Have you witnessed liturgical abuses in the EF mass?

[CB_Catholic]

I was raised in the pre VII church and distinctly remember Masses that were less than 30 min., on Sunday, including Communion. When I got married we belonged to a parish that was a Priory of a certain Order, and there was a priest who was noted for his speedy Masses. We, along with my in-laws, deliberately chose to go to his Masses because he could get you “in and out” in less than 25 min. My husband says it ws more like 20 min., but I’ll give the priest the benefit of the extra 5 min.

My only complaint when the new Mass was introduced was that it was too long. I had moved to a new parish by then, and Mass was an hour long I liked everything else, esp. when they switched to English. Now, of course, I could happily sit in church for a couple of hours (like at the Easter Vigil). But back then, it was a shock to my system, being used to much shorter Masses, and going, really, because I was obliged to, not really wanting to.

As for people being more educated in their faith pre-and post Vat. II, I think it depends on what you mean by educated. People certainly knew more of the Catechism and Church rules, but unless they were really, really interested, they knew very little else, and they often did not know the reasoning behind what they learned. It was not common to read or study the Bible, study Church documents, Church history, Apologetics, Theology, etc. Most of that was outside of the everyday experience of most of the laity. Today the laity is very blessed to have access to and encouragement to become well-educated in all aspects of the faith, although basic catechesis is sometimes lacking, but it is getting better. And now we are expected to do our part in evangelization and education and Christian formation–it’s not just the part of the clergy anymore. When I look at the multitude of educational opportunities taking place in my parish and those in my Diocese, and of the number of people involved, I sometimes am truly astounded at how far we have come in the past 50 years in this area.

I think that in the future there will be a trend back to more solid catechesis and a more faithful Catholicism. But I do not think things will ever be the way it was before Vat.II. But I think largely the time of experimentation is over, although there will be a few holdouts. I think we are finally learning from our mistakes.

 

[1holycatholic]

As Malphono said, quite absurd.

Do you really believe that to mumble a prayer or to go too fast is in the same league as intentionally changing the Mass to suit one’s own political or theological views?

A more apt comparison would be a man who forgets his wife’s birthday to one who spends his wife’s birthday with his mistress.

God Bless

The man who forgets does so unintentionally, the one with a mistress has intent. I’m not talking about someone who inadvertently mispronounces, omits or misreads something.

Mumbling the words quickly in order to hurry through the mass is intentional disobedience. Changing words in order to grind a particular theological or political axe is also intentional disobedience, as well as being problematic in fidelity.

 

[CradleCath]

=1holycatholic;4782901]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./

If the priests around here would say the correct word, ‘many’, I’d be thrilled, for that is what the evangelists tell us that Jesus said. When the Latin Canon was first composed towards the end of the fourth century as part of the shift in the Church’s liturgical language from Greek to Latin, the **Latin words chosen as corresponding to the Greek were “pro multis”, not “pro omnibus”. **The fourth century liturgists clearly did not understand the words in the Greek Canon as meaning “for all”. “Pro multis” remains in the Latin Canon to this day, and even the most extreme among the twentieth century liturgical reformers **have never suggested either that “pro multis” can possibly mean “for all” or that the text of the Canon should **be altered to “pro omnibus”. On these grounds alone therefore the ICEL text is a mistranslation of the Latin.

This may seem to be a small thing to many people, it is however, a BIG theological difference. The liberals among us would like to believe that Christ died to settle the debt for ALL men, for all of their sins, whether they are repentent or not. This just isn’t true…there is a requirement that makes us privy to the benefit of Salvation given to us through His Supreme Sacrifice & that is repentance. Christ knew that all would not repent their sins, in fact many would not even admit their sins, some will have forgiven themselves so often that their consciences become immune to the pangs of shame.

Believe me, the “for ALL” translation was not done in good conscience nor was it a “mistake”. This translation was done by those who see God (who want to progagate Him)as a doting old grandfather, Who… when we sin… just pats us on the head & says, “Don’t worry, I know that you couldn’t help yourself.” That is an incomplete view of God.

 

[bilop]

If the priests around here would say the correct word, ‘many’, I’d be thrilled, for that is what the evangelists tell us that Jesus said. When the Latin Canon was first composed towards the end of the fourth century as part of the shift in the Church’s liturgical language from Greek to Latin, the **Latin words chosen as corresponding to the Greek were **“pro multis”, not “pro omnibus”****. The fourth century liturgists clearly did not understand the words in the Greek Canon as meaning “for all”. “Pro multis” remains in the Latin Canon to this day, and even the most extreme among the twentieth century liturgical reformers **have never suggested either that “pro multis” can possibly mean “for all” or that the text of the Canon should **be altered to “pro omnibus”. On these grounds alone therefore the ICEL text is a mistranslation of the Latin.

