Liturgical abuse!

[tcraig]

But these do not in themselves make the Masses invalid, and therefore not efficacious.

I’ve never claimed that the abuses that I’ve mentioned would make a mass invalid or lacking in grace.

However, your original question was:

*What is accounting for this sensitivity and even panic? *

*Shouldn’t the term “liturgical abuse” be reserved for deliberate and serious violations of liturgical norms, and not used to label simple bad habits or accidents? *

Many Catholics are not fortunate enough to assist as a mass with an orthodox priest; rather, they are rather in a state of “siege” when it comes to enduring abuse after abuse. For those who have never endured such a mass (and I have, in two separate parishes) you begin to doubt every action the priest takes. You even begin to listen to the homily with a more critical ear, trying to detect anything that goes against Church teaching.

It’s not deliberate … you don’t start out trying to be the “liturgy police”. But rather, it’s something that creeps up on you slowly, bit by bit, and it’s born out of a state of profound distrust.

The best way I can describe it is a child that’s been abused by a parent, who then becomes unsure of everything that parent does, when even good actions become suspect.

 

[Cluny]

I’ve never claimed that the abuses that I’ve mentioned would make a mass invalid or lacking in grace.

True, tcraig, you have not done so.

I HAVE seen this claim made, or at least the question raised, even though there are only four defects that would make a Mass invalid.

Too often have I seen “liturgical abuse” used to describe something that’s simply different from what the writer has experienced before. And (not to mention names), I’ve seen some people who simply don’t know what they are talking about label this or that a “liturgical abuse.”

I sympathize with the confusion and embarassment many faithful have suffered seeing sloppiness or carlessness in the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Would it surprise you to know that I’ve heard similar concerns expressed by Episcopalians?

But I’m serious in my feeling that the term “liturgical abuse” is used too frequently, and maybe too freely.

 

[Layman]

Let’s take a different tack.

Suppose some agency set out to destroy the Mass. How could it be done?

Oppression hasn’t worked, in fact, it strengthens it. If you do anything too drastic, you’ll cause a revolt. Sure, Vat. II was a revolution, but traditional obedience and the long-repressed ‘modernist underground’, eager for change, stopped a major schism. Plus the central rite retained just enough to win over the dubious and the middle-ground.

From them on, just run it down.

• Play on people’s vanity. Make it more about the audience; (a classic marketing trick and the mark of a bad entertainer; involve the audience: “Hey, come on up here, give her a big hand, ladees an’ gennelmen!”.)
• Update it; another marketing trick: “New, improved liturgy that you can get involved in!”
• Justify the reintroduction of discarded practices by reference to their antiquity: (Ancient = good. A classic trick used by freemasonry and occultists).
• Make it nice, friendly, ‘inclusive’. (Don’t scare people by mentioning Death, Judgement, Hell, Sin, The Devil and Damnation.)
• Then change things bit by bit, year by year, Mass by Mass, RE class by RE class. After a while, change becomes taken for granted. It helps tremenduously that change is seen as a good in itself, in the wider culture.

Best thing is, because the faithful are obedient, they’re a lot less truculent than any other kind of ‘consumer’. Indeed, obedience is seen as a very important virtue.

**Also, you can’t easily measure what the results or signs of a good Mass should be : Is it increased vocations, greater conversions of sinners, increase in attendance numbers, miracles associated with it …? So years can go by before people pipe up that something might be wrong.

After fifty years, there won’t be any abuses. Because by then it’ll be a free-for-all.

And if it’s changed from a solemn and mysterious rite worked in silence by beautifully-robed adult men to something that looks more like a school play, why should it be taken seriously?

*** Don’t know if any saint or church doctor has defined this.*

Note: I’m not saying some agency has set out to destroy the Mass (apart from the Devil and his minions, I suppose, but that’s a given.)

