Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« Happy Year of St. Paul! | Main | Curial Reform »

June 29, 2007

Comments

James

I hope the implementationof this motu proprio will ease the pain of those who have missed the Tridentine Mass and will nourish their faith, hope and charity. We will have to wait and see what results from the permitted variations. Personally I do not envisage the Glory Days that some anticipate

mick

i'm so glad. Deo gratias... Moto propio is coming. i'm from malaysia . i attend N.Ordo mass regularly. not a single churches there celebrate TLM, but only 2 chapel belong to SSPX celebrated TLM in malaysia... unlike in america you can find some churches did celebrate TLM. catholic in malaysia seen lost their faith. they doesn't know the situation of Moto propio ducement. what the pope Ben16 want us to do. the really dont know and they not even care about the true meaning of the church, that belong to God. Benedict16 is doing the right thing. he is the greatest pope in the past 40years. last week i went to catholic store, i asked the girl , do you have chapel veil??? the girl seen so lost and shock. she replied "what is chapel veil?" SHAME ON YOU CATHOLICS. this is the problem of V2. modenlisation make people forget about God and his angel and his church and his son. i don't how to speak latin, i not belong to the SSPX. but i know how to pray PaterNoster, AVe marie in latin. in fact most of the malaysia catholic doesn't know how to pray in latin. they even dont know the official language of R.Catholic is LATIN.
what a shame. N.Ordo mass love to sing Our Father in Rock music. i really don't know why. when the church become a concert hall??? when they sing in Rock fast track Our Father. i silently pray for God. forgive them, for they do not know your church history.
i think malaysia catholic dont have the chance to TLM. bcos the priest wouldn't go for TLM. but never mind at least the Ben16 is doing the right thing. and the catholic church is back on track. .. alleluya................ Deo gratias........

Dr. Eric

It would make more sense to do it today on the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul than in a few days on a indiscriminate Feast day.

I don't think it's coming and I'm not affected if it does. I do hope that those who are attached to the TLM will get to worship in the way that they want.

BillyHW

Real Soon Now.

matt

Just like the US bishops to mock the Tridentine Latin Mass with that uneducated comparison.

-- While Latin is the original language of both liturgical texts, the new missal permits use of the vernacular language; because it called for full, active participation, the use of a local congregation's language became customary.

That's ridicuolous, Vatican II called for "actual" (Latin actuoso, not activa) first by means of education:
SC 19. With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by example.

This call for participation dates back to St. Pius X who urged that missals to be widely available in the vernacular to assist the faithful in participating.


-- With the exception of readings for the feast days of individual saints, the Tridentine Mass has a one-year cycle of Scripture readings. The Vatican II liturgy has a three-year cycle for Sunday readings and a two-year cycle for weekday readings.

Fails to note that in the new lectionary the "hard teachings" have been mostly relegated to the weekdays, or the cutting room floor.


-- The old penitential "prayers at the foot of the altar," recited by priests and other ministers before Mass, were replaced by the penitential rite within the Mass, recited by the entire congregation.

The pentitential rite is recited by the people in the most common masses celebrated today and in the years prior to Vatican II. I might add in it's complete and unadulterated form:

P:  Confiteor Deo omnipotenti,    P: I confess to almighty God,  
beatae Mariae semper virgini,     to blessed Mary ever virgin,  
beato Michaeli archangelo,        to blessed Michael the 
beato Joanni Baptistae,           archangel,  to blessed John 
sanctis Apostolis Petro et        the Baptist,  to the holy 
Paulo,  omnibus Sanctis et        apostles Peter and Paul,  to 
vobis fratres,  quia peccavi      all the saints,  and to you, 
nimis cogitatione,  verbo,        brethren,  that I have sinned 
et opere:  (The priest strikes    exceedingly in thought,  word,  
his breast three times,           and deed: (The priest strikes 
saying:)  mea culpa,  mea         his breast three times saying:)  
culpa,  mea maxima culpa.         through my fault,  through my 
Ideo precor beatam Mariam         fault,  through my most 
semper virginem,  beatum          grievous fault.  Therefore I 
Michaelem archangelum,  beatum    beseech the blessed Mary ever 
Joannem Baptistam,  sanctos       virgin,  blessed Micheal the 
Apostolos Petrum et Paulum,       archangel,  blessed John the 
omnes Sanctos,  et vos            Baptist,  the holy apostles 
fratres,  orare pro me ad         Peter and Paul,  all the 
Dominum Deum nostrum.             saints,  and you,  brethren,  
                                  to pray to the Lord our God 
                                  for me.
R:  Misereatur tui omnipotens     R: May almighty God have mercy 
Deus, et dimissis peccatis        on thee and,  having forgiven 
tuis,  perducat te ad vitam       thee thy sins,  bring thee to 
aeternam.                         life everlasting.
P:  Amen.                         P:  Amen.


