What is the worst liturgical abuse you have seen personally?
#51
(05-10-2010, 10:31 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Even the "dialogue Mass", whilst permitted before the Council, was infested with the spirit of novelty and revolution.

The NO Mass is an abuse of faith on its own, a "striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent". It must be destroyed and it will be destroyed in God's time, along with the new Church.

Dialogue Masses weren't permitted.  Virgil Michel was actually confronted for doing them, and he flat-out told his criic that he didn't care.
Reply
#52
(05-09-2010, 09:38 PM)JayneK Wrote:
(05-09-2010, 09:20 PM)i.p.i. Wrote: I have never seen a liturgical abuse.

I have attended the Ordinary Form/ Novus Ordo in ten parishes, three countries, and I have never seen a liturgical abuse.  Not once.  No inclusive language, no ad libs by the priest, no liturgical dancers, LifeTeen Masses, etc.  Nada.

I have seen all those things. 

Ditto - including a dog as alter server.
Reply
#53
In elementary school I was part of an interpretive presentation of Lord of The Dance on the altar during a Mass, but that's not the worst I've seen.
Reply
#54
(05-09-2010, 05:07 PM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(05-09-2010, 04:57 PM)Petertherock Wrote: Or maybe the priest leaving the Altar to give his homily. I am sure there are others I could come up with.

You mean leaving the sanctuary? That's not a liturgical abuse. At my Anglican Use parish, the pulpit is outside of the sanctuary; that's the case with most "crystal goblet pulpits".

OK, what about leaving the sanctuary to shake hands and give high fives during the "sign of peace" which is after the Consecration which means the priest is turning his back on Our Lord and leaving Our Lord alone to engage in idle chat.

Reply
#55
(05-10-2010, 12:34 PM)Petertherock Wrote: OK, what about leaving the sanctuary to shake hands and give high fives during the "sign of peace" which is after the Consecration which means the priest is turning his back on Our Lord and leaving Our Lord alone to engage in idle chat.

That is for sure a liturgical abuse, even by the Novus Ordo's own standards.
Reply
#56
Here in the quiet, rural Midwest we don't see the more flamboyant abuses; and like WRC said, the NO allows so much variation that at times it's hard to know the actual abuses from the simply bad ideas.  I also wouldn't classify an honest mistake as an abuse, in either form.  But I've been to NO Masses where a loaf of leavened bread was torn apart and passed around for Communion (I think that was at a seminary retreat, actually), and I've seen grape juice used for wine.  I've also seen the wine distributed in little paper cups---presumably so everyone could receive without sharing germs.  Those would have to be the most obvious.  I've heard plenty of ad-libbing, some of the politically correct but fairly harmless "sisters and brothers" variety, and some much worse.

There were a lot of heterodox homilies, of course, but the one that sticks in my head the most was a sweater-and-sandals priest who told us Gibson got everything wrong in The Passion of the Christ:  the Jews weren't really at fault at all, it was those smelly Romans.  Just seeing the movie might make you an anti-Semite, the way he told it.  He was a temporary fill-in priest for a while, and all his homilies were heavy on liberal social justice.  Of course, people in the parish liked him and wished they could get him permanently, because he wasn't boring.

Since finding the TLM and starting to study this stuff, I've been to three Novus Ordo Masses: two funerals and one where the whole family went with my grandmother as a birthday present.  One thing that's struck me is that, where the Novus Ordo offers several options, the priest or liturgical director have zeroed in over the years on the worst of the options.  When I was a kid, we got a mix of the 4 Eucharistic Prayers, but by the time I found the TLM two years ago, I hadn't heard anything but EP2 in years.  And that just happens to be the EP with the least emphasis on Sacrifice and the least orthodox teaching in it.  Likewise, of the Eucharistic responses or whatever they're called, the one with the biggest theological problem is "Christ has died, Christ is rised, Christ will come again," because Christ just did arrive on the altar seconds before, so to say "will come" ignores that and confuses people.  And sure enough, that's the one that was becoming most popular when I still attended the NO regularly, and it was used at all 3 NOs I've attended since.  It's not enough that the NO is watered down---where it gives people choices, most unerringly choose the worst of them besides.  I doubt that's a coincidence.
Reply
#57
(05-10-2010, 06:13 PM)verenaerin Wrote:As terrible as all these things are, they are obvious. The worst abuses are the ones you don't realize, the watering down of theology, the de-emphasis of the sacred, ignoring the flesh and blood of God right in front of you. These things seep into your soul. You don't even realize the radiation poisoning untill your dead.

