Messing with the Mass: The problem of priestly narcissism today

[Ockham]

Messing with the Mass: The problem of priestly narcissism today
PAUL VITZ & DANIEL C. VITZ

*“Since Vatican II the Mass has fallen victim to various kinds of irregularities. This issue has been much discussed from various perspectives, but in this article we will examine a previously neglected aspect of the situation — namely, the psychological reasons why priests have introduced these changes. We will not deal with theological explanations for why the Mass has been subject to liturgical experimentation, nor will we discuss liturgical rationales for such innovations. Instead, we will focus on the psychology of the priest and those assisting at the liturgy — that is, on the psychological motives as distinct from theological and liturgical reasoning.” *

to continue…networkedblogs.com/7SLNd

Thoughts?

 

[wisdomseeker]

very nice article. has anybody ever tought why the Mass has Traditionally been celebrated by the priest facing East? do you think that there is a reason for that? could be that if man faces the people, automatically the focus would be on them turning them into even more narcisistic then before. man already have this tendency anyway. perhaps those who wanted to change the Mass so veemently suffered from this desease and they got together to do just what pleased them the most.

 

[Ockham]

As our current moderator has instructed let’s not denigrade the OF. We need to be very tactful in outlining the differences between the two forms. There is a reason the EF faces liturgical East and a reason the OF doesn’t care. Let’s highlight the reasons without passing judgement so as to not be accused of being uncharitable.

 

[CradleCath]

As our current moderator has instructed let’s not denigrade the OF. We need to be very tactful in outlining the differences between the two forms. There is a reason the EF faces liturgical East and a reason the OF doesn’t care. Let’s highlight the reasons without passing judgement so as to not be accused of being uncharitable.

Absolutely Ockham, kindness & tact is very important.

BTW.That is an EXCELLENT article. I’ve read through it once, but will reply after I have time to really search & digest it.

 

[chypmonk]

Has it been forbidden to refer to the new mass as the Novus Ordo?
and the old mass as the Traditional Latin Mass?

 

[corsair]

Great article but as to comments… well, I’ll leave that to others who are feeling a little more charitable today. Perhaps I’ll do better tomorrow.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Has it been forbidden to refer to the new mass as the Novus Ordo?
and the old mass as the Traditional Latin Mass?

Allow me to respond to this question. My concern is that the language used should convey the proper respect for the Holy Mass in any form and any rite.

Thomas Casey
Moderator

 

[Aramis]

"Since Vatican II the Mass has fallen victim to various kinds of irregularities. "

This is misleading. The mass has always had those who let it fall victim to irregularities. As Cardinal Arinze pointed out last year, it’s just easier for the Laity to notice it in the OF. (It’s also easier for those who notice to let far more know.)

The pinning of even the majority of it on narcissism is post hoc ergo propter hoc logic; it ignores the various other, equally compelling, reasons. Ignorance, laziness, poor formation, etc.

Not that any one is the correct answer; such simplistic answers deny our very human tendencies, to which priests are no exception. Namely, everyone’s weaknesses differ.

Some abuses are narcissism. Some are bad theology. Some are laziness (like a cleric not wearing a stole, or the celebrant not wearing a chasuble over his stole). Some are simple ignorance (like the foreign priest who misreads the rubrics). And a few are intentional heresy.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I think this is mostly about how the Mass is supposed to be celebrated than about ones desire to have a Mass celebrated their way… if the Mass from the beginning has been stablished, why then turned the Mass around to be celebrated in a way which is allien to our Fathers?

this is where the problem lies. i just think with the total changing of the Mass, the theology and the beliefs also changed. this cannot be a good thing.

no one seem to be concerned that the changes of the Masss is what God wants. no one seem to care about that. all they care about is that is easy for them. sure it is. but how about what God wants. if the Mass was given to us by the Apostles and they celebrated in the Tradiitonal way, why do we think that we should change to fit our ways? it is wrong and the best way to fix this is to do things God’s way and not ours. all people wanted to do is argue about it with little or no concern for what God wants. with the changes of the Mass, most of the Tradition has also been changed. i hope no one attempts to deny this.

 

[hartleymartin]

If you want to see an abuse of liturgy, I have it on good authority that it is a rampant problem here in Australia, which a few good Bishops and one fantastic Cardinal is working hard to eradicate.

If any of you can get your hands on it, read:
“Australia’s Catholics Today: LOST!” by Michael Gilchrist.

I tell you know that you won’t believe what has been going on in some diocese.