-- In the Tridentine Mass, the first half of the liturgy was called the Mass of the Catechumens and almost always included a reading from one of the New Testament epistles and from one of the four Gospels. The new Liturgy of the Word, in accordance with ancient church tradition, almost always begins with a passage from the Old Testament.

Well, in ancient Church tradition, the New Testament had not been codified, so it stands to reason. As to the change in terminology, it's semantic. The Old Testament is well represented in the Traditional Mass in the prayers of the proper and ordinary of the mass, and does appear in a number of readings either directly, or as addressed by New Testament authors.


-- The Liturgy of the Eucharist, formerly called the Mass of the Faithful, begins with the preparation of the gifts. The old offertory prayers were revised in the new liturgy to avoid what some people saw as a duplication of the eucharistic prayers.

Huh?


-- Instead of one eucharistic prayer, there are now nine -- four for general Sunday and weekday use, two for Masses focusing on reconciliation and three for Masses for children.

That doesn't sound like what Vatican II meant in SC #34 by The rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity?


-- In the new Mass, the Communion rite was simplified, allowing communicants to receive the Eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine.

Failing to mention the "norm" in the new mass of violating the rubrics with extraordinary ministers, and in the use of both species when it is not reasonable to do so by virtue of the size of the congregation. On the contrary, SC 55 says: communion under both kinds may be granted when the bishops think fit, not only to clerics and religious, but also to the laity, in cases to be determined by the Apostolic See, as, for instance, to the newly ordained in the Mass of their sacred ordination, to the newly professed in the Mass of their religious profession, and to the newly baptized in the Mass which follows their baptism.

Which line means "every Sunday and weekday"?


-- The new Mass eliminated the recitation at the end of every Mass of what was known as the "last Gospel" -- the beginning of the Gospel of St. John.

This is true, and the Leonine prayers as well? But why? Is there some offense to the classicly Catholic prayers?


-- A priest celebrated the Tridentine Mass facing east, which -- given the layout of most churches -- meant he celebrated with his back to the congregation. Since the promulgation of the Roman Missal, the priest normally faces the congregation.

But why did the priest face East? And why were churches constructed so that the priest together with the people, face not only East, but the altar and tabernacle of God?

The discussion fails to mention some other things that are "customary" to the Novus Ordo, irreverence by the celebrant and the laity, communion in the hand, profane music, altar girls, and in more extreme cases halloween masses, clown masses, polka masses, etc. etc. All serious violations of the dignity of the mass.

God Bless,

Matt

Rick

Matt, good points.

Dan

Matt,
Thank you very much.
You are a voice of reason.Keep up the holy teaching.
God bless you.

Phil Maff

Matt,

You bring up some good points. We have all heard the heterodox claim that in the "spirit of Vatican II" this and that were changed. But, the question is, which changes are in the documents of Vatican II?

Discussion point. Can anyone tell me if the removal of Latin entirely, the removal of the communion rails, and communion in the hand where part of the documents, or part of the hijack, I mean, "spirit" of Vatican II.

By the way, shouldn’t the spirit of VII be the Holy Spirit?

Phil Maff

I meant to add that I accept whatever Vatican II actually said to do. I’m just not learned enough to know what that is. If anyone can recommend a good book or article about this I would be most obliged.