I think this is key and is one of the reasons why an inordinate focus on "clown masses," etc, isn't the best tactic to use against the NO, especially since there are many people who have never seen nor heard of such a thing and so dismiss it easily.  The point that needs to be made is not the abuses of the NO, but that the NO, even if followed perfectly, is inferior to the TLM.  THAT is the best argument, in my opinion.

Point out the abuses when they occur, and then focus on the inferiority of the NO (including how it is open to abuse).  But let's remember, liturgical abuses are going to occur no matter what the rite; the NO, combined with "the spirit of VII," and a lax heirarchy, leads to much more egregious abuses.

Pax,
Jesse
Reply
#58
(05-10-2010, 06:19 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(05-10-2010, 06:13 PM)verenaerin Wrote:As terrible as all these things are, they are obvious. The worst abuses are the ones you don't realize, the watering down of theology, the de-emphasis of the sacred, ignoring the flesh and blood of God right in front of you. These things seep into your soul. You don't even realize the radiation poisoning untill your dead.

I think this is key and is one of the reasons why an inordinate focus on "clown masses," etc, isn't the best tactic to use against the NO, especially since there are many people who have never seen nor heard of such a thing and so dismiss it easily.  The point that needs to be made is not the abuses of the NO, but that the NO, even if followed perfectly, is inferior to the TLM.  THAT is the best argument, in my opinion.

Point out the abuses when they occur, and then focus on the inferiority of the NO (including how it is open to abuse).  But let's remember, liturgical abuses are going to occur no matter what the rite; the NO, combined with "the spirit of VII," and a lax heirarchy, leads to much more egregious abuses.

Pax,
Jesse

Well said, both of you.  The intrinsic shift in theology is the deeper and more serious problem.  When we talk about the superficial abuses, it is easy to become distracted into a discussion of how common they are.  And that just isn't the important question.
Reply
#59
(05-10-2010, 06:19 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(05-10-2010, 06:13 PM)verenaerin Wrote:As terrible as all these things are, they are obvious. The worst abuses are the ones you don't realize, the watering down of theology, the de-emphasis of the sacred, ignoring the flesh and blood of God right in front of you. These things seep into your soul. You don't even realize the radiation poisoning untill your dead.

I think this is key and is one of the reasons why an inordinate focus on "clown masses," etc, isn't the best tactic to use against the NO, especially since there are many people who have never seen nor heard of such a thing and so dismiss it easily.  The point that needs to be made is not the abuses of the NO, but that the NO, even if followed perfectly, is inferior to the TLM.  THAT is the best argument, in my opinion.

Point out the abuses when they occur, and then focus on the inferiority of the NO (including how it is open to abuse).  But let's remember, liturgical abuses are going to occur no matter what the rite; the NO, combined with "the spirit of VII," and a lax heirarchy, leads to much more egregious abuses.

Pax,
Jesse

The NO itself invites abuses.  I've said it before, I've almost never seen one that didn't have violations of the rubrics, either because a free-standing altar was missing, a priest had walked away from the ambo to give his homily, left the altar to offer a "sign of peace" like some cheap politician, employed a eucharistic minister when there weren't enough people to justify one, and on an on. 

The NO was founded by liturgical vandals and abusers, it was conceived in abuse and it's going to harbor abuses, because priests think they can ad-lib and invent things that seem good to them, because their personal preferences (and how often do we hear this from the laity following their lead) trump hard and fast rules whose violation actually constitutes a serious sin, if not the worst of all possible sins, a sin against the Holy Ghost Himself.
Reply
#60
What is the point of these post?  I read them and feel sorry for you who are writing them.  Does it make you feel better to gossip and raise yourself to a place that you feel is better than others.  We see abuses and because we love Our Lord we cherish the TLM or find a NO that is not doing these things.  A post like this is not bringing about any good,.  It is just basking in telling faults without any good reason to do so.  Pray instead of falling into conversations like this that have no good purpose.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)