Have you witnessed liturgical abuses in the EF mass?

[1holycatholic]

Fr. Groeschel on EWTN mentioned that one of the reasons for the institution of the OF mass was because of rampant abuses in the EF mass. I attend the EF only sporadically. I doubt I would know when an abuse in the EF occurred.

I know of a priest who celebrates both the EF and OF mass. While celebrating the OF he never says the words of consecration according to the rubrics. It drives me nuts, but I haven’t said anything.

 

[Dauphin]

Well, now that abuses are rampant in the Pauline Mass, surely Fr. Groeschel believes that it should be abolished and replaced by a new liturgy.

I recommend the TLM.

 

[Timothysis]

Well, now that abuses are rampant in the Pauline Mass, surely Fr. Groeschel believes that it should be abolished and replaced by a new liturgy.

I recommend the TLM.

How unlike you.

 

[bilop]

Fr. Groeschel on EWTN mentioned that one of the reasons for the institution of the OF mass was because of rampant abuses in the EF mass. I attend the EF only sporadically. I doubt I would know when an abuse in the EF occurred.

I know of a priest who celebrates both the EF and OF mass. While celebrating the OF he never says the words of consecration according to the rubrics. It drives me nuts, but I haven’t said anything.

If the words of consecration “this is my body”, “this is the cup of my blood”, are not said, then no transubstantiation occurs. There is no Mass. So, you should definitely say something, and contact the Bishop if necessary.

I am a little suprised to hear this about a priest who does the EF; normally such priest are very reverent and exact. Are you sure he is changing the words of institution? Could he be using a Eucharistic prayer with which you are not familiar?

Most of the abuse cited pre-VII in the old mass were the priest going very fast and not praying all the words of all the prayers. Ad libbing was virtually impossible b/c most priests’ Latin wouldn’t be good enough, and almost nobody would know what he was saying, so why ad-lib?

God Bless

 

[Dauphin]

How unlike you.

Well… it seems to me that his point was the TLM had become some sort of haven for grave liturgical abuse, and in order to purify the Church’s prayer it had to be abolished and utterly forbidden.

Since the opposite is the case today, surely the Pauline Mass should now be banished from our Churches, and all those who adhere to it should be called schismatics and retrograde fundamentalists.

 

[Timothysis]

Fr. Groeschel on EWTN mentioned that one of the reasons for the institution of the OF mass was because of rampant abuses in the EF mass. I attend the EF only sporadically. I doubt I would know when an abuse in the EF occurred.

I know of a priest who celebrates both the EF and OF mass. While celebrating the OF he never says the words of consecration according to the rubrics. It drives me nuts, but I haven’t said anything.

I remember reading an article where a high ranking Cardinal or Bishop at the Vatican said that “certainly” abuses occurred in the EF, that he remembered witnessing them when he was younger. It would be naive to think that every EF of the Mass celebrated is completely free of abuses, just as it would be to think that every OF of the Mass is littered with abuses.

The problem with the EF of the Mass is that, since most of it is silent, the congregation can’t realize if an abuse is occurring or not. I don’t say this as a knock on the EF, either. It is my wish that both forms would be celebrated without any abuses.

I am curious; how does your priest say the words of consecration?

 

[Timothysis]

Well… it seems to me that his point was the TLM had become some sort of haven for grave liturgical abuse, and in order to purify the Church’s prayer it had to be abolished and utterly forbidden.

That is not his point at all. It is an honest question and one that is worthy of discussion. Why are you so afraid of any criticism of the TLM? It seems to me that you think that if one criticism of the TLM is acknowledged as valid then someone has the right to disparage it the way you disparage the Missal of Pope Paul VI, and we know we can’t have that, can we?

 

[Dauphin]

Dauphin;4782863:

Well… it seems to me that his point was the TLM had become some sort of haven for grave liturgical abuse, and in order to purify the Church’s prayer it had to be abolished and utterly forbidden.

That is not his point at all. It is an honest question and one that is worthy of discussion. Why are you so afraid of any criticism of the TLM? It seems to me that you think that if one criticism of the TLM is acknowledged as valid then someone has the right to disparage it the way you disparage the Missal of Pope Paul VI, and we know we can’t have that, can we?

You misunderstand me. I’m talking about Fr. Groeschel’s point, not the OP’s question. Fr. Groeschel seems to have said that we had to get rid of the TLM because it was celebrated so poorly.

I simply applied the same logic to the Pauline Mass today.

