TLM as sole Worship?

[robwar]

Three popes condemned liturgical abuses in the OF. People who have experienced liturgical abuses are not imagining it. Nor are those concerned about this worrying about a “side issue”. The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith, not something that exists in isolation from it.

Like what abuses in specific?

 

[robwar]

Now I think this to be untrue. Many parishes have pushed for an EF Mass. My diocese alone has5 or 6 parishes that have EF Masses and 1 Anglican Ordinariate Parish. Some areas are pushing harder than others. Yet, I don’t think it’s as much the minority as you may think.

I don’t see this in the large archdiocese I live in. Some growth but it is very little. With a shortage of priests, there are bigger issues to focus on.

 

[Stephanie_Pauls]

Like what abuses in specific?

Priest not doing the two genuflections during the host concecrations.

 

[floresco]

Like what abuses in specific?

Here is an example of a speech by Benedict XVI:

Pope Benedict XVI has reminded Catholics that the liturgy belongs to Jesus Christ and his Church, and should not be changed according to individual whims.

“It is not the individual – priest or layman – or the group that celebrates the liturgy, but it is primarily God’s action through the Church, which has its own history, its rich tradition and creativity,” the Pope said during his Oct. 3 general audience in Rome.

“This universality and fundamental openness, which is characteristic of the entire liturgy is one of the reasons why it cannot be created or amended by the individual community or by experts, but must be faithful to the forms of the universal Church,” he stated.

catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-says-liturgical-abuses-detract-from-christ/

 

[robwar]

Priest not doing the two genuflections during the host concecrations.

So this is what you have to complain about? Did you ever speak to the priests? Are you training in this to make a judgement? Most of the those that get on the bandwagon of the OF Mass being “full of abuse” really don’t have any expertise to stand on and make a call for abuse. And with the number of priest that do watch CAF and what is posted here, insulting that there are all these vague complaints about “abuse” in OF Mass which is what most all priests do celebrate to the best of their abilities.

 

[floresco]

Priest not doing the two genuflections during the host concecrations.

The worst abuse that I personally witnessed was a priest replacing the prayers over the gifts with the Jewish blessings (in Hebrew) for bread and wine.

 

[floresco]

So this is what you have to complain about? Did you ever speak to the priests? Are you training in this to make a judgement? Most of the those that get on the bandwagon of the OF Mass being “full of abuse” really don’t have any expertise to stand on and make a call for abuse. And with the number of priest that do watch CAF and what is posted here, insulting that there are all these vague complaints about “abuse” in OF Mass which is what most all priests do celebrate to the best of their abilities.

I think you are responding to a poster who was being sarcastic. Nothing in that person’s posting history indicates a traditionalist perspective.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

The worst abuse that I personally witnessed was a priest replacing the prayers over the gifts with the Jewish blessings (in Hebrew) for bread and wine.

That most certainly qualifies as an abuse!
But, let’s be realistic here, how often do things like this really happen?

I am not saying that there are some priests who go out of their way to do things “their own way”, but I really do not think that true liturgical abuse is as prevelant as some here at CAF would like us to believe. In fact, I have come to reralize that, in most cases, when someone complains of an abuse, it is usually just something they don’t like.

 

[TheExorcist]

So this is what you have to complain about? Did you ever speak to the priests? Are you training in this to make a judgement? Most of the those that get on the bandwagon of the OF Mass being “full of abuse” really don’t have any expertise to stand on and make a call for abuse. And with the number of priest that do watch CAF and what is posted here, insulting that there are all these vague complaints about “abuse” in OF Mass which is what most all priests do celebrate to the best of their abilities.

How about parishes using sacred vessels NOT of precious metals like glass chalices. Everybody involved in Mass milling about the sanctuary like its a parish social because the demarcation of the communion rail is absent. The liberal use of EMHC, making them in essence “ordinary” ministers. In my FSSP parish we have on Sundays probably 100 people per Mass and two priests are able to take care of distributing communion just fine (the priest not saying Mass vacates the confessional for a time to assist). Maybe a lot of things we talk about don’t rise fully to the level of “abuses” but it sure detracts from the sacredness of the liturgy nonetheless. As far as needing to have “expertise” in these things, I don’t think one needs a Masters in Liturgy to be able to read the rubrics in the Missal and know what needs to take place and how.

 

[floresco]

That most certainly qualifies as an abuse!
But, let’s be realistic here, how often do things like this really happen?

I am not saying that there are some priests who go out of their way to do things “their own way”, but I really do not think that true liturgical abuse is as prevelant as some here at CAF would like us to believe. In fact, I have come to reralize that, in most cases, when someone complains of an abuse, it is usually just something they don’t like.

Liturgical abuses have happened enough for our recent popes to speak against them. That indicates to me that it is a real problem.

 

[robwar]

Here is an example of a speech by Benedict XVI: catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-says-liturgical-abuses-detract-from-christ/

I appreciate the link but I was looking for specific examples. I do not think that a majority of priests and with all the training they have try at all to have “abuse” happen in the Masses that they officiate. “liturgical abuse” is abused. Most Masses around the world are OF Masses whether you like it or not. My husband can remember the Latin Masses before the Vatican II changes into the vernacular. He disliked the Latin Mass and doesn’t want to go back to it at all. If one were to take a poll of all Catholics not just those on internet forums, they probably would feel that way. I have nothing against either Mass and would like myself to attend at some point an EF Mass. I also think Catholic schools should be teaching Latin starting in the elementary years. What bothers me is the attitudes and condensending attitudes which seem to degenerate into finger pointing and cries of abuse and it is done by people who really are not experts or trained in any of this. You brought up a priest who said the prayer in Hebrew. He didn’t change the prayer, just used the original language. Is that really intentional abuse? None of us are experts to say. Likewise, it is also tiring to see the term “traditional” be applied to what kind of Mass one attend, Shouldn’t traditional mean someone who follows Catholic Church teaching in their daily lives to the best of their ability?

 

[roadsend]

Like what abuses in specific?

I have seen among other things corn tortilla hosts and honey bread hosts, dance music, changing the words of important points of the Mass, potentially heretical songs, Here comes Peter Cottontail played as Easter recessional.

 

[severus68]

Hypothetical and provocative question.

Since it is hypothetical and fairly free of anti Extraordinary Form bias, except that little bit where you slipped up and equated wanting the Extraordinary Form Mass as the normative Mass rather than the current Ordinary Form, with undermining the Council:thumbsup: I will answer hypothetically:

No, it is not going to happen. If it didn’t happen under Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, it most assuredly will not happen now.

No, wanting to attend the Extraordinary Form in no way undermines the Council. If it did, it would not have been allowed to come back. Lets recall two Popes gave sequentially larger opportunities to celebrate it. If they thought it undermined the Council in any way I doubt they would have alowed it at all.

Yes, many people do wish it would return and be the typical Sunday Mass. Many of us had to live through the rampant experimentation and abuses that existed from the late sixties up through the Pontificate of John Paul II, when some of the insanity started to subside. although there are still a lot of places where that experimentation is still going full speed ahead.

As to revising the Ordinary Form, they have already done that on several occasions, especially with the wording and translations. How many more times do they need to have?

As to the folks at Rorate Coeli, I cannot answer. But if you disagree with them there is a very simple solution.

Don’t go to their site.

Simple and easy solution.

Some of you want the EF to be the norm, some of you may have seen abuses. Most of us see only reverent masses.

 

[roadsend]

…Shouldn’t traditional mean someone who follows Catholic Church teaching in their daily lives to the best of their ability?

No.
Traditional means that which was handed down to us by our ancestors.

 

[robwar]

No.
Traditional means that which was handed down to us by our ancestors.

well, according to Thomas Casey in a post that contained some warnings that TC is faithful to the Holy See, and I would interpret that to see someone who is a faithful Catholic and tries to apply their faith to their everyday lives not just what kind of Mass (both EF and OF are approved) one attends or even prefers to attend.

 

[floresco]

I appreciate the link but I was looking for specific examples. I do not think that a majority of priests and with all the training they have try at all to have “abuse” happen in the Masses that they officiate. “liturgical abuse” is abused.

Whenever a priest does not “say the black and do the red” it is a liturgical abuse. It happens enough for popes to have complained about it.

Most Masses around the world are OF Masses whether you like it or not. My husband can remember the Latin Masses before the Vatican II changes into the vernacular. He disliked the Latin Mass and doesn’t want to go back to it at all. If one were to take a poll of all Catholics not just those on internet forums, they probably would feel that way. I have nothing against either Mass and would like myself to attend at some point an EF Mass. I also think Catholic schools should be teaching Latin starting in the elementary years.

My husband is the same and I agree with you about Latin.

What bothers me is the attitudes and condensending attitudes which seem to degenerate into finger pointing and cries of abuse and it is done by people who really are not experts or trained in any of this. You brought up a priest who said the prayer in Hebrew. He didn’t change the prayer, just used the original language. Is that really intentional abuse? None of us are experts to say. Likewise, it is also tiring to see the term “traditional” be applied to what kind of Mass one attend, Shouldn’t traditional mean someone who follows Catholic Church teaching in their daily lives to the best of their ability?

I brought up the subject of liturgical abuse because the OP said he wanted to understand where the Rorate Caeli position was coming from. It makes sense to me that people who have witnessed liturgical abuse would take more extreme views of rejecting the OF.

The priest replaced a Catholic prayer with a Jewish prayer. Although the prayers over the gifts resemble Jewish blessings over bread and wine, they are different. He did not just change the language. He changed the words of the Mass. It was a clear case of abuse and he should have known better.

I have been trying to use the word “traditionalist” to describe my position in order to share “traditional” with all the other people who would like to use it.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I ask this question in all sincerity, I am really trying to understand.

It seems to me that if what we now call the EF was so perfect all the time when it was the ordinary form, why would the Church have promulgated a Constitution to reform the litugy?

In my experience with the EF now (I did not experience the pre-VII Church), those who are involved are the ones who have an affinity for it, so they are more likely to “say the black, do the red”, but I would imagine that priests taking “liberties” with the rubrics is not something that happened only after 1965.

I have no disdain for the EF, it just does not fit in with my spirituality. I begrudge no one who prefers it. What does bother me is the attitude of some who suggest that the norm for the OF Mass is that it is an abuse-filled travesty

 

[codefro]

Whenever a priest does not “say the black and do the red” it is a liturgical abuse. It happens enough for popes to have complained about it.

My husband is the same and I agree with you about Latin.

I brought up the subject of liturgical abuse because the OP said he wanted to understand where the Rorate Caeli position was coming from. It makes sense to me that people who have witnessed liturgical abuse would take more extreme views of rejecting the OF.

The priest replaced a Catholic prayer with a Jewish prayer. Although the prayers over the gifts resemble Jewish blessings over bread and wine, they are different. He did not just change the language. He changed the words of the Mass. It was a clear case of abuse and he should have known better.

I have been trying to use the word “traditionalist” to describe my position in order to share “traditional” with all the other people who would like to use it.

I don’t know of liturgical abuses is their only reason. If it was, I would think it silly. A priest can abuse the EF, yet that wouldn’t mean the Catholic Churvh should throw it out.

 

[floresco]

I ask this question in all sincerity, I am really trying to understand.

It seems to me that if what we now call the EF was so perfect all the time when it was the ordinary form, why would the Church have promulgated a Constitution to reform the litugy?

In my experience with the EF now (I did not experience the pre-VII Church), those who are involved are the ones who have an affinity for it, so they are more likely to “say the black, do the red”, but I would imagine that priests taking “liberties” with the rubrics is not something that happened only after 1965.

There was a problem, rising from misinterpretations of Vatican II, with many people thinking there had been a drastic change in the Church. There was a sense of everything was up for change. This attitude combined with the new Mass to create a lot of illicit liturgical experimentation. While the EF, in practice, had its problems, it did not go through a period of massive experimentation like this.

I have no disdain for the EF, it just does not fit in with my spirituality. I begrudge no one who prefers it. What does bother me is the attitude of some who suggest that the norm for the OF Mass is that it is an abuse-filled travesty

I suspect for some people, that is their personal experience. Still it does hurt to encounter people who speak of the Mass that way. Both forms of Mass should be spoken of with respect.

 

[codefro]

Whenever a priest does not “say the black and do the red” it is a liturgical abuse. It happens enough for popes to have complained about it.

My husband is the same and I agree with you about Latin.

I brought up the subject of liturgical abuse because the OP said he wanted to understand where the Rorate Caeli position was coming from. It makes sense to me that people who have witnessed liturgical abuse would take more extreme views of rejecting the OF.

The priest replaced a Catholic prayer with a Jewish prayer. Although the prayers over the gifts resemble Jewish blessings over bread and wine, they are different. He did not just change the language. He changed the words of the Mass. It was a clear case of abuse and he should have known better.

I have been trying to use the word “traditionalist” to describe my position in order to share “traditional” with all the other people who would like to use it.

I don’t know of liturgical abuses is their only reason. If it was, I would think it silly. A priest can abuse the EF, yet that wouldn’t mean the Catholic Church should throw it out.