 

[wisdomseeker]

If you want to see an abuse of liturgy, I have it on good authority that it is a rampant problem here in Australia, which a few good Bishops and one fantastic Cardinal is working hard to eradicate.

If any of you can get your hands on it, read:
“Australia’s Catholics Today: LOST!” by Michael Gilchrist.

I tell you know that you won’t believe what has been going on in some diocese.

believe me, i have no doubt. just look at what is happening in Brasil, i dont think we can have anything like that anywhere. it is just awfull over there. i mean bishops, cardinals, and priests are doing their own thing. they dont want anything to do with the pope.

there are priests calling martin luther a saint. there is priest thanking God because his brother became protestant. very few believe the Eucharist. there are pop stars priests everywhere preaching heresies. and these won the hearts of the people. the tv station, in their website, one cannot find basically nothing Catholic. yet this the Catholic tv station is approved by the Vatican. people who knows their faith are constantly complaining about this station for teaching heresies and the mockery of Christ. it is just horrible in brasil.

 

[FrancisB]

The problem of priestly narcissism was not created in 1963, nor were liturgical abuses. You need only go back a few years to find Mediator Dei, in which Pius XII was addressing liturgical abuses in the old missal. We can, in fact, go all the way back to the epistles of St. Paul to see him correcting liturgical abuses. And while we’re talking about priestly narcissism, how about the narcissism that leads traditionalist priests to add the suppressed Confiteor into the traditional Latin mass? We have permission to celebrate the missal of 1962, but that’s often not good enough for them. They want to go back farther because they know better than the Pope. Isn’t that narcissism?

And in all honesty, do you really believe that no priests ever changed the words in the silent prayers of the older forms of the mass (not just the Mass of St. Pius V, but even before that)? I know that some say that it requires some diabolical function to do such a thing, but I think that is because they are assuming that priests are not fluent in Latin, which is often the case in the last half century. But there was a time when priests were expected to be fluent; and when they were fluent, how difficult was it really to change the text of the mass? How many times was St. Joseph’s name added to the canon before Bl. John XXIII made it legitimate to do so? How many times since then has it been omitted by those who thought they knew better than Bl. John XXIII?

Here’s the thing: if you make rules, people will break them. Some will do it accidentally because they don’t understand the rules. Some will do it with the best of intentions because they think they know better than the rules. A small number will do it because they hate the rules and reject everything for which they stand. Rubrics are nothing more than rules. You cannot have a mass without rubrics; you cannot have rubrics without people breaking them. You cannot have a mass without liturgical abuses. That doesn’t make them right, but to blame them on Vatican II, the Missal of Paul VI, or anything else is at best fallacious and at worse intentionally inflammatory.

 

[Ockham]

You cannot have a mass without liturgical abuses. That doesn’t make them right, but to blame them on Vatican II, the Missal of Paul VI, or anything else is at best fallacious and at worse intentionally inflammatory.

Really? I don’t seem to recall anyone suggesting there has never been a liturgical abuse prior to 1969. The issue at hand is the degree and direction of the modern abuses. Since you have such disdain for traditional Catholic I question your agenda here in the Traditional Catholic forum.

 

[FrancisB]

Really? I don’t seem to recall anyone suggesting there has never been a liturgical abuse prior to 1969. The issue at hand is the degree and direction of the modern abuses. Since you have such disdain for traditional Catholic I question your agenda here in the Traditional Catholic forum.

In point of fact, I have no “disdain” for Catholic tradition. I have frequently attended the old mass, studied Latin for many years, sing chant in a Gregorian schola, and reject Protestantism as heresy. My issue is not with tradition. My issue is with the notion that Vatican II caused the problems. And the degree and direction of abuses is impossible to know in a mass that was celebrated mostly in silence. But to be certain, there were condemnations across the board for centuries. The only part of the mass that was routinely audible–the music–was repeatedly subject to abuses and repairs of such abuses. Look at the suppression of almost all tropes at Trent. Was there really a problem with extra text being added as poetry into the music of the mass? No. The problem was that some of the texts were deemed inappropriate for church. In an effort to find the simplest solution possible, Holy Mother Church deemed that only a handful of approved tropes were legitimate and all others were to be discontinued.

