Liturgical abuse!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cluny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Aramis said:
There is pretty good documentation that numerous bishops were having problems (and complaining to Rome about them) with the children of priests claiming that pastorships were the same as hereditary fiefs in the timeframe 950-1100. The issue came from the practice of letting a priest’s son, if a priest, serve as associate and later pastor in the same church as their father.

As for married catholic priests, I know one. Rev. Fr. Scott Medlock.

I know another who used to be married. Rev. Fr. Erik Wiseman. He’s a widower.
Click to expand...
I assume you mean married Latin priests. I know several Eastern Catholic priests who are married.

Something similar to what you are describing, Aramis, existed in Russia once upon a time. St. Paisius Velichkovsky’s father was dean of the Cathedral in Kiev (I think it was) and was due to inherit this position when he was ordained. Instead he ran away to become a monk.
 
Layman said:
Dear Basil,

I know married priests exist. I vaguely recally marriage was forbidden so priests could not pass on their church to their children. Celibacy is also a sacrifice, I’d say, and a constant one. It’s a higher estate. It also means you only have to serve God and not your missus and kids as well.
Click to expand...
I take serious umbrage that a sacrament has less meaning and impact than a non-sacramental state of life. Higher? Than what, a sacraement, an outward sign, given by Crhist, to give grace - specifically?

Celibacy is a charism, a gift. It is a gift in its own way and right, and it is not a gift given to everyone. The charism of priesthood is a separate, distinct and different gift, and in the Roman rite, if you have been given the charism of priesthood, you will be celibate whether you have the charism of celibacy or not. And therein lies the distinction. It would seem that there are some who would do away with celibacy entirley, although I have yet to meet them; at least, it sould seem as every time Rome or any official of the Church (Roman rite) gets going about married priests, they trot out this red herring about “doing away with celibacy” as if it is a black and white issue. It simply isn’t. It is not “either or”, it is “both and”. The Church has had a married clergy for 2000 years; and celibacy has been enforced for about 1000+ years in the Roman rite. And as to “serving God instead of the missus”, what poppycock. One serves God by serving others, and that is the essence of marriage. Lose sight of that and you are on the wrong road with the marriage. And priest has to be available 24-7-365? Also poppycock. Much of what the priest does in a parish is adminsitration, and that is not sacramental. It can be done by others, should anyone have the initiation to think beyond the current paradigm.
Layman said:
I’m not suprised there’s a book about a Sunday service in the absense of a priest. But I understand such a thing is not a Mass, so you’re not obliged to attend it.
Click to expand...
Obliged? How about privileged? There is no service without a priest unless there isn’t a priest, at which point the obligation to attend Mass is releaved. Seems to me that Christ had a couple of things to say (in fact, I would dare say more than a couple) to the Pharisees, who were all over “obligation” but didn’t seem to have a clue what it is all about - hint: it is about loving God. Somebody would not have the “obligation” to attend a Communion service; but why would anyone not jump at the chance if Mass were not available? Oh, that’s right; one spouse does not have the “obligation” to make love with the other spouse once the marriage is consumated. But if that is the way people are treating marriage, then I would suggest they don’t have clue about marriage. Mass is not about “obligation”; it is about privilege. Ask anyone Catholic who has been in a country where Mass was forbidden.
 
wisdomseeker said:
VII seems to me is most about given people freedom to do what they want.
Click to expand...
Just a silly suggestion: why don’t you try reading the documents if you are going to sound off about them? The documents did not give the freedoms you are talking about; people simply started doing this, that and the other and the bishops failed to exercise leadership in their own diocese. Add to that the massibve and instantaneous backlash of disobedience thatr occured witht he relaese of Humanae Vitae and you might see how neither Rome nor the local bishop had much (name removed by moderator)ut in controlling anything in many places (contrary to popular opinion, not all of the approximate 19,000 parishes went nuts).
wisdomseeker said:
that is why the Mass varies so much. unlike before there was no difference.
today, we do see innovations every time we go to Mass. this past Sunday. the priest calls all the pastoral council which is 90% women to the front of the Church before the Mass even started and make us clap to all of them.
Click to expand...
And the point is? As you said, it was before Mass, so it has nothing to do with the Mass. I can’t speak to your experience; mine is primarily in the West; but having been to Mass in Oregon, Washington, Utah, California, Montana and North Dakota, I find that there are very, very few innovations. There may be some differences, but those are primarily what the rubrics allow.
wisdomseeker said:
i have never before seeing a priest without his habit, today i see priests walking around in t shirts and shorts. very strange.