 

[1holycatholic]

If the words of consecration “this is my body”, “this is the cup of my blood”, are not said, then no transubstantiation occurs. There is no Mass. So, you should definitely say something, and contact the Bishop if necessary.

I am a little suprised to hear this about a priest who does the EF; normally such priest are very reverent and exact. Are you sure he is changing the words of institution? Could he be using a Eucharistic prayer with which you are not familiar?

Most of the abuse cited pre-VII in the old mass were the priest going very fast and not praying all the words of all the prayers. Ad libbing was virtually impossible b/c most priests’ Latin wouldn’t be good enough, and almost nobody would know what he was saying, so why ad-lib?

God Bless

secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/wordsofinstitution.htm
“The day before he suffered he took break in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”
This is the problematic word. He always says “many.” That is the appropriate way to translate “pro-multis” IMHO, but it isn’t up to the priest to substitute a bad translation with what he thinks is better. I wish he would just say the words of institution in Latin, then this would be a non-issue.

 

[1holycatholic]

You misunderstand me. I’m talking about Fr. Groeschel’s point, not the OP’s question. Fr. Groeschel seems to have said that we had to get rid of the TLM because it was celebrated so poorly.

I simply applied the same logic to the Pauline Mass today.

He said that was one of the reasons for the switch to the OF, not the only one.

I’d guess that if the EF replaced the OF there would still be liturgical abuses, only the form would change.

 

[bilop]

secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/wordsofinstitution.htm
“The day before he suffered he took break in his sacred hands and looking up to heaven, to you, his almighty Father, he gave you thanks and praise. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.”
This is the problematic word. He always says “many.” That is the appropriate way to translate “pro-multis” IMHO, but it isn’t up to the priest to substitute a bad translation with what he thinks is better. I wish he would just say the words of institution in Latin, then this would be a non-issue.

OK. Those are not the words of the institution he is changing, so the Mass is still valid.

You’re right that he shouldn’t do it, but that is a very minor abuse. The new English Mass translation, which has been approved, but not yet instituted has “many” instead of “all”. So, he is jumping the gun.

Compared to other ad-libbing I’ve seen, this just isn’t something to worry about. He’s being slightly dis-obedient, but, he is using the “correct” translation.

I’d just ignore it.

God Bless

 

[Dauphin]

He said that was one of the reasons for the switch to the OF, not the only one.

Then it still follows that the abuses are a reason to abolish the OF. I disagree. Abuses can’t be a legitimate cause to totally change the Mass.

If this was one of the reasons to suppress the Church’s ancient liturgical tradition, then it was a very bad reason.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Actually, ‘pro multis’ does translate as ‘for many’ (and also, let me add, ‘for all’).

In fact I believe the new translation (ICEL) coming out is going to restore the ‘for many’ (which I’m fairly certain was used in some if not all of the first English translations of the Mass in 1968 and 1969).

I had one priest (mercifully transferred) who always said regarding the cup, “the blood of the new and everlasting covenant of love” Every. Single. Time. (I wound up changing parishes a couple of years before he was transferred).

But of course we do need to note here that it is not really the ‘Mass’ itself (either O.F. or E.F.) which is the cause of abuses, right? Instead, it is the individual priest (or laity or both) who ignores the rubrics, adds or subtracts, ‘tweaks’, or otherwise changes around whatsoever he chooses who is the cause of the abuse.

Actually, I’m kind of surprised at this whole topic. I would have thought that Father Groeschel would be talking rather of the abuses that certain priests and/or laity had done to the Ordinary Form being the reason that Pope Benedict issued the Motu Proprio for the Extraordinary Form!

Again, old as I am (52) I do not at all recall that the teaching of Vatican II and before was that they wanted to ‘change’ the Tridentine Mass because IT was 'full of abuses!"

 

[1holycatholic]

Then it still follows that the abuses are a reason to abolish the OF. I disagree. Abuses can’t be a legitimate cause to totally change the Mass.

If this was one of the reasons to suppress the Church’s ancient liturgical tradition, then it was a very bad reason.

If “ancient” is the criteria then the Church would be celebrating the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom across the board, or at least from the Gregorian Sacramentary without the subsequent innovations and additions including those introduced at the Council of Trent.

 

[ncjohn]

I don’t know if abuses of the EF pre-Vatican II was a prime reason for the change, though they were indeed common. I tend to think the more important reason was that most people in the pews were simply passive observers who at least seemed to not be the least bit involved in the Great Mystery that was occurring before them. As such there was little benefit being passed on beyond whatever grace one might receive for simply being there.

