend the Conventual Mass due to work obligations (there are at least four other chapels in the monastery: one in the guest wing, the abbot’s private chapel, one reserved for visiting groups, and one on the grounds away from the main buildings; there maybe one in the infirmary as well).

Moreover it is no longer a requirement to say one Mass per day.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
I am not sure you are correct here. The lens you’re using tries to make a black-and-white statement that ignores other reasons for having low Masses, for endemic development, etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Yes, they evolved. I’m talking about the original development. Certainly, subsequent events brought about the need for more masses, but the origin itself was financial, not religious
 
I’d invite you down to my current parish because you would see abuse in SPADES here (thankfully, if the Good Lord wills, I’ll be moving next month). I pray for the priest and people here. It is really really bad abuse wise. I think you probably remember from previous posts. I will say that the priest is personally a very kind man. He is absolutely convinced that what he does is ‘best’ and that any disagreement is due to the other person’s rigidity. Not that he is against tradition–he happily installed a labyrinth and a peace pole, and is strongly in favor of the yearly volleyball tournaments. Rainbow banners and vestments proclaim that all are welcome. So for people who are really into inclusion and all the best of modern Catholicism, and who would rather have the ‘spirit’ of the liturgy as opposed to pesky things like following tired old rules that don’t meet people where they are, they’d be quite happy here.
 
It doesn’t help that this is a “rumor” the OP heard, for which there cannot be any real evidence, not that he’s returned to continue the discussion or provide such evidence.

I would suggest everyone not waste time any further on this topic. It is, in the words of Qoheleth, “a chasing after wind.”

-Fr ACEGC
 
Presumably by its brevity, but one would be hard pressed to confirm it was the wrong prayer instead of a speed-reading priest, the latter which it seems was not unknown prior to the council.
 
This sounds made up–like something some partisan of a non-canonical traddy group who sees the FSSP as compromised or as competition might say to convince people to abandon the FSSP for his favored group’s “more pure” Masses.
 
Last edited:
There are audible portions that would be omitted and as an altar server I’m going to notice all the missing movements (lack of signs of the cross, for instance). I won’t know that it’s EP2 because I’m not familiar with the novus ordo missae, but I’ll know he didn’t do the mass properly.

This site has a side by side comparison:
https://lms.org.uk/missals
 
As the missal for either form of the Mass is what is on the altar, we can probably put this rumor to rest; if the priest was praying the EF, then the Eucharistic Prayer II would not be available to him. Whoever started this rumor appears ignorant of that fact, even if it sounds “juicy” - as many rumors do.
 
I sit in hte back and I have seen at one priest commit do something that I later learned was a transgression. Traditional priests are not immune from making innovations and doing things that are questionable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top