The TLM is not immune from such things, even if the types of abuses might differ. The list of abuses that happened in TLMs prior to the Council is extensive. That it's not happening now is reaction to the abuses that have happened in the Ordinary Form since it was implemented. That it can happen, though, should not be doubted.
I don't have a list, but I've heard of a number of them, from various traditional sites. The "reform of the liturgy" began before Vatican 2, and included use of the vernacular and ad populum, despite both of those things being entirely contrary to the rubrics. I've also heard of some daily Masses being less than 20 min. long, although that might be because there was no homily and no reception of Holy Communion during the Mass (it was often distributed after). So frequently not having a homily is also on the list. I wouldn't be surprised if Communion in the hand was among the abuses. There was a general problem with "experimentation".
Any priest can decide to ignore the rubrics and do his own thing. It's not something limited to modern times. Black Masses and sacrilegious Communions predate Vatican 2.
I appreciate this, though, hearsay is not the best, but if that is all we have to work with…
The abuses listed were: vernacular, ad pop, “too short”, not having a homily, and maybe communion in the hand.
The length of Mass is not prescribed, so I don’t see how that is an abuse, and you even mention scenarios that would account for brevity. That said, I have been to an NO, on a Sunday no less, that was 20 minutes long. No points there.
Today, homilies are not required for weekday Mass, just recommended (GIRM 65 and 66) and are not required if nobody is there to hear it, even on a Sunday. I don’t have a citation handy for prior to V2, but I have little reason to think it was any different. Not having a homily is, on its own, not an abuse unless it is a Sunday with the laity present.
Vernacular, ad pop, and hand reception are basically the NO default these days; the abuses won, which is not a point in the NO’s favour.
The bottom line is that these irregularities pale in comparison to the abuses currently rife in the NO and hardly seem to warrant the abrogation of the Tridentine Mass.
As another commentator pointed out, it matters not the situation 75 years ago, but where we are at today.
Today, the NO is the only liturgical rite where profane innovation is not just tolerated, but actively encouraged. You do not see it occurring in the Tridentine Mass, the Divine Liturgy, or the Divine Worship of the Ordinariate.
Saying the liturgy needed to reform due to the patchy use of the vernacular is wild in the context of modern liturgical nightmares like the St. Sabina Christmas Eve cabaret.
The number of people who can provide something beyond hearsay about pre-Vatican 2 times is rapidly shrinking.
I'm pretty sure the lack of a homily was on Sundays with laity present. Priests get lazy too.
I think most of the other abuses I've heard of involved the laity not actually paying attention, but wandering around talking instead, or leaving for long periods of time (that one I have heard of in the past few years, from the pastor, although at least it was teenagers and not grown men out for a smoke), or otherwise not participating.
But the rest of your points are noted, accepted, and cheered. My only point was that the TLM can also be abused, and has been, not that everyone might as well go to your average NO as to your average TLM now.
As far as I can tell, one of the things that does a great deal to keep the abuses out of the TLM now, is that pastors there are willing to correct them, and point out to people in their homilies or announcements (annually or so) that such behavior is disrespectful, uncharitable, irreverent, or otherwise wrong. And laity are willing to be corrected. It's that willingness, such as the Nigerian bishops have, that is essential to avoiding abuses. Natural goodness from priests and laity just isn't going to be enough this side of heaven.
You are welcome to conduct your own research about the reasons the Council Fathers so vigorously pursued liturgical reform -- it's not the job of the comments section to do that for you.
Nevertheless, the preconciliar Mass did have its various encrustations:
* The Leonine prayers at the end of low Mass
* Local pious traditions that added additional prayers or antiphons at the conclusion of a Missa Cantata
* Adding special prayers or public acclimations before the homily
Not to mention, poor Latin pronunciation.
Plus, most Masses of that era were low Masses. We forget that because the number of priests/parishes dedicated to the Extraordinary Form are so few in number, that they tend to be beautiful and reverent today and often a Missa Cantata at least. But in, e.g., 1927, the E.F. was the O.F. of its day and the deviations from today's consistent perfection were myriad.
I prefer the E.F. to the O.F. but I'm not anti-O.F. The patchwork of errors that immediately followed Vatican II are beginning to "age out" to a significant degree (in my home diocese, the most insipid liturgies are the domain of the most senior priests).