 

[weepixie71]

how can anyone tell if something is a liturgical abuse in the “novus ordo” mass? to be honest i dont even think the priests know for sure. one day they teach something is so special and sacred and then the next day its tossed aside. so long as you dont change the words of the consecration i guess we’re alright… oh wait they did that, so i guess that isnt even held sacred enough to keep from tinkering with.

i know what to expect from “tridentine” mass. i dont have to worry about liturgical abuse. i dont have to hold hands to feel like im in a community. i dont have to participate in the sanctuary to feel part of the mass. and we dont have to buy a cd if i want to know our beautiful “catholic” songs and chants.

 

[otjm]

May I ask if this also applies to hand positions during songs, e.g., clapping, waving hands, doing “motions,” etc.? Thank you.

It seems to me that there are two different “camps” here. One camp says that if the GIRM is silent, that means an action is forbidden and we shouldn’t do it.

The other camp says that if the GIRM is silent, an action is permitted if we wish to do it.

I admit that I tend to be part of the second camp. The GIRM simply can’t address every little thing. E.g, I don’t know if the GIRM addresses people leaving in the middle of Mass to go to the bathroom. I don’t think there is any mention of people leaving in the middle of Mass–maybe there is?? But if there isn’t any mention, does this mean that it is forbidden to leave in the middle of Mass to go to the bathroom? (A lot of elderly people, pregnant women, and people with overactive bladders will be very unhappy if they were forbidden from making that dash to the potty!)

Same thing about facial expressions. If the GIRM truly forbids everything that isn’t mentioned, is it forbidden to laugh during Mass (funny joke from priest, kid in front of you does something cute, etc.)? Or is it forbidden to cry (hymn words are touching, kid in front of you does something cute, etc.)?

I don’t know much about these things, but I think that it’s safe to be in Camp 2–if the GIRM doesn’t specifically forbid it, it’s OK. Or am I way off base here?

Ah yes, the “hand waving”. I take it you mean when the priest says “The Lord be with your” some people gesture towards him and say “And with you”.

The same results: the GIRM is silent. I have no clue where this gesture started but I can understand it upsetting people. I have seen people in conversation “on the street” make a similar gesture in conversationw ith someone they know, and perhaps that is the source.

As to those who say that if the GIRM is silent you can’t do it, then I hope to never ever catch them with their hands palms together, fingers interlaced or pointing upwards (or outwards) as that is most definitely not in the GIRM either. That answer simply lacks any logic whatsoever.

50 years ago everyone was pretty much uniform in how they responded (hand postions, that is) in Mass. Then again, society in general was more formal, and people a whole lot less spontaneous than they are today. Blaming it all on the change from the EF to the OF is simply not provable. Society in general has become more casual; there is every possibility that the Charismatic movement would have occured even if the Mass had not changed, and it is entirely possible people would still be holding hands during the Our Father. Neither side can prove yes or no; it is simply idle speculation. We are where we are.

Are hand gestures necessary? Absolutely not. Can they be regulated? If Rome so chooses. and I would make an aside that the silence so far has been deafening, the private letter from the CDW notwithstanding. Should a bishop declare that they are not to occur, then some would not do it(probably some who currently are doing it) and some would probably ignore the bishop. Would he have the authority to say either way? That has been argued elsewhere; and again given that most bishops have bigger fish to fry than trying to regulate hand holding in the liturgy, it amounts to speculation.

An interesting side note. Cardinal George sent a dubium (an official question) to Rome when the last GIRM came out, as the GIRM appeared to say that all were to stand as Communion started, and it appeared to say they were all to remain standing until the last had received. The question was, did Rome intend to chage prior practice of kneeling individually after receiving? The answer that Rome gave said, in part, that Rome did not intend to make rules so rigid as that, and that standing, sitting, or kneeling after one receives, but before all have recieved was acceptable. The interesting, operative part of the response was that Rome did not intend to be so rigid. That might be grist for the mill.

There are a number of people who want a very rigid interpretation of the rules. It would appear, at least from that response, that Rome doesn’t.