God have Mercy on us all.
Click to expand...
As an aside, priests do not have habits unless they are diocesan, and that depends on what the bishop sets as a rule. I have a picture of Benedict 16 from the time he was teaching - I don’t know if he was a bishop then or not yet; and he was in suit and tie, which at least in some areas of Europe is standard.
 
I’m cynically amused, now, when people try to speak up for the O.F-plus-novelties.

All those ‘liberating’ changes, which have slowly whittled an atmosphere of reverence, mystery and sanctity from the Mass and turned it into an inward-facing, communal, ‘celebration’ with audience participation. And maybe a married priest. And a female deacon, now.

Individually, they are jarring, but together? Wake up and see where you are being led.

Now we are ‘privileged’ to be able to attend a priest-less ‘service’, where previously we had 2-4 Latin Masses on a Sunday, including a Missa Cantata? I think I hear the Devil laughing.
 
Layman said:
I’m cynically amused, now, when people try to speak up for the O.F-plus-novelties.
.
Click to expand...
The Roman Rite was itself a novelty once upon a time.

The use of Latin was a novelty once upon a time.

In any case, this thread is talking about liturgical abuses, not “novelties”.

If something is allowed by the rubrics or church authority, it is neither.
 
Yawn. Christianity itself was a novelty, once upon a time.

The idea of abuses is moot if abuses become the norm. Or if bad catechesis and experimentation mean most mass-goers (and some priests) don’t know what they are any more.

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

Or you just don’t have a Mass full stop because a man can’t see a good reason to give up family life, money and his ease to preside at a ‘communal celebration’.

Combined with a people-focused liturgy, we’re well away from the humility, beauty and fear that should accompany a rite dedicated to the Lord Of The Universe.
 
I’m waiting for you to mention an actual liturgical abuse–that is, a serious and deliberate (not accidental) violation of the rubrics.

Using fruitcake and sherry for the matter (both of which are invalid matter) at a Eucharist would be an abuse.

What actual ABUSES have you seen?
 
[Copied from the sites above]:
  • Ad-libbing;
  • Inclusive language;
  • Homily given by a Lay Person or Nun;
  • Armies of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist; “Eucharistic Ministers”;
  • Closing the Holy Water Fonts during some Seasons;
  • Interrupting the Mass;
  • Replacing or omitting the homily.
Also, liturgical dance presented front-page with a picture in an Irish religious newspaper, recently. With no comment.

As to other abuses, I wouldn’t know enough about the rubrics to know if they’re being done. I’m just comparing and contrasting my own experience as a pew-warmer at the O.F. vs. the E.F. over the years. The more I go to the E.F. and learn about it by reading the Liber and the Missal, the more worried I become about where the O.F. is going. I’m surprised CITH and use of EMCs ever got going, but the trend seems to be towards Mass-as-a-communal-meal and away from Mass-as-a-sacrifice.

Funnily enough, I do have a sense the list at the top is kind of becoming ‘normal’. They wouldn’t be too out of place these days.

Still, we exist in a short span of time. Modernism has had its way and the fruits have not been good. Already there’s a trend towards reviving the old rite. The great thing about it is it clamps down on egotism in clergy and laity, I’d guess by design. Turn up, assist, go home. No performances or ‘interesting’ sanctuary decoration to distract you.
 
Layman said:
I’m cynically amused, now, when people try to speak up for the O.F-plus-novelties.

All those ‘liberating’ changes, which have slowly whittled an atmosphere of reverence, mystery and sanctity from the Mass and turned it into an inward-facing, communal, ‘celebration’ with audience participation. And maybe a married priest. And a female deacon, now.

Individually, they are jarring, but together? Wake up and see where you are being led.

Now we are ‘privileged’ to be able to attend a priest-less ‘service’, where previously we had 2-4 Latin Masses on a Sunday, including a Missa Cantata? I think I hear the Devil laughing.
Click to expand...
The 1950’s are acknowledged as the high point in recent history (before as well as after) for ordinations. Interestingly, the largest source of exodus anyone has been able to point to, of priests leaving after Vatican 2 was to get married.