Ian

Removal of communion rails, destroying high altars in favor of tables, removing tabernacles from the sanctuary, extraordinary ministers, the elimination of chant, organs and polyphony in favor of clap-happy folk drivel, the abolition of Latin, the introduction of Communion in the hand, the abandonment of chapel veils, the banning of incense and bells, the building of churches in the round, the building of churches that could double as penitentiary cafeterias, the destruction of statues, art, organs and stained glass, the elimination of the prayers at the end of Mass, the abolition of the prayers at the foot of the altar are a few of the things that are not found in the documents of Vatican II.

Esau

Ian,

You do know that there are chants that utilize polyphony, don't you?

Or are you of the sort that consider polyphony evil?

Chants that feature polyphony is not the same as the awful modern music heard at today's Novus Ordo Missae.

Some of the most Sacred and heavenly-sounding chants are polyphonic.

Dan

Phil,
There is a book called,"Iota Unum",by a great Swiss philosopher,named Romano Amerio.
Amerio was a peritus,or expert to a Swiss bishop at the Council so he saw and heard first hand what was transpiring.This book is available from Sarto House and is invaluable in its exposition of the "changes in the Church in the twentieth century"
As Amerio himself points out there are many ambiguous statements made in the documents themselves,as well as outright errors.Especially in Gaudium et Spes.
There is much anthropocentricm as opposed to theocentrism in the documents.
This work by an eyewitness can shake your trust in the workings of the Council ,but must be read by anyone interested in truth.
God bless you.

Joe S.

As an Orthodox Christian, I find it puzzling that the New rite of Mass which was supposed to be based on a return to ancient patristic tradition, is actually more different from the Orthodox Divine Liturgy than the traditional Mass. Why didn't the Roman Church just seek to restore an earlier version of the Roman Mass? Why the need to introduce these innovations such as having the priest face the wrong way (with his back to Christ)? In my opinion, the Novus Ordo, even celebrated with reverence, is an obstacle to reunion between the Churches. Pope Benedict XVI should simply use his supreme authority immediately to absolutely forbid any priest from celebrating the Novus Ordo facing the people, instead of facing God. How absurd it is to pray with one's back to God.

Esau

Joe S.,

B16, then Cardinal Ratzinger, is a staunch advocate of versus orientem.

In a past interview, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said:

"Versus orientem, I would say could be a help because it is really a tradition from the Apostolic time, and it’s not only a norm, but it’s an expression also of the cosmical dimension and of the historical dimension of the liturgy.

We are celebrating with the cosmos, with the world. It’s the direction of the future of the world, of our history represented in the sun and in the cosmical realities. I think today this new discovering of our relation with the created world can be understood also from the people, better than perhaps 20 years ago. And also, it’s a common direction – priest and people are in common oriented to the Lord. So, I think it could be a help. Always external gestures are not simply a remedy in itself, but could be a help because it’s a very classical interpretation of what is the direction of the liturgy."


Cardinal Ratzinger even advocated use of Latin in the Novus Ordo Missae, which he further supported in his Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Sacramentum Caritatis.

In the same past interview, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger said:

"Generally, I think it was good to translate the liturgy in the spoken languages because we will understand it; we will participate also with our thinking. But a stronger presence of some elements of Latin would be helpful to give the universal dimension, to give the possibilities that in all the parts of the world we can see “I am in the same Church.”"

Joe S.

Esau

Do you think that Pope Benedict XVI might eventually issue a proclamation turning the priest around? He is a brilliant theologian. His "Spirit of the Liturgy" is superb.

Joe

A.Williams

Mick,

Keep up the good faith! There are alot of people who totally agree with you, and luckily, one of them is the Pope! God bless you and your country. And God help the Universal Church to unite around our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI!

JoAnna
The discussion fails to mention some other things that are "customary" to the Novus Ordo, irreverence by the celebrant and the laity, communion in the hand, profane music, altar girls, and in more extreme cases halloween masses, clown masses, polka masses, etc. etc. All serious violations of the dignity of the mass.

