How to Fix the Liturgy?

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

Thanks!

This is why I think that a reversion to the old Mass would simply be a bandaid on the real problem. Sure, it would be tougher for the ill-formed priests to abuse the liturgy, but they would still be ill-formed priests prone to ambiguous (or worse) homilies.

It seems to me that the root cause of all the trouble with the Church in this country goes back to the formation of our priests. Since, seminaries are the primary source of formation, this would be where the problems started.

I think this is also supported by the statistics on sexual abuse by priests. If you look at the reports on the bishops website, there was a huge increase in the number of incidents of abuse around 1960 and then a huge decrease starting around 1985. Now, I don’t have proof but I would assume that most of the active priests from 1960 to 1985 attended the seminary in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. To me, that means that something was very wrong in the seminaries well before the new Mass. I wish that we would all spend more time exploring that issue rather than blaming the all the problems in the Church on the current Mass.

Ham1, I agree completely that better formation of our priests in the seminaries would be greatly beneficial to the Catholic Church as a whole. There is no question on that. And it would have a positive effect on the celebration of the liturgy as the priests would not be nearly as prone to abuse it.

As far as sexual abuse goes, I quote again from James Hitchcock as I think he is pointing to one of the problems. This is from the excellent article entitled: “The End of Gaudium et Spes?” at:

http://www.montfort.org.br/eng/veritas/end_gaudium_spes.html

Here is the quote:

"The scandals are a particularly grim result of misplaced post-conciliar optimism. Strict rules about clerical behavior were generally rescinded after the Council, on the grounds that priests could be trusted to act in appropriate ways."

Just as the new liturgy is open to more obvious abuses because of the changes inherent to it, and also because there are priests who do not wish to follow the rubrics even of the New Mass, so also relaxing the rules on clerical behavior could have had the unintended effect of enabling priests inclined to wrong behaviors to act out on them more than they had in the past.

As far as seminary training goes in the 40’s and 50’s I certainly do not think that is a bad place to look for the start of the problems. Nevertheless, any anecdotal evidence (and I admit it is anecdotal) I have heard from priests regarding seminary training in those times was that in general it was good (by good I mean they were actually taught the Catholic faith as opposed to heresies).

I would also point to one of the causes of the abuse problem in the 70’s and 80’s to a greater acceptance of homosexuals into the seminaries, and probably this started happening more in the 1960’s.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

Thanks!

This is why I think that a reversion to the old Mass would simply be a bandaid on the real problem. Sure, it would be tougher for the ill-formed priests to abuse the liturgy, but they would still be ill-formed priests prone to ambiguous (or worse) homilies.

It seems to me that the root cause of all the trouble with the Church in this country goes back to the formation of our priests. Since, seminaries are the primary source of formation, this would be where the problems started.

I think this is also supported by the statistics on sexual abuse by priests. If you look at the reports on the bishops website, there was a huge increase in the number of incidents of abuse around 1960 and then a huge decrease starting around 1985. Now, I don’t have proof but I would assume that most of the active priests from 1960 to 1985 attended the seminary in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. To me, that means that something was very wrong in the seminaries well before the new Mass. I wish that we would all spend more time exploring that issue rather than blaming the all the problems in the Church on the current Mass.

Also, while I can fully agree with you regarding the benefits of proper seminary formation, I look also to the liturgy (even without abuses) as one of the causes of the loss of faith in our times. I look at these issues as both/and. Bad seminary formation will have a negative effect on the Church.

However, I believe at the same time we must also at least consider the possibility that the reform of the liturgy undertaken by the commission headed by Archbishop Annibale Bugnini would have the potential for either a positive or negative effect on the Church as a whole. I say this because the changes, whether one likes them or not, were monumental. I know of no time in the history of the Church that the liturgy was given over to a committee which had the power to make such sweeping changes (and used it).

In fact, if you argue that much of the seminary formation in the 40’s and 50’s was bad (and I do not at all deny there were dangerous currents in the Church prior to Vatican II), then who is to say the priest and bishops on the commission in charge of the alteration to the liturgy were not themselves a product of poor seminary training?