I would disagree, this is one of the appropriate forums to learn more; the various comments, yours included, that have provided additional depth are proof enough of that.
These “encrustations” still do not seem to warrant the wholesale re-write of the liturgy that was undertaken and are a little hilarious in light of the current situation, especially the mention of poor Latin pronunciation. With so many priests operating in a non-native language, the vernacular often takes a beating far worse. For example, we need to print out the homily because the priest’s handling of the vernacular is so bad.
Given the kitschy, congregant-focused, priest as entertainer, hidden tabernacle, expression of the NO we typically get today, the Leonine prayers don’t really seem that bad.
Elvis singing at the entrance procession https://youtu.be/aC0-sfs5T1o in a 1969 film, before the mass of Paul VI. That this was in a movie would suggest the people would not have batted an eye to the abuse.
I've attended a TLM with secular music, sloppy distribution of Communion, and inattention to the rubrics. The secular music was Mozart, for whose sake the Gregorian chant was rushed. The sloppy Communion distribution was by mumbling the distribution text and not saying it in full for each communicant. The inattention to the rubrics took the form of not terminating the Collect and other such prayers with the correct Trinitarian endings, but borrowing the terminations and practices of the Novus Ordo unlawfully. In addition, they chose to promote feasts to Sundays which I don't think were allowed to be promoted (Sacred Heart), and they preached the homily on the wrong gospel. I observed all these things in a set of two consecutive Sunday Masses.
Preaching on the wrong gospel is not a liturgical abuse since the homily is not part of the liturgy according to pre Vatican II understanding.
Further the Feast of the Sacred Heart can be celebrated as votive mass of an external solemnity instead of the Sunday mass on the Sunday following the feast.
Otherwise I agree, and especially music was always a difficult subject. Back in the days the Congregation for Rites lamented the use of "vulgar arias" in the Mass, nowadays it is pop music. There's nothing new under the sun.
I’ll take “things that never happen in a TLM” for $100, Alex.
Or they never got a local translation (from English) of “Traditionis Custodes” - nothing would surprise me these days.
https://www.franciscanmedia.org/news-commentary/traditional-latin-mass-movement-sows-division-archbishop-says/
The TLM is not immune from such things, even if the types of abuses might differ. The list of abuses that happened in TLMs prior to the Council is extensive. That it's not happening now is reaction to the abuses that have happened in the Ordinary Form since it was implemented. That it can happen, though, should not be doubted.
Would you happen to have a sourced copy of this list of abuses in the Tridentine Mass prior to Vatican II?
I don't have a list, but I've heard of a number of them, from various traditional sites. The "reform of the liturgy" began before Vatican 2, and included use of the vernacular and ad populum, despite both of those things being entirely contrary to the rubrics. I've also heard of some daily Masses being less than 20 min. long, although that might be because there was no homily and no reception of Holy Communion during the Mass (it was often distributed after). So frequently not having a homily is also on the list. I wouldn't be surprised if Communion in the hand was among the abuses. There was a general problem with "experimentation".
Any priest can decide to ignore the rubrics and do his own thing. It's not something limited to modern times. Black Masses and sacrilegious Communions predate Vatican 2.
The difference is that the Novus Ordo rubrics invite innovation and the TLM rubrics seek to discourage it.
I appreciate this, though, hearsay is not the best, but if that is all we have to work with…
The abuses listed were: vernacular, ad pop, “too short”, not having a homily, and maybe communion in the hand.
The length of Mass is not prescribed, so I don’t see how that is an abuse, and you even mention scenarios that would account for brevity. That said, I have been to an NO, on a Sunday no less, that was 20 minutes long. No points there.
Today, homilies are not required for weekday Mass, just recommended (GIRM 65 and 66) and are not required if nobody is there to hear it, even on a Sunday. I don’t have a citation handy for prior to V2, but I have little reason to think it was any different. Not having a homily is, on its own, not an abuse unless it is a Sunday with the laity present.
Vernacular, ad pop, and hand reception are basically the NO default these days; the abuses won, which is not a point in the NO’s favour.
The bottom line is that these irregularities pale in comparison to the abuses currently rife in the NO and hardly seem to warrant the abrogation of the Tridentine Mass.
As another commentator pointed out, it matters not the situation 75 years ago, but where we are at today.