As to your comments, which are the carte blanche menu of those who don’t like the OF, reverence is as reverence is done, and there are thousands of parishes where Mass is said every bit as reverently in the OF as it was said in the EF prior to the change. I have been to both, and while I am aware of priests who have a less than totaloly reverential attitude and demeanor while saying the OF, they are fewer and fewer as the group of priests who were the base of experimental liturgies grows older, retires and dies, and is replaced with what are called the John Paul 2 priests; those inspired by our last Pope. I have seen Mass done with a slap-dash attitude in the EF, prior to Vatican 2, and it was not a rare occasional thing as it wa my pastor then. I also saw very reverent Masses in the EF. And I continue to enjoy reverently said Masses in the OF; my favorite is to go to the local Trappist abbey.

Your experience may be different; and much of your experience may depend on your geographical location. But your extrapolation from your experience to some sort of over-arching all-times all-places categorization is simply false.

Your comments about female deacons seems to ignore any real research that is going on about the issue and any substantive knowledge of it. And your comments about married priests show a lack of knowledge of Church history up to and including the present day. Prejudice runs deep and has no patience for facts. Novelties? Priestless Sundays are nothing new; they have existed throughout the history of the Church in areas where there were not enough priests to be able to handle the geographic area, which (surprise, surprise) runs a little farther than the US. How you could complain about someone being able to receive the Eucharist when no priest is available to say Mass, simply leaves me astounded; I don’t know if it is something that is a political issue with you, or a lack of love of the Eucharist. That the Church makes the Eucahrist available now to people when they simply have no priest to say Mass each week should bring you joy; instead it seems to bring disdain. How anyone can be disdainful of the Church making the Eucharist available to the faithful when there simply is no priest availabe to say Mass baffles me. Perhaps you can expound and enlighten us - it would seem that you would prevent that - or avoid it because you were not obliged?
 
otjm said:
The 1950’s are acknowledged as the high point in recent history (before as well as after) for ordinations. Interestingly, the largest source of exodus anyone has been able to point to, of priests leaving after Vatican 2 was to get married.

As to your comments, which are the carte blanche menu of those who don’t like the OF, reverence is as reverence is done, and there are thousands of parishes where Mass is said every bit as reverently in the OF as it was said in the EF prior to the change. I have been to both, and while I am aware of priests who have a less than totaloly reverential attitude and demeanor while saying the OF, they are fewer and fewer as the group of priests who were the base of experimental liturgies grows older, retires and dies, and is replaced with what are called the John Paul 2 priests; those inspired by our last Pope. I have seen Mass done with a slap-dash attitude in the EF, prior to Vatican 2, and it was not a rare occasional thing as it wa my pastor then. I also saw very reverent Masses in the EF. And I continue to enjoy reverently said Masses in the OF; my favorite is to go to the local Trappist abbey.

Your experience may be different; and much of your experience may depend on your geographical location. But your extrapolation from your experience to some sort of over-arching all-times all-places categorization is simply false.

Your comments about female deacons seems to ignore any real research that is going on about the issue and any substantive knowledge of it. And your comments about married priests show a lack of knowledge of Church history up to and including the present day. Prejudice runs deep and has no patience for facts. Novelties? Priestless Sundays are nothing new; they have existed throughout the history of the Church in areas where there were not enough priests to be able to handle the geographic area, which (surprise, surprise) runs a little farther than the US. How you could complain about someone being able to receive the Eucharist when no priest is available to say Mass, simply leaves me astounded; I don’t know if it is something that is a political issue with you, or a lack of love of the Eucharist. That the Church makes the Eucahrist available now to people when they simply have no priest to say Mass each week should bring you joy; instead it seems to bring disdain. How anyone can be disdainful of the Church making the Eucharist available to the faithful when there simply is no priest availabe to say Mass baffles me. Perhaps you can expound and enlighten us - it would seem that you would prevent that - or avoid it because you were not obliged?
Click to expand...
This is one of the best posts / replies on this topic that I’ve ever seen. Thank you.
 