Nevertheless, I do argue that Catholics receive most of their formation from the liturgy and catechesis. Catechesis would come primarily from priests and thus this is where I can wholeheartedly agree that proper seminary formation is paramount, so at least Catholics can have the Faith properly taught to them through homilies and things like RCIA classes.

Nevertheless, the liturgy is another huge part of the formation of Catholics. People often learn by example. So even though Vatican II calls the Holy Eucharist, “the source and summit of the Christian life”, if the liturgy itself does not convey this reality as well as it used to with the Tridentine liturgy then it only makes sense to me that we are going to run into problems with the formation of regular Catholics. This is not to blame the new liturgy as the root cause of all problems everywhere in the church, but to point to it as one of the causes along with seminary formation (and I would even include things like the architecture of too many modern day churches).

Hence, I do not look at returning to the Tridentine liturgy as a mere band-aid. Realistically, however, I of course do not think there will be a wholesale return to the Tridentine liturgy, but I hope for far greater use of it. Just as better seminary formation would help the Church as a whole, a liturgy which teaches and displays the doctrine of the faith in a greater manner would also be quite beneficial since practicing Catholics receive most of their formation within the context of the liturgy.

If anyone wants to delve into the question of which liturgy, new or old, better conveys the doctrinal content of the Faith, particularly in regard to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and tends to provide a more reverent atmosphere which lifts one’s heart and mind to God, then they may need to do some reading. I have already recommended authors like James Hitchcock, Fr. Aidan Nichols, Dietrich von Hildebrand, and works such as “The Ottoviani Intervention” which is available online here:

http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm

 

[Ham1]

Brennan Doherty:

Ham1, I agree completely that better formation of our priests in the seminaries would be greatly beneficial to the Catholic Church as a whole. There is no question on that. And it would have a positive effect on the celebration of the liturgy as the priests would not be nearly as prone to abuse it.

As far as sexual abuse goes, I quote again from James Hitchcock as I think he is pointing to one of the problems. This is from the excellent article entitled: “The End of Gaudium et Spes?” at:

http://www.montfort.org.br/eng/veritas/end_gaudium_spes.html

Here is the quote:

"The scandals are a particularly grim result of misplaced post-conciliar optimism. Strict rules about clerical behavior were generally rescinded after the Council, on the grounds that priests could be trusted to act in appropriate ways."

Just as the new liturgy is open to more obvious abuses because of the changes inherent to it, and also because there are priests who do not wish to follow the rubrics even of the New Mass, so also relaxing the rules on clerical behavior could have had the unintended effect of enabling priests inclined to wrong behaviors to act out on them more than they had in the past.

As far as seminary training goes in the 40’s and 50’s I certainly do not think that is a bad place to look for the start of the problems. Nevertheless, any anecdotal evidence (and I admit it is anecdotal) I have heard from priests regarding seminary training in those times was that in general it was good (by good I mean they were actually taught the Catholic faith as opposed to heresies).

I would also point to one of the causes of the abuse problem in the 70’s and 80’s to a greater acceptance of homosexuals into the seminaries, and probably this started happening more in the 1960’s.

The problems had to start happening much earlier than the 70’s and 80’s. As I mentioned before, if you look at the abuse statistics they begin plummeting after 1985 down to almost nothing in the 2000’s. That says to me, that there was some pretty heinous formation or lack thereof going on. Another question to ask would be “If the state of the Church is so poor, then why have the incidents of abuse plummeted over the last 20 years?”

Perhaps the new Mass has flaws. Perhaps the old Mass has flaws as well. I really see no debate in arguing the advantages of one over the other. One is the current latin rite, the other is the old latin rite. 99% of fixing the Church is educating ALL Catholics on the faith- the New Evangelization and educating great new priests. This IS happening. So, let’s stop bickering about whether they should have changed the Mass or not. It was changed…35 years ago. Let’s move on.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

The problems had to start happening much earlier than the 70’s and 80’s. As I mentioned before, if you look at the abuse statistics they begin plummeting after 1985 down to almost nothing in the 2000’s. That says to me, that there was some pretty heinous formation or lack thereof going on. Another question to ask would be “If the state of the Church is so poor, then why have the incidents of abuse plummeted over the last 20 years?”

