Tuesday, March 11, 2014

I wish I had a time machine...

Yes, liturgical abuses happened even before Vatican II.

I remember serving at the 15 minute Low Mass.  And that priest was very holy, very good man.

But my!  That priest went through the Missal like he was flipping it using an IPad...  and it was the 1960s!

Sadly, liturgical abuses today a more like of a train wreck, while those before Vatican II are more like a fender bender.

Do you agree that there is more liturgical abuse today than it was before the liturgical revolution?

1 comment:

  1. Well, I would rather serve at a "fast" Mass than a one hour Mass with a dancing Mass. The really main difference between a liturgical abuse before Vatican II and after the Council is that before VII, the priest will only damage his own faith, but the people will not notice, and thus, their faith is not harmed. I am not saying that the priest's soul is not important, but I only mean that in the TLM, when a liturgical abuse happens, the faith of the lay attending the Mass is not affected. Hindi nandadamay si Padre ng inosenteng kaluluwa sa kanyang mga abuso, di tulad sa Novus Ordo, kung saan bawat kagustuhan ni Father ay kailangang sundin. "Active Participation" daw kasi.