Liturgical abuse!

[Layman]

I’d say that a holy and beautiful Mass is an important part of ones religious life. You get a ‘charge’ from it that keeps you going through the week.

I propose that:

• Praying;
• Fasting;
• Abstinence;
• Giving alms;
• Visiting the sick;
• Seeking after indulgences;
• Confession;
• Reading the Bible and about the lives of saints and
• Attending pious Masses …

… can have a ‘snowball effect’ on your level of sanctity. Any one of these is good by itself, but all together they re-inforce each other.

On my way to Latin Mass I often feel tired. Afterwards, I feel energised. Make of that what you like.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I’d say that a holy and beautiful Mass is an important part of ones religious life. You get a ‘charge’ from it that keeps you going through the week.

I propose that:

• Praying;
• Fasting;
• Abstinence;
• Giving alms;
• Visiting the sick;
• Seeking after indulgences;
• Confession;
• Reading the Bible and about the lives of saints and
• Attending pious Masses …

… can have a ‘snowball effect’ on your level of sanctity. Any one of these is good by itself, but all together they re-inforce each other.

On my way to Latin Mass I often feel tired. Afterwards, I feel energised. Make of that what you like.

I agree with you. This is precisely the teaching of the Church.

But remember, what makes a Eucharistic Liturgy pious is the spiritual disposition of the individual worshipper.

 

[bpbasilphx]

bpbasilphx:Layman, mortal sin requires knowlege that the act in question is in fact sinful.

If there is no knowledge of this, there is no sin.

I’m happy to see, however, that you do recognize that the OF is an efficacious Liturgy.

Layman: That was not what I meant. Liturgical experimentation by the clergy and the bad teaching of the laity have led to Masses where the focus is on the participants. If it continues, whatever is now seen as irreverent (liturgical dancing?) will eventually be seen as normal.

As to the efficacy of such Masses: No one, when I asked about it on other posts here, defined, officially, what efficacy means in the context of a Mass.

---

**Other people here and elsewhere have repeatedly said that is a Mass, or for that matter any Sacrament, is validly celebrated, it is by definition efficacious.

This makes perfect sense to me.

Maybe you should explain what YOU mean by “efficacious.”

Do you have a meaning beyond “It makes me feel good” or “I like it”? “Not helpful to my person devotion” is NOT the same thing as “inefficacious.”

Could it be that maybe you are using an unofficial word, or in an unofficial way, such that “efficacy” as you have asked elsewhere is really a non-issue?

FWIW, I did a search on the Catholic Encyclopedia site here of the word “efficacious”. Maybe the following results you might find helpful.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?search=efficacy&fulltext=Search**

 

[Layman]

That link does not appear to work.

My meaning is:

• Fosters sanctity in priest and congregation;
• Brings blessings upon priest and congregation; The Way becomes easier;
• Increases congregation;
• Lasting conversion of sinners, atheists, pagans and heretics;
• Fosters vocations.

 

[bpbasilphx]

That link does not appear to work.

Ahh, the wonders of technology.

It did when I tried it, but you can go to the Encyclopedia link at the very top of this page, type in “efficacy” into the search box, and look at what it brings ups.

For what it’s worth, I looked up “efficacy” on an on-line version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and it gave only seven hits. One of them is this. Something tells me you may not like it

2111 Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.

 

[Layman]

I would say that the outer rite affects the inner disposition. And probably our inner disposition, collectively, is affecting how the rite is done.

Superstition means that cause and effect are not truly linked; you were wearing a red jumper when you won at a game of cards, so now you always wear it. I think we can see the effects of bad catechesis and liturgical experimentation quite clearly. It’s not all down to the times and the mores.

A small sign; people now chat more at N.O. Masses. Why? Well, I think it’s because you have a noiser Mass (more responses from the congregation) and chatty priests. It’s kind of expected that a priest be avuncular, now. It also looks more like a show, with the priest versus populum and your neighbours reading the epistle and distributing communion. You might even have a pop-style band. And people chat and whisper at shows.