But it’s important to note that tropes were not officially allowed until a small number were approved and the rest were rejected. Before that time, every trope was a liturgical abuse of the text because it was text being added to the mass that did not belong to it. The majority of these tropes were well-meaning, respectful texts. The majority of added prayers in the Ordinary Form are similarly well-meaning, respectful texts. It is a small number that are actually heretical or contrary to Catholic devotion. Of course right now all of them are wrong, but that is how the liturgy changes with time. Without liturgical innovations (which are, let’s face it, abuses), there would be no development of the mass. Without them, the Mass of St. Pius V would look very different than it does.

So I don’t hate our tradition; I try to view it honestly. Do you know how much wonderful music was destroyed by the abrogation of the tropes? Do you know how many of those texts were well-meaning, suitably reverent poems to the Lord God from some great anonymous authors of the mediaeval Catholic Church? They were sacrificed for the greater good of the church, as will most of these innovations be. But without innovations, we would have no Victimae Paschali Laudes and no Dies Irae, and our tradition would be worse for that. Perhaps we can learn from the past a little, and fight those abuses that are actually contrary to Catholic doctrine rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater as we have done before?

 

[Adeodatus]

In point of fact, I have no “disdain” for Catholic tradition. I have frequently attended the old mass, studied Latin for many years, sing chant in a Gregorian schola, and reject Protestantism as heresy. My issue is not with tradition.

…

Perhaps we can learn from the past a little, and fight those abuses that are actually contrary to Catholic doctrine rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater as we have done before?

Interesting. So in this thread you don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. In the other thread, you won’t attend the EF Mass because of all the ignorant Traditionalist traitors who whisper conspiracy theories into your ear. Here’s your opportunity to address this apparent inconsistency.

 

[Ockham]

My issue is with the notion that Vatican II caused the problems.

All indications suggest the Pope thinks V2 caused problems. Why is a new Novus Ordo missal coming out? Why will he only distribute Holy Communion as per the universal norm? He has said the “spirit of V2” which was the justification for most of the recent changes was misinterpreted. Have you read “Spirit of the Liturgy”?

 

[FrancisB]

Not an inconsistency at all. In the other thread I started by saying that I prefer the traditional Mass, but that the radical elements in attendance there make me feel uncomfortable, which is why I generally (but not always) attend mass in the ordinary form in a relatively traditional parish. What I said is that I have no more respect for disobedient traditionalists that refuse to accept papal authority than I do for disobedient liberals that refuse to accept papal authority. I am a moderate and a papist. I prefer tradition because it is tradition, but I reject the idea that our disciplines cannot be changed by the authority of the magisterium. It is the dogma that is unchanging, not rubrics. This is exactly the attitude that I was talking about among the traditionalists that makes me feel uncomfortable. If you would stop attacking me for being open to the changes decreed by popes, you would see that we agree on more than we disagree on. And if Benedict said that we were all going to use the 1962 missal, I would happily submit to that. What I hope for is a 2011 missal that applies Vatican II to the traditional Latin mass and abrogates both of the current forms, but that is the pope’s decision, not mine.
And yes, I read “Spirit of the Liturgy.” There’s a copy on my bookshelf. I’ve read a lot of the other writings on the liturgy as well, including those from before the council. You will notice that I have made frequent references to Pius X’s changes in other threads. The pope’s view of the issue is mine as well: the (deliberate) misinterpretation of the council is what caused the problems. It’s not the council. It’s how the council was interpreted. And there isn’t a new missal coming out. There’s a new translation of the missal that’s coming out. That’s because while they were misinterpreting things from the council, the ICEL decided that they could misinterpret the Latin texts and translate them based on their interpretations rather than what the Latin words actually said. But a new translation, however necessary, is not a new missal.

 

[SunnaB16]

If you want to see an abuse of liturgy, I have it on good authority that it is a rampant problem here in Australia, which a few good Bishops and one fantastic Cardinal is working hard to eradicate.

If any of you can get your hands on it, read:
“Australia’s Catholics Today: LOST!” by Michael Gilchrist.

I tell you now that you won’t believe what has been going on in some diocese.

After reading his earlier book: “Rome or The Bush”, i wouldn`t be game to read this one.

Even worse is R. Michael McGrades "Death of A Catholic Parish"; about the destruction of the parish of Benalla by a so-called "Team" of 3 priests. What they did to the church interior would make you weep......***and they were proud of it!*** The author says on Page 260 about this type of "innovator": ***"......a hallmark of the Team revolution which, for all its folksiness, turned nasty when crossed"***. Narcissism indeed! Contempt for anyone who dares to question them. Theyre more heartless and tyrannical than the true Church could ever be.
Before clearing off to the TLM (at Maternal Heart Chapel at Lewisham: have you been there?), i experienced the same thing with two different parish priests locally.