This may seem to be a small thing to many people, it is however, a BIG theological difference. The liberals among us would like to believe that Christ died to settle the debt for ALL men, for all of their sins, whether they are repentent or not. This just isn’t true…there is a requirement that makes us privy to the benefit of Salvation given to us through His Supreme Sacrifice & that is repentance. Christ knew that all would not repent their sins, in fact many would not even admit their sins, some will have forgiven themselves so often that their consciences become immune to the pangs of shame.

Believe me, the “for ALL” translation was not done in good conscience nor was it a “mistake”. This translation was done by those who see God (who want to progagate Him)as a doting old grandfather, Who… when we sin… just pats us on the head & says, “Don’t worry, I know that you couldn’t help yourself.” That is an incomplete view of God.

Excellent Post!

 

[1holycatholic]

If the priests around here would say the correct word, ‘many’, I’d be thrilled, for that is what the evangelists tell us that Jesus said.

While I agree that “many” is a far more accurate translation than “all”, the correct word for the priest to say is what’s in the rubrics. Revising the rubrics isn’t the prerogative of each particular priest. I couldn’t, in good conscience, encourage, or be pleased with disobedience on the part of a priest. Disobedience is disobedience. It isn’t significant that some jump off the starboard side of the ark and some jump from the port side. In the end they are off the ark and floundering in the the water.

 

[bilop]

Mumbling the words quickly in order to hurry through the mass is intentional disobedience.

Really? Is there a document somewhere that specifies the minimum time for a Mass?

I’d imagine most mumbling and “speed masses” occured/occur b/c the priest is under some time pressure. Either another Mass immediately following (remember in the old days Mass was only offered between 6AM and Noon on Sunday, and 80% of Catholics attended Sunday Mass), or other duties to attend to.

Not to say that some priests didn’t/don’t go too fast, but I doubt it’s intentional disobedience.

There is no equivalently compelling reason to change the words of the Mass, and if it is pervasive it must be disobedience. Of course, this can be a very minor thing (like the instance above) or a very major thing (referring to God as “she”, changes the words to rob them of their Catholic meaning, etc.)

God Bless

 

[1holycatholic]

Really? Is there a document somewhere that specifies the minimum time for a Mass?

I’d imagine most mumbling and “speed masses” occured/occur b/c the priest is under some time pressure. Either another Mass immediately following (remember in the old days Mass was only offered between 6AM and Noon on Sunday, and 80% of Catholics attended Sunday Mass), or other duties to attend to.

Not to say that some priests didn’t/don’t go too fast, but I doubt it’s intentional disobedience.

There is no equivalently compelling reason to change the words of the Mass, and if it is pervasive it must be disobedience. Of course, this can be a very minor thing (like the instance above) or a very major thing (referring to God as “she”, changes the words to rob them of their Catholic meaning, etc.)

God Bless

There aren’t specific minimum times for the Mass, however there are directives to take appropriate pauses etc. Our ordinary has issued a few such instructions to the effect of “If the tabernacle isn’t adjacent to the altar don’t process the ciborium to the tabernacle so quickly the candle in front of it blows out.” :doh2:

From the GIRM:
The nature of the presidential prayers demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone present listen with attention.
If I heard the priest refer to God as “she” I’d wonder if I was in an Episcopalian parish by mistake. That would be a far more serious problem.

 

[malphono]

If the priests around here would say the correct word, ‘many’, I’d be thrilled, for that is what the evangelists tell us that Jesus said. … On these grounds alone therefore the ICEL text is a mistranslation of the Latin.
…
Believe me, the “for ALL” translation was not done in good conscience nor was it a “mistake”. …

In principle, I agree but of course the pseudo-translations by the infamous ICEL were approved by the bishops, so an individual priest really should not be making the correction. To do so amounts to yet another abuse of the same sort that is commonly seen: ad-hoc change to the text, which seems to happen with regularity in the “vernacular” to suit the mood.

But … there is a way to say the right words and still be within the rules: in Latin.

 

[1holycatholic]

In principle, I agree but of course the pseudo-translations by the infamous ICEL were approved by the bishops, so an individual priest really should not be making the correction. To do so amounts to yet another abuse of the same sort that is commonly seen: ad-hoc change to the text, which seems to happen with regularity in the “vernacular” to suit the mood.

But … there is a way to say the right words and still be within the rules: in Latin.