  • Ad-libbing;
    • Inclusive language;
    • Homily given by a Lay Person or Nun;
    • Armies of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist; “Eucharistic Ministers”;
    • Closing the Holy Water Fonts during some Seasons;
    • Interrupting the Mass;
    • Replacing or omitting the homily.
**1. There are rubrics in the present Ordinary Form where it says, “in these or similar words…” or words to that effect. If what you call “ad-libbing” takes place at these points, then it’s allowed and by definition not an abuse.
  1. If the sense of the original is inclusive, and it’s an authorized translation, then it’s not an abuse, even if you don’t like it.
  2. This, of course is forbidden, and therfore an abuse.
  3. Since EMHCs are allowed in the Latin Rite, their use, no matter how many, is NOT an abuse. (Whether this is a good idea is a different issue.)
  4. Holy Water stoups are not called for by the rubrics of the Missal. Strictly speaking, their use would be an 'abuse."
  5. What do you mean by “interrupting the mass?” We had a woman (who had recently been in an automobile accident faint in the middle of the aisle. An amublance had to be summoned. We simply waited and prayed, and then the Priest continued after the EMTs had taken her away. What else could the Priest have done?
The sermon is actually an “interruption of the Mass,” according to the EF. So are the washing of the feet and such ceremonies.
  1. What do you mean by “replacing” the homily? In any case, one is not required at daily Masses.
Anything else?

Only one thing you mentioned is actually an abuse.

BTW, a meal was part of the Jewish sacrifices. What do you think got eaten at this meal, but the victim?

Holocausts (whole burnt offerings) were not the norm. **
Turn up, assist, go home.
And you think this is a good thing?
 
Now, Basil, you’re simply being a contrarian. I know what I saw and the conditions under which they occurred.

I’m actually trying to think up ways you could make the O.F. less reverent. But if you’re going to let lay-people hand out communion, have your back to the tabernacle or put it into a side altar, have kids drawings on the altar, have folksy, simple-minded hymns, change Communion, kneeling, on the tongue, to a quick bob and into yer hand, standing, and have bare Churches, I’m not sure what else can be done.

And that’s before you get to the changes in the texts.

I thought women dancing in skimpy costumes might be it, but that’s been done. Rock bands and clapping and gibbering? Done.

None of this seen in the E.F.

As far as I know, only the Pope is infallible when pronouncing doctrine which he specifically states is infallible. Bishops are not infallible. The changes to the Mass are not infallible or immutable. The good thing is, the way is open for them to be changed back.

I guess what’s going to happen is a kind of religious Darwinism. The way is now clear for priests to say, and the faithful to attend, a wide range of Masses; from the TLM said on the traditional Holy days and feast days, to an O.F+novelties transferred to a Sunday.

Which will call men to the priesthood? Which will cause people to drift back to regular worship and piety? Interesting times to be alive (unfortunately).

Useful websites for curmudgeons like myself:

**New Oxford Review

Letter To Confused Catholics

Ottaviani Intervention

Damian Thompson

Alive magazine**
 
Let’s see.

You call certain practices permitted by the Church in the OF “abuses,” but I’m being a contrarian.

I’ll need some time to sort this one out.

Regarding the Ottaviani intervention, it seems that his objections were based on a first unrevised draft of the Pauline Missal.

He later said, when the typical edition was released, that his objections were answered in it.

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.”

Of course, this later statement is NOT popular in some circles. Some have gone so far as to claim he never wrote it. How convenient.

And as long as we’re giving links to read, have you read this one?

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html (In defense of the Pauline Mass)
 
As someone who attends the Latin Mass here in Houston, I can tell you that those who are self-appointed liturgical abuse police are those who are so inflicted with sin that they react by looking for error everywhere else, such as in the mass and with others.

These ‘police’ won’t hesitate to approach you (a stranger or your kids) to announce that you are not in compliance in someway (skirt isn’t 2 inches below the knee, hands not in the proper position while returning from communion, etc.) and will pass off their opinion as canon law.
To sum, their attitiude towards perceived abuses in the mass and others is a reaction to their own sinfulness, which may be diminished in their own eyes when they focus on ‘errors’ elsewhere…this opinion comes from my own experience and a priest who knows people who attend Tridentine Masses and those who don’t.
 
bpbasilphx said:
Let’s see.

You call certain practices permitted by the Church in the OF “abuses,” but I’m being a contrarian.

I’ll need some time to sort this one out.