Perhaps the new Mass has flaws. Perhaps the old Mass has flaws as well. I really see no debate in arguing the advantages of one over the other. One is the current latin rite, the other is the old latin rite. 99% of fixing the Church is educating ALL Catholics on the faith- the New Evangelization and educating great new priests. This IS happening. So, let’s stop bickering about whether they should have changed the Mass or not. It was changed…35 years ago. Let’s move on.

Ham1, I am not bickering. I am arguing. Perhaps you can provide some statistics to show that the incidents of abuse have “plummeted” over the past 20 years (I don’t know where to find the stats on the USCCB website). I also consider your conjecture that seminary formation in the 40’s and 50’s to possibly have been “heinous” to be specious, at best. Do you have any, even anecdotal, evidence to suport this claim?

For instance, one can say there have been modernists in the Church all through the 20th century, yet they were kept in check (at least somewhat) by the disciplines enacted by the Church such as “The Oath Against Modernism” priests had to take. Plus the fact that a Priest realized that if he was too open with heretical teaching he might be disciplined in some manner. Thus I would point to the sexual abuses as more a result of allowing more homosexuals into seminaries, which has been written about in books such as “Goodbye, Good Men” by Michael Rose (and other articles), and the general laxness in discipline which followed the Council as James Hitchcock has stated above.

However, when I argue for the old liturgy, I really have in mind things such as belief in the Real Presence and Mass attendance, which does not seem to have improved over the past twenty years.

If you do not see the effect the changes in the liturgy has had on Catholics, then fine. I will continue to argue for a greater use of the Tridentine Mass, or even a Reform of the Reform, simply because liturgy is critical to the formation of Catholics.

Again, if you do not see the importance of the differences in the old and new liturgy and their pertinence to the formation of Catholics then you are invited to read further in the authors and articles I have mentioned above. You are of course free to move on if you wish. However, stating that we should just “move on” from talking about the changes to the liturgy seems akin to me telling you that we should just “move on” from talking about bad seminary formation and poor catechesis. All of it works together and supports the other and thus all of it is important.

God bless.

 

[Ham1]

The info on the abuse statistics is on www.usccb.org in the John Jay Report. There is a graph that shows the number of incidents reported by year. In 1985, there were around 500 instances, in 2000 it appears to be less than 50. That’s a pretty big change. The statistics are pretty interesting. I highly recommend taking a look at it. I also think the abuse crisis was not about pedephilia but about homosexuality. That’s why the numbers don’t seem to make sense. I think everyone would speculate that there were more homosexuals in the seminary in 1985 than in 1960. But then, I would expect abuse incidents to be going up instead of the other way. It’s puzzling.

I guess my evidence for the seminary problem is this:

The liturgy was badly and widely abused by many US priests in the early mid 70’s through mid 80’s. The majority of pastors and bishops at that time would have been men who went to the seminary in the 40’s and 50’s. As I have stated before, the problem with a priest who abuses the liturgy is not a problem with the liturgy but rather with the priest. So, there must have been an awful lot of priests during that time that did not receive proper formation.

I apologize for using the word “bicker” you are arguing, and quite convincingly.

I agree that the old liturgy is part of our heritage and should be preserved. I guess I would also like to see the new Mass get a fair shot. My parish (and I know others) has wonderful new Masses and we have perpetual adoration. I think if the majority of the parishs in the country had devout NO masses and good priests giving good homilies we would see an increase in mass attendance and belief in the real presence.

I just don’t believe that a return to the old Mass is the necessary means to achieve this end. Although it may play some role, I still believe that the vast majority of the change has to happen in the seminaries (which I hear IS happeneing!). When young energetic priests start changing parishs (and creating new vocations) our Church will rapidly get stronger.

Thanks for this conversation. It is very enjoyable AND informative!

 

[Merton]

Something that I did not see in the list is PRAYER. God is the only one who can fix it.

I would like to add a suggestion though. The abuse goes on because no one is accountable. When we approach a “Liturgist” or priest we are brushed aside. Many times if you go to the Bishop nothing is done.