I find it’s a lot easier to ‘adore the Lord in his holy court’ at a TLM without the distractions that are being added yearly to the O.F. It seems it’s now legitimate to have the following at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass:

• Use of the same language you use down the pub;
• Priest performing for the congregation all the time (i.e. versus populum);
• Neighbours reading the epistle;
• Women reading the epistle;
• Lay people distributing communion, who don’t have to purify their hands;
• Lay people orating at funeral Masses about the deceased, effectively sermonising;
• Childrens pictures and other mundane items on the Altar of Sacrifice;
• Communion, standing, in the hand instead of the more humble kneeling, on the tongue;
• Christmas tree and other mundane items in the sanctuary;
• Go out of you way to shake hands with your neighbours;
• Congregation obliged to respond all the time;
• Mediocre hymns backed by troubador instruments (guitars, drums).

Combined with bad teaching, greater leeway in the liturgy has lead to some very odd masses and very lax laity; if it looks very easy-going, and you don’t hear a hellfire sermon at least once a year, and you don’t know your catechism, then that will seem OK. You’ve been to Mass and done your duty.

If it’s not such a serious business (kids pictures all over the place, transfer Holy days, jokey sermons), then missing Mass is not a big deal.
If it’s not such a serious business, if your function is encroached upon by the laity, then why be a priest?
If people stop going to Mass now and again, overall numbers and the collection decline. The priests start complaining about revenue not meeting expenses and lack of vocations.
If that happens, the bishop may merge or close the parish; it’s not a viable concern any more and isn’t producing vocations.

Doesn’t happen everywhere, doesn’t happen quickly, in human terms, but I think that’s the pattern.

 

[Cat]

It’s interesting how different people interpret Mass.

I would say that it’s the TLM that is the “show.” Costumes, choreography, a script that does not allow improvisation, music that requires a great deal of rehearsal, and the congregation does NOT participate out loud, they participate silently.

All those are the characteristics of a show, specifically a theater show.

That’s just my point of view. I’m not saying that the TLM is a show, I’m just saying that one of my objections to attending TLM is that I personally find it very theatrical, whereas the OF of the Mass is more like what I find described in the writings of the Early Church leaders and the Bible.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Layman, all that you’re saying about what is NOT efficacious boils down to, “I don’t like these things.”

They are practices the Church permits, so apparently wiser people than you or I decided they did NOT adversely affect efficacy.

And I’ve heard of parish churches having Christmas trees in the Church before Vatican II.

FWIW, the OF cannot be accused of reducing the numbers of vocations, because those churches that never underwent liturgical reform–I’m thinking specifically of Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox Churches–have a priest shortage, too. So obviously there’s something else going on.

The Byzantine tradition makes a big issue over not using any musical instruments at all. Organs were originally used in theatres, and these secular associations from centuries ago is why they are still banned. The other Eastern Churches are a bit less particular about this.

But sanctus bells are just as much percussion instruments as bongos or semantra (which last some Greek and Romanian monasteries have traditionally used).

Are you objecting to guitars as such, or to merely strumming chords?

 

[JustaServant]

It’s interesting how different people interpret Mass.

I would say that it’s the TLM that is the “show.” Costumes, choreography, a script that does not allow improvisation, music that requires a great deal of rehearsal, and the congregation does NOT participate out loud, they participate silently.

All those are the characteristics of a show, specifically a theater show.

That’s just my point of view. I’m not saying that the TLM is a show, I’m just saying that one of my objections to attending TLM is that I personally find it very theatrical, whereas the OF of the Mass is more like what I find described in the writings of the Early Church leaders and the Bible.