The paragraph ending:
“This is easily seen in the frequent neglect and sometimes even explicit disparagement of the Church`s liturgical tradition by those who should be most closely wedded to the Church - priests.”
brings to mind a particularly viciously worded letter written by a parish priest, attacking the TLM in “The Catholic Weekly” a couple of years ago. Early this year, the same priest was caught red-handed by undercover police “chatting up” a 13yo school girl on the internet.

i reckon the Vitz`s make a good case.

Zaphod Beeblebrox in the late Douglas Adams "The Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy" is the definitive narcissistic example; and maybe points a finger at Adams himself.

“Eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die!”

 

[ProVobis]

Without liturgical innovations (which are, let’s face it, abuses), there would be no development of the mass. Without them, the Mass of St. Pius V would look very different than it does.

Call them abuses or not but one today should be still able to look at the 1570 Missal and be able to recognize the Mass which we call the Traditional Latin Mass or the EF. The Mass is not the work of Shakespeare, for example, where we don’t change a single word or even add our own comments, but we should always preserve the integrity of the Mass and its language, which is a combination of the actual untranslated spoken words and its rubrics.

 

[FrancisB]

Call them abuses or not but one today should be still able to look at the 1570 Missal and be able to recognize the Mass which we call the Traditional Latin Mass or the EF. The Mass is not the work of Shakespeare, for example, where we don’t change a single word or even add our own comments, but we should always preserve the integrity of the Mass and its language, which is a combination of the actual untranslated spoken words and its rubrics.

I’ll grant you all of that, but if you look at the OF in Latin, ad orientem, following the rubrics (I know it’s rare, but that’s how the actual missal says it should be said), you will recognise the very same mass. I’ve looked at side by side comparisons. The mass was parsed down and some pretty things were cut out, but there’s nothing in the Latin OF that worries me, be it things that are there or things that failed to make the cut.

Now let’s stop looking at 1570 as the year that the mass was made, okay? It wasn’t written in 1570. If it had been, it would have been guilty of all of the same things that are slandered against the newer missal. The mass began in the 1st century, immediately following Jesus’s death. We have only partial records of what it was like back then. Do you really think, though, that the mass of say the Year of Our Lord 75 would look very much like that of 1570? Any difference between them, however, was an innovation at some point.

I’m not suggesting that we accept every innovation as good; I think most of the liturgical experimentation that has been going on in the last forty years is misguided if not downright erroneous. I just haven’t lost my faith in the priesthood or in the ability of the mass to develop in an organic way. The missal of 1970 was not exactly organic and so without some innovations it will forever feel like what it is: a mass formed by committee. Saying the prayers at the foot of the altar or reading the Last Gospel would, in the OF, be an innovation. Would you oppose that?

And since we know that John’s Gospel is the last to have been written, we know that the inclusion of the Last Gospel had to be an innovation. It couldn’t have been read in the earliest years of the mass; it wasn’t written yet. Yet it’s a very holy and good innovation that had a lasting impact and a modern innovation to restore it would, I think, be similarly good and holy. If you look back at an historical perspective of the mass texts and rubrics: one that is really far reaching throughout 2,000 years, you will see that there were things that came and went and were restored later on, there were things borrowed from other rites, there were things that were merely innovated in the West and became part of the Western Rites. Most importantly, you will see a history of plurality in the West that was first attacked in the wake of Trent and then continued to be cut down since then to the point that even the ancient Ambrosian Rite is, in the wake of Vatican II, so close to the Roman Rite that it’s no wonder most of Milan has abandoned it.

Organic innovation that comes from and is informed by the Tradition of the Church Universal is healthy and good. I would include the movement to include St. Joseph’s name in the canon of the mass as part of that as well as the use of the vernacular in parts of the mass (which actually pre-dates Vatican II by centuries in the United States and parts of Europe, not to mention the Eastern Rites). The inclusion of a reading from the Old Testament seems to me another positive innovation. How could more scripture be bad? To be sure, there were some bad changes as well and more than a few questionable ones. My point isn’t that we should rewrite everything all the time or that all changes are good ones; it is merely that the opposite and inverse is not true either. We cannot expect the mass to be unchanging in form throughout the ages. It hasn’t been in the past and it shouldn’t be now. The healthy development of the mass over 1500 years gave us the beautiful service of 1570. Perhaps another missal in 2070 will be able to reflect the positive progress of the church in the subsequent 500 years without abandoning anything that is truly important?