I think we need to have constant monitoring until it starts turning around. And by monitoring I mean a representative from the Archdiocese making unannounced visits to different parishes each week to observe. This person should not be identified and should not say anything to anyone except to act like someone visiting in the area fulfilling their Sunday obligation. This person should then file a report with the Bishop, noting both good and bad. If there is abuse occurring, the Bishop should contact the parish priest and inform him of his errors. If another visit by an observer indicates the error has not been corrected the priest should be personally counselled by the Bishop and documented. A third offense should be grounds for removal of the priest from the parish.

The priest and parishioners of all parishes should be made aware that such actions could occur. Many times I think the parishioners are just as much responsible for abuse as the priest. Things happen that are not right but it is accepted and it continues to happen. There are those who interject ideas as being “nice” or “this would be cute” and other such nonsense. The priest must be strong and let people know what is OK and what is not.

I think I’ve gone on too long but that is my (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[swampfox]

Merton’s is a great idea that should be used throughout the US and even the world–All that it requires is a hierarchy that cares about liturgical abuse rather than encouraging it.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

The info on the abuse statistics is on www.usccb.org in the John Jay Report. There is a graph that shows the number of incidents reported by year. In 1985, there were around 500 instances, in 2000 it appears to be less than 50. That’s a pretty big change. The statistics are pretty interesting. I highly recommend taking a look at it. I also think the abuse crisis was not about pedephilia but about homosexuality. That’s why the numbers don’t seem to make sense. I think everyone would speculate that there were more homosexuals in the seminary in 1985 than in 1960. But then, I would expect abuse incidents to be going up instead of the other way. It’s puzzling.

I guess my evidence for the seminary problem is this:

The liturgy was badly and widely abused by many US priests in the early mid 70’s through mid 80’s. The majority of pastors and bishops at that time would have been men who went to the seminary in the 40’s and 50’s. As I have stated before, the problem with a priest who abuses the liturgy is not a problem with the liturgy but rather with the priest. So, there must have been an awful lot of priests during that time that did not receive proper formation.

Ham1, thanks for the link to the John Jay report. I have started listening to a 4 tape set by Fr. Benedict Groeschel entitled, “Exposing The Real Church Scandal” available here:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/groeschel.htm

It sounds like he is dealing with the very topic you are interested in.

I agree that the sexual abuse crisis is about homosexuality and the abuse of young teenage boys and the cases of pedophilia are much more rare.

As far as the liturgical abuse goes, I can concede that many priests, even prior to Vatican II, perhaps no longer had a sense of the supernatural and transcendent, as Alice von Hildebrand states in her interview (see post #97). How much of that is a result of secular society and/or seminary training, I do not know. And to me there is no question that the abuses in the Novus Ordo are often more obvious than with the Tridentine Mass because of the stricter rubrics of the Tridentine. My impression is that while seminary training may have been lacking prior to Vatican II, it actually became worse afterwards, particularly in regards to heterodox teaching going on at the seminaries.

I am also grateful and hopeful for any news that seminary training is getting better, and I have heard candidates are more orthodox which of course bodes well for the Church.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ham1:

I agree that the old liturgy is part of our heritage and should be preserved. I guess I would also like to see the new Mass get a fair shot. My parish (and I know others) has wonderful new Masses and we have perpetual adoration. I think if the majority of the parishs in the country had devout NO masses and good priests giving good homilies we would see an increase in mass attendance and belief in the real presence.

I just don’t believe that a return to the old Mass is the necessary means to achieve this end. Although it may play some role, I still believe that the vast majority of the change has to happen in the seminaries (which I hear IS happeneing!). When young energetic priests start changing parishs (and creating new vocations) our Church will rapidly get stronger.

I still stand by my opinions of the Novus Ordo. It is valid, and I am in full support of groups like Adoremus which are trying to return to a more reverent celebration of the Novus Ordo. Nevertheless, if one looks at the actual changes to the liturgy, particularly the wording, it’s not that the Novus Ordo is heretical at all, but I do believe the commission in charge of putting together the Novus Ordo really did want a liturgy that was as non-offensive to Protestants as possible. Hence in the Novus Ordo, especially when compared with the Tridentine, one finds less emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass and on Jesus as the victim.

To me, this simply does not bode well for promoting a belief in the Real Presence. Further, men are attracted to beauty. When a liturgy is quite often mediocre, even if valid, men will be less attracted to it. Just as if one were to strip a woman of her feminine beauty, she could still possibly bear children, she would still “function,” but she would have far fewer suitors.