For anyone attending a TLM for the first time, not knowing Latin or the order of service, I can understand how one might reach that conclusion. But the more familiar one is with the Latin language, the responses come easier. There ARE responses in a TLM, but they are different than what you would find in the OF.
I attended a traditional Latin Mass at St. Boniface Church in Pittsburgh. A missal was given to me that had the Latin on the left side and the English on the right. Many times I became lost because I hadn’t heard a Latin Mass in so long. It was a High Mass, or Missa Cantata (sung) Mass. There was a dignity to Communion as we knelt at the Altar rail to receive the Body of Christ.
Many times I too felt like a spectator, not a participant. Others were responding in Latin, a language I know but a little.
Remember the word ‘liturgy’ means a ‘work FOR the people’. The priest is doing the work, the people are and should respond.
The Mass was like a diamond which needs a particular setting to show its value and its brilliance. The beauty of the Latin Mass holds magnetic appeal, not only for older Catholics who grew up with it, but for young people who search for true worship.

 

[weepixie71]

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

10 most common liturgical abuses!! can you believe it is so bad we have to have a "top 10’s list.

 

[JustaServant]

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

10 most common liturgical abuses!! can you believe it is so bad we have to have a "top 10’s list.

We must have a pretty conservative priest at our parish.
The only one I recognized was

1. Holding hands during the Our Father.

I’m not sure I would want to start WW3 over this one. If the priest himself would not hold hands with the altar servers, I wonder if other people in the pews would.

 

[Layman]

Ah, don’t you see, it’s not just this or that modification or addition taken in isolation:

It’s the cumulative effect.
It’s the pace of change.
It’s what those changes are pointing towards.

Compare in your mind:

Average Missa Cantata at a parish church in a small town pre-1962.

vs.

Average N.O. Mass today.

Re: guitars. I read they were forbidden once. They were/are the instrument of the troubador, singing of forbidden love i.e. adultery, or today, fornication.

I don’t know anything about Eastern rites. You can expect in a time of plenty, promiscuity, peace and individualism a decline in vocations, regardless.

We don’t suffer as much as our forefathers,
We think the good days will never end,
Death doesn’t trouble us,
So eternity doesn’t worry us.

Not really.

In a time of such iniquity, why not try a tried-and-tested old rite?

 

[Aramis]

Ah, don’t you see, it’s not just this or that modification or addition taken in isolation:

It’s the cumulative effect.
It’s the pace of change.
It’s what those changes are pointing towards.

Compare in your mind:

Average Missa Cantata at a parish church in a small town pre-1962.

vs.

Average N.O. Mass today.

Re: guitars. I read they were forbidden once. They were/are the instrument of the troubador, singing of forbidden love i.e. adultery, or today, fornication.

I don’t know anything about Eastern rites. You can expect in a time of plenty, promiscuity, peace and individualism a decline in vocations, regardless.

We don’t suffer as much as our forefathers,
We think the good days will never end,
Death doesn’t trouble us,
So eternity doesn’t worry us.

Not really.

In a time of such iniquity, why not try a tried-and-tested old rite?

Pianos, Saxaphones, and Guitars were all prohibited at one point or another.

 

[gospel_life]

Remember the word ‘liturgy’ means a ‘work FOR the people’. The priest is doing the work, the people are and should respond.

Actually, liturgy means work OF the people, not FOR. We are all supposed to be doing the “work”, though our roles are different.

1. Holding hands during the Our Father.

And considering the writer totally misinterpreted the Noticiae his argument is based on, it kind of begs the question. The Noticiae repudiated substituting holding hands at the Our Father in place of the sign of peace. It did not at all address repudiating the holding hands.

 

[gospel_life]

1. Holding hands during the Our Father.

And considering the writer totally misinterpreted the Noticiae his argument is based on, it kind of begs the question. The Noticiae repudiated substituting holding hands at the Our Father in place of the sign of peace. It did not at all address repudiating the holding hands.

 

[bpbasilphx]

• Use of the same language you use down the pub;
  • Priest performing for the congregation all the time (i.e. versus populum);
  • Neighbours reading the epistle;
  • Women reading the epistle;
  • Lay people distributing communion, who don’t have to purify their hands;
  • Lay people orating at funeral Masses about the deceased, effectively sermonising;
  • Childrens pictures and other mundane items on the Altar of Sacrifice;
  • Communion, standing, in the hand instead of the more humble kneeling, on the tongue;
  • Christmas tree and other mundane items in the sanctuary;
  • Go out of you way to shake hands with your neighbours;
  • Congregation obliged to respond all the time;
  • Mediocre hymns backed by troubador instruments (guitars, drums).