So touching a baby, or laughing at a joke would not seem to offend Rome, but it may offend the person sitting next to you, or behind you… and I would leave it to you to determine if what you are doing, and the offense possibly taken, need to determine a different response or not. Common sense should prevail, but then I think it was Voltaire who said that the problem with common sense was that it was not common…

 

[otjm]

Let’s take a different tack.

Suppose some agency set out to destroy the Mass. How could it be done?

Oppression hasn’t worked, in fact, it strengthens it. If you do anything too drastic, you’ll cause a revolt. Sure, Vat. II was a revolution, but traditional obedience and the long-repressed ‘modernist underground’, eager for change, stopped a major schism. Plus the central rite retained just enough to win over the dubious and the middle-ground.

From them on, just run it down.

• Play on people’s vanity. Make it more about the audience; (a classic marketing trick and the mark of a bad entertainer; involve the audience: “Hey, come on up here, give her a big hand, ladees an’ gennelmen!”.)
• Update it; another marketing trick: "New, improved liturgy that you can get involved in!"
• Justify the reintroduction of discarded practices by reference to their antiquity: (Ancient = good. A classic trick used by freemasonry and occultists).
• Make it nice, friendly, ‘inclusive’. (Don’t scare people by mentioning Death, Judgement, Hell, Sin, The Devil and Damnation.)
• Then change things bit by bit, year by year, Mass by Mass, RE class by RE class. After a while, change becomes taken for granted. It helps tremenduously that change is seen as a good in itself, in the wider culture.

Best thing is, because the faithful are obedient, they’re a lot less truculent than any other kind of ‘consumer’. Indeed, obedience is seen as a very important virtue.

**Also, you can’t easily measure what the results or signs of a good Mass should be : Is it increased vocations, greater conversions of sinners, increase in attendance numbers, miracles associated with it …? So years can go by before people pipe up that something might be wrong.

After fifty years, there won’t be any abuses. Because by then it’ll be a free-for-all.

And if it’s changed from a solemn and mysterious rite worked in silence by beautifully-robed adult men to something that looks more like a school play, why should it be taken seriously?

*** Don’t know if any saint or church doctor has defined this.*

Note: I’m not saying some agency has set out to destroy the Mass (apart from the Devil and his minions, I suppose, but that’s a given.)

Since that hasn’t happened by and large, it is pure speculation.

It helps to keep in mind that most people have very little exposure to other parishes; most of the exposure to other parishes is within the same diocese (and often in the same town), and people make broad sweeping accusations based on minimal experience. The Churh is alive and well in may places. It undoubtedly has some problems in some areas, and that, too will change (and has been changing gradually, as JP2 started to select bishops differently than his predecessors, and Benedict has continued with that change in process). Any large ship in motion is difficult to turn around, and will be turned only slowly. What people forget is that 10 years is about a blink of the eye to the Church.

 

[Cluny]

- Justify the reintroduction of discarded practices by reference to their antiquity: (Ancient = good. A classic trick used by freemasonry and occultists).

How do self-idenditifed traditionalists know so much about freemasonry and occultism?

Could you explain, Layman?

And if it’s changed from a solemn and mysterious rite worked in silence by beautifully-robed adult men to something that looks more like a school play, why should it be taken seriously?

Emphasis added.

I will point out to Layman that not even a missa privata in the Exraordinary Form has ever been “worked in silence.”

There are some prayers and readings that the Priest is directed to say vox alta–that is, where he can be heard by those assiting at it.

Where did you get the idea that it was “worked in silence”?

Or, for that matter, that it was “mysterious?” Both the Latin text and vernacular translations are readily available.

 

[adriancombe]

I respectfully disagree on your disagreement, and agree with the Church that holding hands during the Our Father is an abuse. If I could find it, I’d show you the CDW letter where it says holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is an abuse. But that would be a very long Google search, unfortunately. Though I will say this: when abuses become familar, they become bad habits.

I would like to see this document as well. I think the holding hands thing is an abuse; however, I only formally complained when the priest joined the congregation for handholding, since the priest does have a liturgically prescribed hand position arms extended, hands open.