What's wrong with altar girls? Jesus didn't seem to have a problem with Mary perfuming his feet; why would He have a problem with a girl assisting at Mass? After all, women are allowed to be EMHCs. I guess I don't see why it's such a huge problem.

Alex Benziger.G

Sir,
Martin Luther want to destroy the Catholic, so he said as "Tolle Missam, Tolle Eclessiam" that is, destroy the papal Mass destroy the Church. As rightly pointed out by Mr.Mick, after the VaticanII considerable lay catholics are left the Church. All good values are lost, heritage and artistical altars were destroyed. B16 is the greatest Pope likes Pope Saint Gregory VII in 1074.
Long Live B16. DEO GRATIAS.

Elijah

Joe,

Priests do not have their backs to Christ during the Novus Ordo mass. The altar is between the priest and the people.

Esau

Joe S.

One step at a time.

Remember, we still don't know how successful the MP will be received.

I only thank God that JP II prepared the way for Ratzinger as he did.

If you look at how JP II masterfully laid out Ratzinger's career path as he did, this restoration wouldn't be coming about at all; we probably wouldn't even have Ratzinger as Pope!

Remember, the then Cardinal Ratzinger wanted to retire.

It was by JP II's hand that Ratzinger's path to the papacy became possible.

Joe S.

Easau,

I do think that Cardinal Ratzinger is a great blessing to the Church and providence has wisely placed him at the head of the Roman Church in this time.

Elijah; I will rephrase then. Any chance that Pope Benedict XVI will return the altar to its proper position so that people will all be facing the same direction toward Christ and not encircling Christ? :-)

Pseudomodo

Thanks Matt,

I did a little research on the word actuose from SC#11. Where is it often translated as actively, the "actual" (interesting connection here!) translation according to the armchair latinists means 'actual'.

A little more research comes up with a better latin translation in that the word actuose means passionately, eagerly.

And so it would seem that what the council fathers actually wanted was passion and eagerness and not necessarily hand clapping and foot stomping.

Dan

Joanna,
Women or girls do not have a place in the sanctuary.
The reason why there should just be altar boys and not girls is that Christ ordained an all male priesthood and the acolyte or altar boy has the chance to grow into his priestly vocation,if he has one,by being exposed to the priest and his close proximity to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
The priesthood is off limits for girls,so it would be misleading them to give them aspirations of becoming an Alter Christus.
I hope this helps.
God bless you.

Mary Kay

Not surprised, but a bit wearied, to see ridicule of the "Novus Ordo" in this thread. Much more a reflection on those posting here than the 1970 Missal itself.

Mary Kay

Perhaps my last post could alternately been phrased that many of the posts in this thread are the opinion of those posting.

Phil Maff


I agree with Mary Kay. We should criticize those elements illicitly added to the Novus Ordo Mass, not the NO itself. That’s why I asked for a list of what VII actually changed, not what we have now.

As I’ve stated before, I’ve only been to 2 or 3 NO Masses that were done most reverently and correctly, and I preferred that mass to the Tridentine. But, alas, those Masses are just so few and far between…

Dan

No Mary Kay,
It is a reflection on the recently fabricated Pauline Missal,which is much weaker than the Classical Rite in everything but the consecration.
The Novus Ordo is like a fine diamond set within a ring setting of brass.
The Classical Rite is like a fine diamond in a setting of exquisite emeralds,sapphires,and rubys.Set on a platinum band.
God bless you

Phil Maff

"fabricated" Pauline Missal Dan??

By that logic everything that the Vatican does is fabricated.

Dr. Eric

Dan,
That is only a reflection of your personal tastes and not the objective reality of the Sacrament that takes place at the Mass.

Esau

-- The Liturgy of the Eucharist, formerly called the Mass of the Faithful, begins with the preparation of the gifts. The old offertory prayers were revised in the new liturgy to avoid what some people saw as a duplication of the eucharistic prayers.

Huh?


Matt,
Although I'd rather attend the Tridentine Mass, there are deficiencies in the Tridentine that apparantly you aren't even aware of; thus, the 'huh?' in the response from you above.