Today, the NO is the only liturgical rite where profane innovation is not just tolerated, but actively encouraged. You do not see it occurring in the Tridentine Mass, the Divine Liturgy, or the Divine Worship of the Ordinariate.
Saying the liturgy needed to reform due to the patchy use of the vernacular is wild in the context of modern liturgical nightmares like the St. Sabina Christmas Eve cabaret.
The number of people who can provide something beyond hearsay about pre-Vatican 2 times is rapidly shrinking.
I'm pretty sure the lack of a homily was on Sundays with laity present. Priests get lazy too.
I think most of the other abuses I've heard of involved the laity not actually paying attention, but wandering around talking instead, or leaving for long periods of time (that one I have heard of in the past few years, from the pastor, although at least it was teenagers and not grown men out for a smoke), or otherwise not participating.
But the rest of your points are noted, accepted, and cheered. My only point was that the TLM can also be abused, and has been, not that everyone might as well go to your average NO as to your average TLM now.
As far as I can tell, one of the things that does a great deal to keep the abuses out of the TLM now, is that pastors there are willing to correct them, and point out to people in their homilies or announcements (annually or so) that such behavior is disrespectful, uncharitable, irreverent, or otherwise wrong. And laity are willing to be corrected. It's that willingness, such as the Nigerian bishops have, that is essential to avoiding abuses. Natural goodness from priests and laity just isn't going to be enough this side of heaven.
You are welcome to conduct your own research about the reasons the Council Fathers so vigorously pursued liturgical reform -- it's not the job of the comments section to do that for you.
Nevertheless, the preconciliar Mass did have its various encrustations:
* The Leonine prayers at the end of low Mass
* Local pious traditions that added additional prayers or antiphons at the conclusion of a Missa Cantata
* Adding special prayers or public acclimations before the homily
Not to mention, poor Latin pronunciation.
Plus, most Masses of that era were low Masses. We forget that because the number of priests/parishes dedicated to the Extraordinary Form are so few in number, that they tend to be beautiful and reverent today and often a Missa Cantata at least. But in, e.g., 1927, the E.F. was the O.F. of its day and the deviations from today's consistent perfection were myriad.
I prefer the E.F. to the O.F. but I'm not anti-O.F. The patchwork of errors that immediately followed Vatican II are beginning to "age out" to a significant degree (in my home diocese, the most insipid liturgies are the domain of the most senior priests).
I would disagree, this is one of the appropriate forums to learn more; the various comments, yours included, that have provided additional depth are proof enough of that.
These “encrustations” still do not seem to warrant the wholesale re-write of the liturgy that was undertaken and are a little hilarious in light of the current situation, especially the mention of poor Latin pronunciation. With so many priests operating in a non-native language, the vernacular often takes a beating far worse. For example, we need to print out the homily because the priest’s handling of the vernacular is so bad.
Given the kitschy, congregant-focused, priest as entertainer, hidden tabernacle, expression of the NO we typically get today, the Leonine prayers don’t really seem that bad.
Elvis singing at the entrance procession https://youtu.be/aC0-sfs5T1o in a 1969 film, before the mass of Paul VI. That this was in a movie would suggest the people would not have batted an eye to the abuse.
I don’t care about what might have happened 75 years ago. It’s unheard of today, at any TLM. And that’s been true my entire middle aged lifetime.
I've attended a TLM with secular music, sloppy distribution of Communion, and inattention to the rubrics. The secular music was Mozart, for whose sake the Gregorian chant was rushed. The sloppy Communion distribution was by mumbling the distribution text and not saying it in full for each communicant. The inattention to the rubrics took the form of not terminating the Collect and other such prayers with the correct Trinitarian endings, but borrowing the terminations and practices of the Novus Ordo unlawfully. In addition, they chose to promote feasts to Sundays which I don't think were allowed to be promoted (Sacred Heart), and they preached the homily on the wrong gospel. I observed all these things in a set of two consecutive Sunday Masses.
It happens.
Preaching on the wrong gospel is not a liturgical abuse since the homily is not part of the liturgy according to pre Vatican II understanding.
Further the Feast of the Sacred Heart can be celebrated as votive mass of an external solemnity instead of the Sunday mass on the Sunday following the feast.
Otherwise I agree, and especially music was always a difficult subject. Back in the days the Congregation for Rites lamented the use of "vulgar arias" in the Mass, nowadays it is pop music. There's nothing new under the sun.