There used to be a website (>10 years ago) called GIRM that spelled this out. I think it was run by the USCCB. Now though if you look at their site it simply says there are strong opinions on both sides and a lot of leeway.

I guess what I most object to is the perception of ‘peer pressure’ to hold hands, especially when, if anything there should be the opposite pressure. I usually just close my eyes for the Lord’s Prayer then no one can effectively give me dirty looks or needs to feel awkward holding their hands out to me, only to feel rejected.

 

[JustaServant]

• priest ad libs and adds phrases during fixed readings and Eucharistic prayer to make it more “personal”

As I understand it, the priest is forbidden to change any of the words of the Eucharistic prayer. This is the most serious abuse in my estimation, and far exceeds hand-holding during the Lord’s Prayer or flip flops on the altar girls. It should be confronted and reported.

 

[Cat]

Ah yes, the “hand waving”. I take it you mean when the priest says “The Lord be with your” some people gesture towards him and say “And with you”.

The same results: the GIRM is silent. I have no clue where this gesture started but I can understand it upsetting people. I have seen people in conversation “on the street” make a similar gesture in conversationw ith someone they know, and perhaps that is the source.

As to those who say that if the GIRM is silent you can’t do it, then I hope to never ever catch them with their hands palms together, fingers interlaced or pointing upwards (or outwards) as that is most definitely not in the GIRM either. That answer simply lacks any logic whatsoever.

50 years ago everyone was pretty much uniform in how they responded (hand postions, that is) in Mass. Then again, society in general was more formal, and people a whole lot less spontaneous than they are today. Blaming it all on the change from the EF to the OF is simply not provable. Society in general has become more casual; there is every possibility that the Charismatic movement would have occured even if the Mass had not changed, and it is entirely possible people would still be holding hands during the Our Father. Neither side can prove yes or no; it is simply idle speculation. We are where we are.

Are hand gestures necessary? Absolutely not. Can they be regulated? If Rome so chooses. and I would make an aside that the silence so far has been deafening, the private letter from the CDW notwithstanding. Should a bishop declare that they are not to occur, then some would not do it(probably some who currently are doing it) and some would probably ignore the bishop. Would he have the authority to say either way? That has been argued elsewhere; and again given that most bishops have bigger fish to fry than trying to regulate hand holding in the liturgy, it amounts to speculation.

An interesting side note. Cardinal George sent a dubium (an official question) to Rome when the last GIRM came out, as the GIRM appeared to say that all were to stand as Communion started, and it appeared to say they were all to remain standing until the last had received. The question was, did Rome intend to chage prior practice of kneeling individually after receiving? The answer that Rome gave said, in part, that Rome did not intend to make rules so rigid as that, and that standing, sitting, or kneeling after one receives, but before all have recieved was acceptable. The interesting, operative part of the response was that Rome did not intend to be so rigid. That might be grist for the mill.

There are a number of people who want a very rigid interpretation of the rules. It would appear, at least from that response, that Rome doesn’t.

So touching a baby, or laughing at a joke would not seem to offend Rome, but it may offend the person sitting next to you, or behind you… and I would leave it to you to determine if what you are doing, and the offense possibly taken, need to determine a different response or not. Common sense should prevail, but then I think it was Voltaire who said that the problem with common sense was that it was not common…

Thank you so much for this answer.

What I was actually thinking of is the “raised hands” that some Catholics do during the singing of hymns. It’s a charismatic thing. In the church where my husband grew up (Assemblies of God), it’s almost an automatic response to ANY hymn, new or old.

And I must add that these Catholics raise their hands not just on the 50-year old Marty Haugen hymns, but also on the 500 year old traditional hymns.

And I’ll be honest–the Catholics that I see doing it are among the most reverent and committed Catholics in our parish. At least one of these families has seen a daughter enter a contemplative convent at age 18 (and stay and become a full-fledged sister!). Another lady is a frequent lector and is usually the lector-of-choice at Easter Vigil because of her clear and easy-to-hear readings of the Word of God. Many of these Catholics are the ones doing all the work of the parish!