Regarding the Ottaviani intervention, it seems that his objections were based on a first unrevised draft of the Pauline Missal.

He later said, when the typical edition was released, that his objections were answered in it.

“I have REJOICED PROFOUNDLY to read the Discourse by the Holy Father on the question of the new Ordo Missae, and ESPECIALLY THE DOCTRINAL PRECISIONS CONTAINED IN HIS DISCOURSES at the public Audiences of November 19 and 26, after which I believe, NO ONE CAN ANY LONGER BE GENUINELY SCANDALIZED. As for the rest, a prudent and intelligent catechesis must be undertaken to solve some legitimate perplexities which the text is capable of arousing. In this sense I wish your ‘Doctrinal Note’ [on the Pauline Rite Mass] and the activity of the Militia Sanctae Mariae WIDE DIFFUSION AND SUCCESS.”

Of course, this later statement is NOT popular in some circles. Some have gone so far as to claim he never wrote it. How convenient.

And as long as we’re giving links to read, have you read this one?

matt1618.freeyellow.com/novusordo.html (In defense of the Pauline Mass)
Click to expand...
Hi Basil,

Noone has ever concluded that the Novus Ordo is a valid Mass. Noone–of good will at least-- has ever really questioned Paul VI’s orthodoxy. What everyone questions is how far away from the originals and their intentions we have been drawn. After all, it was HH Paul VI himself who lamented that the “smoke of satan” has entered into the Church, and HH John Paul II who lamented the “silent apostasy.”

The quote above, in its context, was from after Paul VI dictated changes to the Mass Bugnini had written. It was the cause and source of hope for many in the Church after the first novus ordo Missae was issued.

And to be clear, although the validity of the NO Mass may not be in question, the Mass itself is certainly questioned and shunned by many because of its protestant spirit. many of the deleted prayers from the Mass of the Ages were the same prayers deleted by Cranmer in his “Lord’s Supper and Communion Service.”
 
bpbasilphx said:
  • Ad-libbing;
    • Inclusive language;
    • Homily given by a Lay Person or Nun;
    • Armies of Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist; “Eucharistic Ministers”;
    • Closing the Holy Water Fonts during some Seasons;
    • Interrupting the Mass;
    • Replacing or omitting the homily.
**1. There are rubrics in the present Ordinary Form where it says, “in these or similar words…” or words to that effect. If what you call “ad-libbing” takes place at these points, then it’s allowed and by definition not an abuse.

**

I’ll be honest, Basil, although it pains me, I must agree with you. It is not a formal abuse. However, even if it pains you to agree here, would you agree that the way is left open, and that opportunity has certainly been ceased by some priests, to abuse this latitude they have officially been given? This is what Michael Davies refers to as some of the time-bombs, I believe.
Click to expand...
 
Maurin, the “bread” of SSPX is actually stolen, as they celebrate the Sacraments illicitly, and in some cases, invalidly.

You might want to read what the Bible says about “stolen bread”.

You should not frequent SSPX. Is there not a legitimate OF or Eastern Catholic Church near to you?

As for the rest, Fr. John Zuhlsdorf put it best: Say the black; do the red.

Abuses (in the true sense of the word) will then disappear.
 
What a ridiculous response, and absolutely contrary to the actions of the Pope. Way to go.
 
dsulpizio said:
As someone who attends the Latin Mass here in Houston, I can tell you that those who are self-appointed liturgical abuse police are those who are so inflicted with sin that they react by looking for error everywhere else, such as in the mass and with others.

These ‘police’ won’t hesitate to approach you (a stranger or your kids) to announce that you are not in compliance in someway (skirt isn’t 2 inches below the knee, hands not in the proper position while returning from communion, etc.) and will pass off their opinion as canon law.
To sum, their attitiude towards perceived abuses in the mass and others is a reaction to their own sinfulness, which may be diminished in their own eyes when they focus on ‘errors’ elsewhere…this opinion comes from my own experience and a priest who knows people who attend Tridentine Masses and those who don’t.
Click to expand...
Not to make any sweeping generalizations or anything… 😉
 
maurin said:
What a ridiculous response, and absolutely contrary to the actions of the Pope. Way to go.
Click to expand...
I am getting the distinct impression maurin --the Orthodox have not escaped from being tainted by liberalism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top