Adrian Fortescue, author of the articles on the Liturgy for the Catholic Encyclopedia, actually described the canon in the Tridentine rite as being a dramatic change from what it was before.

More precisely, it was stated: "the canon has not only been changed but dramatically so."

Hence:

This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon.

At Rome, the Eucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries... Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems reasonable to say: "We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon" (Euch. u. Busssakr., 86).

The part removed from the ellipse stated simply that "[d]uring the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our "Supplices" prayer"

(Fortescue: Catholic Encyclopedia article "Liturgy of the Mass" c. 1913).


Other things mentioned:

1) The impression given of an agglomeration of features with no apparent unity.
This is the first and most serious defect that is immediately evident when it is compared with the anaphoras of Hippolytus or the Eastern Churches, especially with those of the Antioch type. The modern canon stands out as a patchwork of a number of prayers put into some sort of order, but it is an order where unity and logical connections are not easily found, even by specialists. This impression is heightened by the four occurrences of ‘Per Christum Dominum nostrum.’ ‘Amen’, not to mention that at the end of the ‘Nobis quoque,’ which indicate the apparently independent prayers they conclude. [1]

2) The lack of a logical connection of ideas.
This follows from the first fault. The connection of the te igatur with either what comes before or what follows is anything but clear. The Sanctus is finished by Pleni sunt...Benedictus... Hosanna in excelsis, and then follows Te Igitur rogamus acceptimus ut accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona... For the ideas to follow logically it would be necessary for the Sanctus, for at least the preface, to make some mention of the offering of the gifts or of the fact that God blesses and sanctifies.... In the anaphoras of other traditions the passage from the Sanctus to what follows is a great deal clearer. After the Sanctus they refer back to what has just been said and continued the idea:” Truly you are holy, who...” (Thus the Antiochene tradition, as well as the Gallican and Palaeo-Hispanic) The transition from the Memento of the living to the Communicantes presents another well-known difficulty in the Roman canon. In the present text the participle Communicates is suspended in mid-air, since it is not at all clear to what it refers. [2]

3) An exaggerated emphasis on the idea of the offering and acceptance of the gifts.
The Roman Mass, particularly the Roman canon insists on it in an exaggerated and disorderly manner, with much useless repetition....

It is difficult to avoid the impression that this same idea of offering gifts underlies the first part of the Supplices te rogamus (iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui). Here again there is the idea of commercium: we offer the gifts to God;...

Finally, the idea is once more implied, at least in the present practice of the Roman rite (Remember, this is speaking of the Tridentine canon, prior to the Pauline Rite Mass canons, not the three new canons in use), by the saying of the Per quem haec omnia at every Mass, even though there is no longer any food present to be blessed. The haec omnia that God creates vivifies, sanctifies and gives us are obviously the oblata as well.

As the canon stands, therefore, a theme that in itself is excellent has been rendered clumsy and unwieldy; the result is anything but a model of liturgical composition....

The disordered insistence upon the idea of the offering of the oblata obscures the idea that what we offer above all in the Mass is Christ our Lord himself, and ourselves with him. We lose sight of the fact that the real and primary offering of the Mass takes place after the institution with the Unde et memores. I do not say that there is no such idea in the canon; on the contrary, it is an underlying one throughout, but it is given no prominence and is therefore not easily seen, notwithstanding its primary importance. Convincing proof of this lies in the well-known fact that our people have sadly lost the essential idea of the offertory. [3]

4) The lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.
In spite of the numerous fragments in the Roman canon that follow the pattern of an epiclesis, there is absolutely no theology of the part proper to the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist. And this theology is of prime importance. One need only reflect on the biblical and traditional character of this doctrine to realize immediately that this is a serious deficiency. [4]

5) Deficiencies in the Institution narrative
a) The greatest defect is that Hoc est enim corpus meum stands alone; no attempt is made to follow it up with any of the phrases: quod Pro vobis tradetur, given in 1 Cor. 11:24 by the Vulgate;... After Hoc est enim corpus meum, all of the Eastern liturgies continue with the Pauline or Lucan sequel in one of the variant readings. This is done in the Palaeo-Hispanic rite too. [5]