IMO, this particular practice is not forbidden by the GIRM or any other document, and so it is allowed in Mass. IMO, it is a lot less distracting than a crying baby or a restless toddler, and those two “noises” are allowed with joy!

I never did get into hand-raising because I grew up playing the piano in church, and it’s kind of hard to raise your hands when you’re at the piano!

 

[Cat]

Let’s take a different tack.

Suppose some agency set out to destroy the Mass. How could it be done?

Oppression hasn’t worked, in fact, it strengthens it. If you do anything too drastic, you’ll cause a revolt. Sure, Vat. II was a revolution, but traditional obedience and the long-repressed ‘modernist underground’, eager for change, stopped a major schism. Plus the central rite retained just enough to win over the dubious and the middle-ground.

From them on, just run it down.

• Play on people’s vanity. Make it more about the audience; (a classic marketing trick and the mark of a bad entertainer; involve the audience: “Hey, come on up here, give her a big hand, ladees an’ gennelmen!”.)
• Update it; another marketing trick: "New, improved liturgy that you can get involved in!"
• Justify the reintroduction of discarded practices by reference to their antiquity: (Ancient = good. A classic trick used by freemasonry and occultists).
• Make it nice, friendly, ‘inclusive’. (Don’t scare people by mentioning Death, Judgement, Hell, Sin, The Devil and Damnation.)
• Then change things bit by bit, year by year, Mass by Mass, RE class by RE class. After a while, change becomes taken for granted. It helps tremenduously that change is seen as a good in itself, in the wider culture.

Best thing is, because the faithful are obedient, they’re a lot less truculent than any other kind of ‘consumer’. Indeed, obedience is seen as a very important virtue.

**Also, you can’t easily measure what the results or signs of a good Mass should be : Is it increased vocations, greater conversions of sinners, increase in attendance numbers, miracles associated with it …? So years can go by before people pipe up that something might be wrong.

After fifty years, there won’t be any abuses. Because by then it’ll be a free-for-all.

And if it’s changed from a solemn and mysterious rite worked in silence by beautifully-robed adult men to something that looks more like a school play, why should it be taken seriously?

*** Don’t know if any saint or church doctor has defined this.*

Note: I’m not saying some agency has set out to destroy the Mass (apart from the Devil and his minions, I suppose, but that’s a given.)

I respectfully suggest that it is you who needs to examine your heart. Many of the things that you list are not in the least irreverent and don’t happen at all in the OF of the Mass.

For example, how is the OF Mass about the audience? Because the priest faces the congregation? To most modern people, the priest faces the congregation for practical reasons–so they can hear him. The priest is acting in the person of Christ, and as an “audience member” (your term, BTW), I want to hear and see Jesus! Maybe you’re out there in the “audience” thinking about how cool you are in the OF Mass, but all the rest of us are thinking about Jesus, not ourselves. Like I said, it’s YOU that need to change your attitude.

And what’s wrong with updating something? Jesus spoke in the language of the people, and used parables (Bible Time TV!) to help them understand. He was GOD, yet He did not disdain the common practices of human beings and he dressed and spoke and acted like regular folks. There is nothing inherently irreverent about modern language, songs, dress, architecture, etc. If YOU think these things are irreverent or inappropriate, again, I would say that YOU need to re-think your attitude.

Making the Mass “friendly” is a good thing. A Mass can be warm and friendly and welcoming without discarding mention of Last Things. Our priests certainly talk about death, purgatory, hell, and judgement. Inclusive is good, if you mean welcoming all races and nationalities. I agree that the sex-free language is bad because God Himself revealed Himself to humans as “Father” not “Mother-Father God.” But reverence and orthodoxy does NOT mean that we must be cold and forbidding in the Holy Mass. If you think so, well, again, I’d do some serious re-thinking.