 

[jturnbull]

“You” or “they” cannot “fix” the liturgy. Lex orendi, lex credendi. To paraphrase the meaning, “the liturgy reflects what is believed.” The Eucharist is disrespected because a majority of Catholics believe it to be symbolic only. They show it in their dress at Mass; they show it by the chit-chat in the sanctuary, etc. The abuses began when the focus of the Mass was changed from the Divine victim (God-centered) to congregational or communal celebration (man-centered). This, of course, is the Novus Ordo. Take the time to examine the changes in the Canon of the Mass to make it “more protestant” and hence, less objectional to the Protestant observers who helped formulate the liturgy. To summarize, truth exists beyond one’s self. When collectively a liturgy celebrates ourselves there is really no worship only self-aggrandisement.

I agree 110%

 

[Ham1]

Brennan Doherty:

Ham1, thanks for the link to the John Jay report. I have started listening to a 4 tape set by Fr. Benedict Groeschel entitled, “Exposing The Real Church Scandal” available here:

http://www.crisismagazine.com/groeschel.htm

It sounds like he is dealing with the very topic you are interested in.

I agree that the sexual abuse crisis is about homosexuality and the abuse of young teenage boys and the cases of pedophilia are much more rare.

As far as the liturgical abuse goes, I can concede that many priests, even prior to Vatican II, perhaps no longer had a sense of the supernatural and transcendent, as Alice von Hildebrand states in her interview (see post #97). How much of that is a result of secular society and/or seminary training, I do not know. And to me there is no question that the abuses in the Novus Ordo are often more obvious than with the Tridentine Mass because of the stricter rubrics of the Tridentine. My impression is that while seminary training may have been lacking prior to Vatican II, it actually became worse afterwards, particularly in regards to heterodox teaching going on at the seminaries.

I am also grateful and hopeful for any news that seminary training is getting better, and I have heard candidates are more orthodox which of course bodes well for the Church.

I have heard a theory that makes sense regarding the abuse crisis. It was common in the 40’s and 50’s for boys as early as 13 or 14 to enter into minor seminaries where they would live in dormitories and attend highschool and receive formation.

In psychological development there is a phase referred to as the “homosexual phase.” This does not mean sexual by the way, it refers to the phase when boys are interested in spending time with other boys. 9 and 10 year old boys have no interest in playing with girls they want to play with boys. For some children this last well into their teens. A good example is 17 year old boys who are just not particularly interested in dating. It doesn’t mean they are “gay.” It just means they haven’t hit the next developmental phase.

I contend that the family is a key source of a child’s development, sexual and otherwise. It seems to me that some boys probably did not develop properly in a minor seminary setting because they were not ready for that yet. As a result these boys grew into men who has stunted development that caused them to have perverted sexual attractions. Perhaps, if some of these same boys had been at home with Mom and Dad and brothers and sisters, they would have developed normally.

Anyway, it’s really just a hypothesis, but one that I think may have some validity.

 

[Ham1]

jturnbull:

I agree 110%

Turnbull,

1. Liturgical abuses have to effected by priests they cannot occur on their own.
2. When the New Mass was instituted ALL (obviously) the priests were educated and formed PRIOR to the New Mass.
3. How orthodox and faithful could these priests have been if they immediately began to ABUSE the sacred liturgy?

It seems to me the greater problem would have to be with the formation of the priests the majority of whom would have attended the seminary in the 40’s and 50’s.

 

[Big_L]

JCB:

Melman
Here are some facts that are real;
Vocations from our traditional Latin Mass community in the past five -years = 3
Vocations from the three NO parishes that surround me in the past five -years = 0

Liturgical abuses occurring during the TLM in the last ten years in our community = 0
Liturgical abuses occurring during the NO in the last ten years in our parish = several hundred

I hope you can get a chance to attended the TLM . I think you will begin to see the reality.

“…those who have ears let them hear…”

“… by their fruits you will know them …”

Well, all I know is that I attend the Life Teen Mass at my home parish and we have had three vocations in the past two years. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to have a Mass with upbeat music and still maintain due reverence for the Blessed Sacrament and not have any liturgical abuses.