6. The lack of an overall presentation of the history of salvation
This is a failing of the Roman canon and of the whole anaphora tradition in the West. Quite apart from the defects already mentioned, when looked at from this point of view the Roman canon inevitably appears at a disadvantage if compared with the anaphoras of the East. Certainly there are the movable prefaces, with all their merits, but when put side by side with the Eastern anaphoras (those of Antioch, for instance) the present canon is found wanting.[8]

Dan

Phil,
Cardinal Ratzinger himself called the novus ordo a fabricated break with the organic development of Holy Mass.
Take it up with Pope Benedict.
God bless you and yours.

BillyHW

Joanna, the problem with altar girls is that they have kooties.

Esau

Dan Hunter,

Please be HONEST.

He didn't just say that.

EXCERPT:

One big clue to the pope's thinking came in his 1997 book, titled "Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977" and written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in which he sharply criticized the drastic manner in which Pope Paul VI reformed the Mass in 1969.

...

But the picture is not so clear-cut. As Cardinal Ratzinger, he said he considered the new missal a "real improvement" in many respects, and that the introduction of local languages made sense.

In one revealing speech to Catholic traditionalists in 1998, he said bluntly that the old "low Mass," with its whispered prayers at the altar and its silent congregation, "was not what liturgy should be, which is why it was not painful for many people" when it disappeared.

The most important thing, he said at that time, was to make sure that the liturgy does not divide the Catholic community.

With that in mind, knowledgeable Vatican sources say the pope's new document will no doubt aim to lessen pastoral tension between the Tridentine rite and the new Mass, rather than hand out a victory to traditionalists.


Link:
Tridentine Mass: Pope looks for bridge to tradition

Steve Cavanaugh

Esau,

many of Fortescue's criticisms have since been shown to be based on mistaken history. The "Apostolic Tradition" of Hippolytus was almost certainly not a reflection of Roman tradition, Hippolytus himself having originally come from Syria. The lack of an Epiclesis shows not a defect but the ancient provenance of the Canon. I would recommend reading through Bouyer's Eucharist for more up-to-date resources on the history of the Roman rite Mass.

Phil Maff

Thank you Esau.

Dan

Esau,
Cardinal Ratzinger said:"After the Council in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came a fabricated liturgy.
We abandoned the organic living process,with a fabrication,a banal on the spot product"
Cardinal Ratzinger.
God bless you.

Esau

I would recommend reading through Bouyer's Eucharist for more up-to-date resources on the history of the Roman rite Mass.


Steve Cavanaugh:

Thanks for the reading recommendation!!!

I'll be sure to check it out (once I find the time -- hopefully!).

Dan

Esau,
Read Romano Amerio's book "Iota Unum" Changes in the Catholic Church in the twentieth century.
Very eye opening.
Available from Sarto House.

JoAnna
Joanna, Women or girls do not have a place in the sanctuary. The reason why there should just be altar boys and not girls is that Christ ordained an all male priesthood and the acolyte or altar boy has the chance to grow into his priestly vocation,if he has one,by being exposed to the priest and his close proximity to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The priesthood is off limits for girls,so it would be misleading them to give them aspirations of becoming an Alter Christus. I hope this helps. God bless you.

Then why are women allowed to be EMHCs?

Just because a boy is an altar boy does not mean he will necessarily have a vocation to the priesthood. But perhaps being an altar girl might help a girl realize a vocation to religious life.

Ed Peters

The motu proprio is still coming out.

John

Jimmy

Does not Esau's long post break "Da Rulz"? as it is obviously a "cut and paste" which I have no issues with but the length is extreme!

Thanks

John

Joe S and Matt

You are exactly correct!

The new mass even said with reverence is an obstacle towards any reunion because as our holy father B16 said it was a "fabricated liturgy". That does not sound organic to me!

Thank you Pope Benedict, this has been a great week, first with the restoration in the process for the election of a new pope and now allowing priests to learn the traditional mass without being made out to be heretics!