I have wanted to suggest that to the priest I mentioned for some time. Can the priest say just the words of institution in Latin in an otherwise vernacular mass?

 

[malphono]

There aren’t specific minimum times for the Mass, however there are directives to take appropriate pauses etc.

The problem there is that the phrase “appropriate pauses” is subjective. What is “appropriate” to one could well be different from what is “appropriate” to another. That very subjectivity would seem to help explain the very common 15-minute mini-service that is all too frequent in the daily vernacular OF.

My point is that the “speed demons” are alive and well, these days residing in the vernacular OF, so the issue of “speed” being considered an abuse in the pre-conciliar EF is rather a moot point.

 

[1holycatholic]

The problem there is that the phrase “appropriate pauses” is subjective. What is “appropriate” to one could well be different from what is “appropriate” to another. That very subjectivity would seem to help explain the very common 15-minute mini-service that is all too frequent in the daily vernacular OF.

My point is that the “speed demons” are alive and well, these days residing in the vernacular OF, so the issue of “speed” being considered an abuse in the pre-conciliar EF is rather a moot point.

I’m not certain how mass could be said in fifteen minutes unless this guy was ordained a priest:
http://www.offuhuge.com/thumbs/4e045c10fa32.jpg

 

[malphono]

I have wanted to suggest that to the priest I mentioned for some time. Can the priest say just the words of institution in Latin in an otherwise vernacular mass?

I could be wrong, but I don’t think there is a restriction against a bi-lingual Mass. I know such things exist, and they are not “abuses” in and of themselves. But, IMO it would be preferable to do more in Latin than just the Institution Narrative. Maybe the whole Mass? Hmmmmm … that sounds like a part of the “reform of the reform” …

 

[malphono]

I’m not certain how mass could be said in fifteen minutes unless this guy was ordained a priest:

Same way you suggested it was done in the pre-concilar EF. Even easier to do in the vernacular, isn’t it?

 

[1holycatholic]

Same way you suggested it was done in the pre-concilar EF. Even easier to do in the vernacular, isn’t it?

If unfamiliarity with a language is a guard against winging the liturgy then Aramaic would be preferable to Latin. It’s not without precedent, the Maronite divine liturgy uses Aramaic/Syriac.

 

[malphono]

Same way you suggested it was done in the pre-concilar EF. Even easier to do in the vernacular, isn’t it?

Sorry but I have to say that’s another silly analogy: Aramaic is not, never was, and never will be, used in Rome or anywhere else in the West. So let’s not even waste the time to go there. It has no place in this discussion. The thread at hand is Have you witnessed liturgical abuses in the EF mass? and let’s just keep it on topic. In this thread, Oriental and Roman liturgical practices have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the other (and trust me when I say I know them both quite well).

Anyway, my point in the quote was very simply that it is even easier to slur and race through a text when its in the vernacular, than it is to do the same Latin. It’s a matter of familiarity. And, come to think of it, that is actually more of an abuse than being lazy and sloppy in Latin.

 

[Lujack]

I could be wrong, but I don’t think there is a restriction against a bi-lingual Mass. I know such things exist, and they are not “abuses” in and of themselves. But, IMO it would be preferable to do more in Latin than just the Institution Narrative. Maybe the whole Mass? Hmmmmm … that sounds like a part of the “reform of the reform” …

That’s not a reform of the reform, that’s legal right now.

 

[1holycatholic]

Anyway, my point in the quote was very simply that it is even easier to slur and race through a text when its in the vernacular, than it is to do the same Latin. It’s a matter of familiarity. And, come to think of it, that is actually more of an abuse than being lazy and sloppy in Latin.

Roll the clock back enough and the vernacular was Latin.

Your profile says you’re OCC. Is that the Old Catholic Church?

 

[malphono]

Roll the clock back enough and the vernacular was Latin.

You know full well the point, so please don’t play silly word games with me.

Your profile says you’re OCC. Is that the Old Catholic Church?

No, it’s not. It’s “Oriental CC” which makes not a whit of difference.

 

[malphono]

That’s not a reform of the reform, that’s legal right now.

The editio typica of the OF Missal is in Latin, and it’s been “legal” since day one of the OF. But it was almost unheard of until fairly recently. When done according to “the book” (including ad orientem) I guess it was given the moniker “reform of the reform” to show that the way the OF was/is usually done is not necessarily the way it should ever have been done.

 

[1holycatholic]

You know full well the point, so please don’t play silly word games with me.

Have you thought about switching to decaf?

No, it’s not. It’s “Oriental CC” which makes not a whit of difference.

I’m just asking.