A lot of things that you criticize, e.g., involving the “audience” are things that the Church Herself has declared good and useful. I personally think that you are allowing yourself to become too upset, and dwelling on the negatives and working yourself up into a lather and writing up your personal opinion in such a way as to make it sound like it’s really happening, when the reality is quite different. You need to be careful about this. When you have attended hundreds and hundreds of Masses all over the U.S., THEN perhaps you might be qualified to make a pronouncement about the State of the OF Mass. But if you basing your comments on the Masses in your part of the country, then your sample size is too small and you cannot draw valid conclusions.

In reality, quite a few OF Masses are well-populated by a lot of very serious and committed faithful Catholics and seeing converts coming into the Church. In our parish, we often say, “It’s GREAT to be Catholic!” and we mean it. I’ve visited several dozen Masses in several states, and I have never seen one that has any of the irreverences and profane practices that are often described on this Board.

I would suggest that you stop thinking so much about yourself and concentrate on Jesus in the Word and Jesus in the Eucharist during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Stop seeing conspiracies in Church. Stop composing doomsday essays about everything wrong about the OF Mass and trust that the Holy Spirit will reveal any true abuses to the ordained authorities (the bishop and priests). Stop “counting” mistakes–this isn’t a figure skating competition, and there is no “point system” in place and you are not a qualified “Mass Judge.” None of us are.

 

[Cluny]

I would like to make a further comment on Layman’s words.

I’ll put it in the form of a syllogism.

1. Masons and occultists appeal to antiquity.
2. St. Vincent of Lerins appealed to antiquity.
3. Therefore, St. Vincent was a mason and occultist.

 

[Cluny]

Regarding ordination to major orders, Pius XII wrote in the Apostolic Constitution Saramentum Ordinis in 1947:

[DS 3859] By virtue of our supreme apostolic authority we declare with sure knowledge and, as far as it may be necessary, we determine and ordain: the matter of the holy orders of diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate is the laying on of hands alone, and the sole form is the words determining the application of the matter, words by which the effects of the sacrament * that is, the power of Order and the grace of the Holy Spirit*are unequivocally signified, and which for this reason are accepted and used by the Church. This leads us to declare, and, if other provisions have been legitimately made in the past at any time, we now determine that, at least in future, the handing over of the instruments is not necessary for the validity of the holy Orders of the diaconate, the presbyterate and the episcopate.

Some might argue that this is not an infallible definition, but it seems to come awfully close to me!

In any case, nothing here about anointing or consecrating of the hands.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Let’s take a different tack.

Suppose some agency set out to destroy the Mass. How could it be done?

Oppression hasn’t worked, in fact, it strengthens it. If you do anything too drastic, you’ll cause a revolt. Sure, Vat. II was a revolution, but traditional obedience and the long-repressed ‘modernist underground’, eager for change, stopped a major schism. Plus the central rite retained just enough to win over the dubious and the middle-ground.

From them on, just run it down.

• Play on people’s vanity. Make it more about the audience; (a classic marketing trick and the mark of a bad entertainer; involve the audience: “Hey, come on up here, give her a big hand, ladees an’ gennelmen!”.)
• Update it; another marketing trick: "New, improved liturgy that you can get involved in!"
• Justify the reintroduction of discarded practices by reference to their antiquity: (Ancient = good. A classic trick used by freemasonry and occultists).
• Make it nice, friendly, ‘inclusive’. (Don’t scare people by mentioning Death, Judgement, Hell, Sin, The Devil and Damnation.)
• Then change things bit by bit, year by year, Mass by Mass, RE class by RE class. After a while, change becomes taken for granted. It helps tremenduously that change is seen as a good in itself, in the wider culture.

Best thing is, because the faithful are obedient, they’re a lot less truculent than any other kind of ‘consumer’. Indeed, obedience is seen as a very important virtue.

**Also, you can’t easily measure what the results or signs of a good Mass should be : Is it increased vocations, greater conversions of sinners, increase in attendance numbers, miracles associated with it …? So years can go by before people pipe up that something might be wrong.

After fifty years, there won’t be any abuses. Because by then it’ll be a free-for-all.