Jarnor23

Darling, don't you understand that EMHCs are yet another part of the evil V2 conspiracy to let unholy things like the laity and women influence the church?

I mean, just because receiving the Lord under both species made some people like me more comfortable converting and let me see more clearly that this IS Christ's true Church and not some diabolical scam, why that's no reason at all not to have their pristine, womenless, laityless altar be soiled with common blood. Nor is having women more involved in the faith in perfectly legal capacities. Nor is the fact that being a EMHC has made some people really think harder about living a Godly life, and helped them hopefully obtain salvation upon their passing. All these things like salvation are secondary to having EVERYONE do Mass JUST like they like.

Listen, I'm glad you guys will be getting your Tridentine Mass, but give us people who like our reverently celebrated N.O. Mass a break here. Just like EMHCs, you also will be the "extraordinary" way of doing things, so if there's something wrong with an EMHC even though allowed, there's something wrong with YOU as well.

Originally, I was rather excited to think of this development, as I wanted to see what the Tridentine was like, but if it's filled with a bunch of rubrik's Pharasees like here, I think I'll stay away, thank you very much.

jmt

so, if it meant to be available for "30 or more"..... i certainly hope that the Church will allow for other requests by 30 or more.

Most of the people who I know are good people. Many act as if what a priest celebrating Mass according to the norms today are somehow not right, not holy and certainly not "their" priests. Sad, that in a day and age where there are so few priests that the good priests that I know are being torn to bits by those who like to present themselves as more catholic than the Pope.

Different

Dan said...

"It is a reflection on the recently fabricated Pauline Missal,which is much weaker than the Classical Rite in everything but the consecration.
The Novus Ordo is like a fine diamond set within a ring setting of brass.
The Classical Rite is like a fine diamond in a setting of exquisite emeralds,sapphires,and rubys.Set on a platinum band."

What you have written here is your subjective opinion and has no objective basis whatsoever. Arguing that one liturgical text is superior to the other is a matter of personal taste. It's like arguing that the Memorare is superior to the Hail Mary. One prayer is not "better" than the other. To argue otherwise is stupid. Both are genuine, holy, valid prayers.

I suppose next you'll argue that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a smallish diamond set on white gold?

matt

Esau,

notwithstanding that Fortescue (who I highly respect by the way) may be mistaken about the changes to the canon in 400-600, how in the slightest way are those issues resolved by the Novus Ordo? There are 9 canons to chose from by the priest... that is unprecedented, and most of them are made up or cobbled together from ancient sources.

Matt

matt

Elijah,

Priests do not have their backs to Christ during the Novus Ordo mass. The altar is between the priest and the people.

Except that if the tabernacle is placed as was customary for centuries, and is still the place most consistent with the instructions of the Vatican - central in front of the altar, then for most of the mass, the only Real Presence is behind the priest. In fact, there so no place that He can reside which would not make some or all of the congregation or celebrants with their backs to Him. The location of the tabernacle and the high altar with the mass said ad orientum is makes the most "pastoral" and liturgical sense. It's not about the priest acting like he's on a stage, it's about Christ.

Joanna,

Joanna, Women or girls do not have a place in the sanctuary. The reason why there should just be altar boys and not girls is that Christ ordained an all male priesthood and the acolyte or altar boy has the chance to grow into his priestly vocation,if he has one,by being exposed to the priest and his close proximity to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The priesthood is off limits for girls,so it would be misleading them to give them aspirations of becoming an Alter Christus. I hope this helps. God bless you.
Then why are women allowed to be EMHCs?

Just because a boy is an altar boy does not mean he will necessarily have a vocation to the priesthood. But perhaps being an altar girl might help a girl realize a vocation to religious life.

Posted by: JoAnna | Jun 29, 2007 11:52:31 AM

Women are not supposed to be EMHC's, in fact believe it or not, according to the Church there are not supposed to be any EMHC's except in extraordinary circumstances. When necessary, instituted acolytes (who are all men) are to be chosen first. Furthermore, the readings of the mass are supposed to be done by instituted lectors (also men) unless there are none available. The problem, is that we live in a place and time where many of episcopate, at least implicitly favor womans ordination, and don't understand themselves why women are excluded from certain ministries (as are men).