 

[Catholic_Girl_9]

I’ve been to a life-teen mass. The music is terrible. The liturgy should not be refashioned by every generation to fit their whims. It is a gift that is handed down to us from the apostles and saints. I bet you would have more vocations if a teen mass would introduce young people to the beauty of our Latin traditions, in song and in prayer. The music they play at a teen life mass is very profane and ordinary, lost is the sense of sacred. Guitar and drums do not fit with the mystery of the mass and are distracting.

Another problem with that style of worship is young people might not learn an appreciation of classical music and art of western civilization. You have show them a way out of mtv and rock as a way to connect with the past and God.

 

[Big_L]

Catholic_Girl 9 said:
*I’ve been to a life-teen mass. The music is terrible. The liturgy should not be refashioned by every generation to fit their whims. It is a gift that is handed down to us from the apostles and saints. I bet you would have more vocations if a teen mass would introduce young people to the beauty of our Latin traditions, in song and in prayer. The music they play at a teen life mass is very profane and ordinary, lost is the sense of sacred. Guitar and drums do not fit with the mystery of the mass and are distracting.

Another problem with that style of worship is young people might not learn an appreciation of classical music and art of western civilization. You have show them a way out of mtv and rock as a way to connect with the past and God.*

First, I NEVER watch MTV!!!:nope:

Second, I think that it is quite shortsighted of you to state that the music is “terrible” and “very profane”. Much of it is quite good and draws one’s attention to Christ truly present on the altar and allows one to be elevated into prayer. Not to bash Latin traditions. Believe me, I think that the 2000 year tradition of the Church is valuable and should be preserved. I whole-heartedly support the generous application of the Indult allowing for the use of the 1962 missal. However, new music and forms of worship should also be permitted to develop. Different styles of music can coexist and all give glory to God. If played correctly, contemporary styles of music can give glory to God.

Remember the words of Psalm 150, “Give praise with blasts upon the horn, praise him with harp and lute. Give praise with tambourines and dance, praise him with flutes and strings. Give praise with crashing cymbals, praise him with sounding cymbals. Let everything that has breath give praise to the Lord. Hallelujah!” (Psalm 150:3-6, NAB)

 

[Archbishop_10-K]

How come hardly anybody voted for Vatican Council III/LA Council I?

What better way is there than to get all the bishops to answer directly to the Pope’s face?

 

[OraProNobis]

>>Give praise with crashing cymbals, praise him with sounding cymbals.<<

Cymbols as used by, oh, let’s say, Beethoven, yes. :yup:

Cymbols as used by (pick any contemporary “musician”), no. :nope:

Even in Protestant communities there is a growing backlash against contemporary music, especially the so-called “Christian rock.”

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Crusader:

I’m curious if any of the parish buildings close by Archbishop O’Malley in Boston were acquired by any of the Eastern Catholic Churches?

Crusader,

The typical Latin Rite church is not consistent with church architecture appropriate to our traditions in the Eastern Churches. No, none were. The Eastern Churches represented in Boston and its suburbs (Melkite, Romanian, Ukrainian, Armenian, and Maronite) have temples that are more beautiful than any of the churches being closed, with the exception of Holy Trinity (German), a magnificent house of worship.

Many years,

Neil

 

[Don_E]

Melman:

Here’s what I don’t understand. JPII has been Pope since 1978. But yet it’s only in the last couple of years that reform of liturgical abuse has gotten a lot of attention. What was he doing in the first 20 years of his papacy?

It took that long for the reappointment of Bishops that he could start to make a dent in the American Catholic Church that developed in the “Spirit of Vatican II”(To be read as the American radical 60’s,followed the the ME and I generations.

 

[Fortiterinre]

In the past year, since the GIRM was reissued, I have seen enormous improvements including:

• From standing to kneeling almost anywhere in my diocese that was standing for the Canon
• Mandatory installation of kneelers in two multi-million dollar parishes that did not want them
• Repositioning of the tabernacle from “the sidelines” to front and center in three parishes
• One destruction of a “Blessed Sacrament chapel” which had been a janitor’s closet and was about 4’ x 6’ in area.