And if it’s changed from a solemn and mysterious rite worked in silence by beautifully-robed adult men to something that looks more like a school play, why should it be taken seriously?

*** Don’t know if any saint or church doctor has defined this.*

Note: I’m not saying some agency has set out to destroy the Mass (apart from the Devil and his minions, I suppose, but that’s a given.)

i believe everything this document reports. we can see the distruction in the Church right before our eyes. i just do not understand how the pope at the time with the bishops against these changes did not act faithfully and stopped the nonsense. what they did was embrace all these changes.

i dont understand why those who held on to the Old Mass ended up being excommunicated instead of receiving support from the pope.

many questions remain.

i remember one time, the priest told us that one time people believed that Jesus appeared in the east, but today we discovered that our Lord is everywhere. that is why priests face the people instead, we know that our Lord is everywhere. to me he made no distinction of the Mass. obviously he did not understand what the Mass is.

 

[JustaServant]

i remember one time, the priest told us that one time people believed that Jesus appeared in the east, but today we discovered that our Lord is everywhere. that is why priests face the people instead, we know that our Lord is everywhere. to me he made no distinction of the Mass. obviously he did not understand what the Mass is.

God is indeed everywhere. But the problem is, unless our attention is focused ‘everywhere becomes nowhere’.

 

[wisdomseeker]

God is indeed everywhere. But the problem is, unless our attention is focused ‘everywhere becomes nowhere’.

true… so you are also in favor of the Latin Mass?

 

[JustaServant]

true… so you are also in favor of the Latin Mass?

I didnt know it was up for a vote.
It has mine.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I didnt know it was up for a vote.
It has mine.

great. we are in agreement here. this week i went to LTM and i walked to the priest and said thank you father for the Mass. i cant go every sunday because is quite far from where i live and gas is to expensive. but i told him i wish we had LTM in my city. i pray that it will come soon. i will run to it. thanks for keeping the True Faith when so many are failing away. but all these things are hapening to acomplish what is written.

 

[JustaServant]

great. we are in agreement here. this week i went to LTM and i walked to the priest and said thank you father for the Mass. i cant go every sunday because is quite far from where i live and gas is to expensive. but i told him i wish we had LTM in my city. i pray that it will come soon. i will run to it. thanks for keeping the True Faith when so many are failing away. but all these things are hapening to acomplish what is written.

I trust a TLM will come to my area as well, Catholics are a minority in WV.

 

[Ockham]

Cluny, what’s your point with this thread? It appears you are trying to convince everyone to relax and not get upset with deviations in our sacred liturgy.

The four marks of the Catholic Church are one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. The Church stands the test of time by sticking to these fundamentals. Our Mass is the outward expression of our faith and is supposed to be universal. Did the Church survive two thousand years because it remained consistent and true to Christ or because it acquisced to cultural demands and incorporated novelty when so demanded?

Since the Novus Ordo burst onto the scene and the subsequent experimenation with it, Sunday Mass attendence has dropped considerably. Sure there are individual parishes with strong numbers but overall our numbers are down dramatically. Europe is even worse off than North America and with the large Muslim immigration, Christianity will soon be insignificant there.

How do we weather the storms of secularism, scandal, and a loss of faith our modern society is designed for? If people don’t find spiritual fulfillment with the liturgy then they lose the motivation for getting up early on Sunday morning to attend Mass. Our dual income society makes Mass attendance more of a commitment with most families being time poor. The numbers indicate the Novus Ordo isn’t holding us together and the flock is being diminished. What does Christ say happens to those who lose their faith?

As faithful Catholics we have a duty to point out liturgical abuses for the sake of the Church and the souls of many. Of course some people may be too quick to make this accusation, but I’d rather have overly enthusiastic orthodox liturgists in the pews than no one at all. If you take something seriously then you’ll make it a priority in your life. This life is supposed to be about preparing for the next, namely the location. Liturgical abuses lead to diminished spiritual fulfillment which leads to lower attendance/faith and death.