---

**
How do any of these practices, permitted by the Church, lessen the efficacy of a Mass?

Please be specific, Layman.

Do you think that God takes points off for any or all of these practices?

There only a few things that would make a Mass invalid, and therefore, inefficacious. None of them are on your list.**

 

[bpbasilphx]

Re: guitars. I read they were forbidden once. They were/are the instrument of the troubador, singing of forbidden love i.e. adultery, or today, fornication.

---

**And everything you’ve read is always 100% accurate, right?

As I’ve already said, organs are still forbidden in Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic Churches because they were used in circuses and athletic stadia centuries ago.

It was once forbidden to have women in parish choirs, too–and I’m talking about the Latin church, here.

Something that was once forbidden can be allowed, and vice versa.

In any case, the Church is bigger than just the Latin rite.**

 

[Layman]

I have defined what I think efficacity is. Others have said/implied that validity = efficacity: as long as the consecration is valid, that’s it. The rest is up to the congregation. I don’t think that’s so. I haven’t seen an official definition of it, or an unofficial one made by a saint.

I propose that the abuses and novelties I mentioned are, at best, distracting, and at worse will lessen the efficacity of the rite, as they insert contradictions and mundane elements into it which affect the participant’s inner state and what they are saying outwardly, symbolically, to our Master: “We come to adore you, O Christ, but we’re focusing on ourselves more and more.”

 

[bpbasilphx]

Distractions they may be, but a mature Christian will do his best to rise above them.

If you’ve come to adore Christ, nothing will stand in your way.

As the Gospel song says, “I don’t know what you came to do. I came to praise the Lord.”

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Thank you for posting this. I agree with your observations. I have long wondered what some of the self-appointed “liturgical Sherlock Holmeses” out there even gain from Mass, so intent do they seem to be at hunting down what they feel are “abuses.” A whole lot of people who have just received the Eucharist seem to have their attention focused on how the vessels are purified instead of Who they have just received; I’ve never understood that. Of course REAL abuses do exist, but how often have we seen posts based on lack of knowledge (Gee, it’s really OK to sing the Psalm? You mean Father doesn’t HAVE to say the Confetior in the Penetential Rite? There are other Eucharistic Prayers? Deacons (gasp!) really ARE allowed to preach the homily?)

My favorite story of a “liturgical abuse” happened in our own parish, when the pastor was reported - in writing - to the bishop, for the “abuse” of wearing brown shoes on the altar.

Motivations for all of this? For some, I think being on the “abuse patrol” reinforces their prejudice against the Mass of Paul VI (and/or dislike of Vatican II) and fosters some need to feel religiously superior or more-devout-than-thou. For some others, I think there’s a sense of liturgical schadenfreude, a need to delight in what they see as a defective Mass or ignorant or sloppy priest (especially when visiting away from home) insofar as it makes their home parish somehow more superior or righteous. A whole lot of the “abuse” comments revolve around Extraordinary Ministers, and that’s a separate agenda. The way the term “NO” is thrown around here (as in “It was a NO parish,” or, “He’s a NO priest” shows that many appear to regard the Ordinary Form as almost some sect within (and barely within at that) the Church; with a mindset like that, the need to find liturgical flaws - excuse me, abuses - becomes self-evident.

I wish there were another word, short of “abuse,” for the irregularities that sometimes pop up. Of course, it’s nowhere near as satisfying to accuse someone of an “irregularity.”

If everything’s an “Abuse,” we also lose the ability to distinguish between “Father didn’t wash his fingers” and “a layperson gave the homily.”

Boy, am I gonna get flamed for this . . . . .

Mattapoisett:

There are other terms for the irregularities that pop up - “Simple Mistakes”, “Differences of Opinion” & “Matters of Taste” - Depending up whether those doing the Liturgy fail to precisely follow the G.I.R.M. all the way to debates over which type of music is better.

As I agree with you, if you get flamed, I’m going to get flamed too.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael