Were there ever liturgical abuses before Vatican II

[Evan]

But wholly ghost makes no sense does it

Yes, it does. For the WG is completely spirit, not like the Son (God and Man) and not like the Father (Father to a Human Son). But totally spitual, ie he Wholly Ghost!!!

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Not in the same sense there is today. There were things such as the 15 minute low mass, etc. Unlike today, the majority of the rubrics were under the painof sin if not followed.

They still are. I attended one EF (Tridentine) Mass that lasted 20 minutes. The priest spoke like an auctioneer.

There were liturgical abuses before Vatican II, but I would guess that they were far less common for a couple of reasons. One, seminary training was far more rigorous and theologically orthodox before the Council than it was from the 70’s through the late 90’s. Priests had a better understanding of their vocation, a greater faith in the Eucharist, and less opportunity for “ad libbing” as they do with the Novus Ordo. The Latin language is very precise and only a good scholar could change it on the fly, as some priests do today with their vernacular languages.

 

[Cavaille-Coll]

Yes, it does. For the WG is completely spirit, not like the Son (God and Man) and not like the Father (Father to a Human Son). But totally spitual, ie he Wholly Ghost!!!

Holy Ghost, not wholly (i.e. entirely). 60% of English derives from Old German, and the word ghost comes from the German word Geist, or spirit.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In reflecting on this and related threads, it seems as if we focus on the relative frequency of instances of abuse rather than the nature and severity.

 

[ProVobis]

My dad said most of the priests he saw raced through the Mass as fast as possible, mechanically, like they were helping people get their cards punched in the most efficient assembly line fashion possible.

Sometimes there would be Masses said concurrently at the side altars, something which probably would be considered as an abuse today.

 

[sw85]

Just to echo some of what some people are saying, I have definitely heard that pre-VII priests sometimes rushed their way through Mass. One story in particular I heard from someone at CAF involved the formula recited by the priest during the distribution of communion, which was then spoken entirely by the priest with no response from the communicant: “Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.” Supposedly there were instances of priests who would start this sentence at one end of the communion line at finish it at the other end!

I’ve also heard communion in the hand originated as a pre-VII liturgical innovation, which proved so difficult to root out that the Vatican legitimized it by indult. No idea how true that is.

 

[patrick457]

But contrast with the English if someone thinks he’s baptizing “in the name of the Father, the Sun, and the Wholly Ghost.”

I’m not trying to be funny, just making a point. How do you deal with a spoken language which has so many homophones which confuse many children and people trying to learn the English language?

The Beatles’ Here Comes the Sun would make a great Advent or Christmas hymn, wouldn’t it?

 

[iloveangels]

My dad said most of the priests he saw raced through the Mass as fast as possible, mechanically, like they were helping people get their cards punched in the most efficient assembly line fashion possible.

Actually not true. Maybe that happened at your dad’s parish, or maybe as a little kid, he thought it happened. But it didn’t happen in a lot of places.

Does you dad have an ax to grind over Vatican II?

 

[iloveangels]

Sometimes there would be Masses said concurrently at the side altars, something which probably would be considered as an abuse today.

That’s not an abuse. They do that on weekday mornings in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome to this day.

 

[benjammin]

That’s not an abuse. They do that on weekday mornings in St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome to this day.

Even I know that isn’t abuse. If you look at a lot of older churches, they have side altars, and then the main high altar. I don’t know what the purpose was of the smaller altars back then, but I know that side altars were used like that even at my little church

 

[ProVobis]

Even I know that isn’t abuse. If you look at a lot of older churches, they have side altars, and then the main high altar. I don’t know what the purpose was of the smaller altars back then, but I know that side altars were used like that even at my little church

They had different relics which the priests paid homage to.

 

[dochawk]

I’d be surprised if any of our parishioners detected liturgical abuses. None of us understood Latin. We replied as a matter of rote. The priest could have been saying ‘abracadabra’ and we wouldn’t have known the difference.

In fact, “abracadabra” was coined by Calvin in a mocking of the Latin Words of Institution. hawk

 

[ProVobis]

In fact, “abracadabra” was coined by Calvin in a mocking of the Latin Words of Institution. hawk

Also “hocus pocus” but I doubt if it was just mocking Latin.

 

[mariyka]

In fact, “abracadabra” was coined by Calvin in a mocking of the Latin Words of Institution. hawk

And “Hocus Pocus” makes fun of “Hoc est corpus meum”.

 

[Evan]

In fact, “abracadabra” was coined by Calvin in a mocking of the Latin Words of Institution. hawk

I believe the words of mockery were “hocus pocus” for “Hoc est corpus meum”, meaning “This is my body.”.

So far as “abracadabra”:
Aramaic:
Abra - I shall Create
Cdabra - As I speak

 

[MarkThompson]

I believe the words of mockery were “hocus pocus” for “Hoc est corpus meum”, meaning “This is my body.”.

So far as “abracadabra”:
Aramaic:
Abra - I shall Create
Cdabra - As I speak

As to “hocus pocus,” it is a conjecture, apparently unfounded, that it had anything to do with the words of Institution. As to “abracadabra,” the OED says, " Occurs first in a poem by Q. Serenus Sammonicus, 2nd c.", so the Aramaic explanation is probably spurious.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

As to “hocus pocus,” …

How about hocus-cadabra …

http://www.rueskitchen.com/archives/count0004.jpg

… and abraca-pocus?

 

[porthos11]

Even I know that isn’t abuse. If you look at a lot of older churches, they have side altars, and then the main high altar. I don’t know what the purpose was of the smaller altars back then, but I know that side altars were used like that even at my little church

They had different relics which the priests paid homage to.

Actually this is because no concelebration was allowed back then, so each priest had to say his own Mass. The side altars allowed multiple priests to celebrate Mass while one was going on at the high altar.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually this is because no concelebration was allowed back then, so each priest had to say his own Mass. The side altars allowed multiple priests to celebrate Mass while one was going on at the high altar.

I think this was true for Sundays. There are still daily EF Masses being said at side altars only. If nothing else it allows for a more intimate setting, especially when only 10-20 people show up.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Just wondering if there ever were any notable cases of liturgical abuse BEFORE vatican II. I know afterwards there was obviously, but I before were there ever problems with things like priests using the people’s language or not saying mass right etc.

There was no CAF to sound an alert back then, no youtube to share the videos or a blog to post the photos. If it happened usually people who go to the same parish wouldn’t know any better if what happened was out of the ordinary or not. And since most people don’t know Latin, if the priest said some words wrong then they wouldn’t know. Many people in the past were also illiterate and the GIRM wasn’t readily available in an easily accessible media like the Internet.

I’ve been reading on the development of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and most of what is the norm today can be considered absues back then. Because it wasn’t in what was the rubrics. Someone did something out of the ordinary somewhere, others picked up on it, one day it suddenly is the norm. So innovation isn’t that bad, it is how we got our Liturgy today. Let us not pretend that the Liturgy has remained fixed for ages and that only the Pope adds something or takes away something from it. That practice only began from Trent, so you can even consider that a recent and modern development.