I served at many EF Masses pre-Vatican II and it was very common to “expedite” the Mass to get people in and out quickly–15 minutes or less–especially at the early morning Masses. Priests who just “did” their lines without break, right over the altar boy’s responses, were the norm of my experience though I won’t pretend to assert that as any universal situation. Entire sections being left out and sermons of a couple minutes or less–if not skipped completely–were again a common occurrence. Probably what I found most disturbing though was the number of priests I encountered saying Mass either clearly inebriated or badly hungover. Again, I’m not stating this as any kind of norm beyond my own experience in three different parishes but from what I’ve heard from others of my age my experience was certainly not uncommon.

I doubt very much that such things occur much any more because those celebrating EF Masses are doing so out of a true desire to do so. I also tend to think that the current level of attention by those in the pews is probably proportionately higher than that at the typical OF Mass for the same reason, though there are certainly a great number of very devoted and attentive people at OF Masses also.

I am quite sure that if the EF replaced the OF again as the Mass to “satisfy the Sunday obligation” that the attitudes and abuses I saw pre-Vatican II would follow in short order as whichever Mass has the high percentage of those fulfilling “obligations” will quickly lose its luster overall.

Somehow we have to get past the idea of obligation and instill the sense of awe that our worship should engender. It’s one thing the Church has never done very well from both my experience and study, at times even questioning whether it was worth having the people come at all! I won’t pretend to know the answers to what brings that about, but I’m 99.9% sure that it doesn’t have to do with which language the Mass is celebrated in.

Peace,

 

[Dauphin]

If “ancient” is the criteria then the Church would be celebrating the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom across the board, or at least from the Gregorian Sacramentary without the subsequent innovations and additions including those introduced at the Council of Trent.

You ignore the word “tradition” which implies the action of transmitting and organically shaping the liturgy over the centuries. The Traditional Latin Mass is the tradition proper to the Latin Rite. It is our authentic patrimony and heritage.

It hasn’t remained static, but has undergone a gradual and beneficial organic development. This was abruptly ended when it was replaced by the invention of some committee in the 60s.

Also, the Council of Trent barely changed the liturgy. The 1474 and 1570 missals are virtually identical.

 

[Timothysis]

I served at many EF Masses pre-Vatican II and it was very common to “expedite” the Mass to get people in and out quickly–15 minutes or less–especially at the early morning Masses. Priests who just “did” their lines without break, right over the altar boy’s responses, were the norm of my experience though I won’t pretend to assert that as any universal situation. Entire sections being left out and sermons of a couple minutes or less–if not skipped completely–were again a common occurrence. Probably what I found most disturbing though was the number of priests I encountered saying Mass either clearly inebriated or badly hungover. Again, I’m not stating this as any kind of norm beyond my own experience in three different parishes but from what I’ve heard from others of my age my experience was certainly not uncommon.

These are also the most common abuses that I have read about in the EF. The poster above was correct when he said that it isn’t the particular form of the Mass that is to blame, it is the priest who commits the abuses. I hope that one day we can see both forms free of abuses.

I am quite sure that if the EF replaced the OF again as the Mass to “satisfy the Sunday obligation” that the attitudes and abuses I saw pre-Vatican II would follow in short order as whichever Mass has the high percentage of those fulfilling “obligations” will quickly lose its luster overall.

That is a sobering and most excellent point.

 

[cathguy]

As the rubrics are so specific and the actions of the priest so proscribed, it is difficult to imagine that abuses in the EF will occur. Of course, it is possible that they will, but that will be rare.

The OF has resulted in a culture that views liturgical creativity as laudable, even necessary. That is what gives rise to many of the abuses.

 

[1holycatholic]

You ignore the word “tradition” which implies the action of transmitting and organically shaping the liturgy over the centuries. The Traditional Latin Mass is the tradition proper to the Latin Rite. It is our authentic patrimony and heritage.

It hasn’t remained static, but has undergone a gradual and beneficial organic development. This was abruptly ended when it was replaced by the invention of some committee in the 60s.

Also, the Council of Trent barely changed the liturgy. The 1474 and 1570 missals are virtually identical.

Are you saying the the OF mass is invalid or defective in any way?

 

[Dauphin]

Are you saying the the OF mass is invalid or defective in any way?

The Pauline Mass is perfectly valid.