While of course not all altar boys become priests, most men (at least in the past) who become priests were altar boys. When you insert girls into that role, frankly, the boys are decidedly not interested, and it follows that they may miss their calling to the priesthood. You can blame it on the boys if you like, but the priest shortage is a serious problem for the girls too. The diocese with the most vocations has no altar girls, do you think this is a coincidence? Lincoln, Nebraska has 1 priest per 800 Catholics, 5 times the national average.... think about that.

God Bless,

Matt

matt

Phil,

You bring up some good points. We have all heard the heterodox claim that in the "spirit of Vatican II" this and that were changed. But, the question is, which changes are in the documents of Vatican II?

Discussion point. Can anyone tell me if the removal of Latin entirely, the removal of the communion rails, and communion in the hand where part of the documents, or part of the hijack, I mean, "spirit" of Vatican II.

By the way, shouldn’t the spirit of VII be the Holy Spirit?


Posted by: Phil Maff | Jun 29, 2007 8:33:04 AM

SC, 36:
1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.

The Spirit of Vatican II should be the Holy Spirit, but sadly whatever the spirit is, it isn't consistent with the actual documents of Vatican II, so and since the Holy Spirit is truth itself... what is the spirit of lies?

God Bless,

Matt

matt

Different,

Dan said...

"It is a reflection on the recently fabricated Pauline Missal,which is much weaker than the Classical Rite in everything but the consecration.
The Novus Ordo is like a fine diamond set within a ring setting of brass.
The Classical Rite is like a fine diamond in a setting of exquisite emeralds,sapphires,and rubys.Set on a platinum band."

What you have written here is your subjective opinion and has no objective basis whatsoever. Arguing that one liturgical text is superior to the other is a matter of personal taste. It's like arguing that the Memorare is superior to the Hail Mary. One prayer is not "better" than the other. To argue otherwise is stupid. Both are genuine, holy, valid prayers.

I suppose next you'll argue that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a smallish diamond set on white gold?

Posted by: Different | Jun 29, 2007 12:37:05 PM

While I don't particularly care for this particular metaphor, it is not purely subjective. All one has to do is compare the Novus Ordo in English with the actual Latin to see that the translation takes away a lot of the theological sheen. Then compare verse by verse the Traditional with the Latin Novus Ordo, objectively. You'll find that much has been removed, or "softened" which makes it much weaker.

Your reference to the Divine Liturgy is a red herring, it has no correlation. It is not a watered down version of anything.

God Bless,

Matt

matt

oops.

Jarnor23,
Darling, don't you understand that EMHCs are yet another part of the evil V2 conspiracy to let unholy things like the laity and women influence the church?

I mean, just because receiving the Lord under both species made some people like me more comfortable converting and let me see more clearly that this IS Christ's true Church and not some diabolical scam, why that's no reason at all not to have their pristine, womenless, laityless altar be soiled with common blood. Nor is having women more involved in the faith in perfectly legal capacities. Nor is the fact that being a EMHC has made some people really think harder about living a Godly life, and helped them hopefully obtain salvation upon their passing. All these things like salvation are secondary to having EVERYONE do Mass JUST like they like.

Listen, I'm glad you guys will be getting your Tridentine Mass, but give us people who like our reverently celebrated N.O. Mass a break here. Just like EMHCs, you also will be the "extraordinary" way of doing things, so if there's something wrong with an EMHC even though allowed, there's something wrong with YOU as well.

Originally, I was rather excited to think of this development, as I wanted to see what the Tridentine was like, but if it's filled with a bunch of rubrik's Pharasees like here, I think I'll stay away, thank you very much.

Posted by: Jarnor23 | Jun 29, 2007 12:28:38 PM

So you are opposed to rubrics? I doubt you even understand them, or why they are necessary. I suggest you read from the Holy Father on the liturgy, it may open your mind. Do you even want to take direction from him, or prefer to make your own rubric?

The "extraordinary" reference to the EMHC, is likely not the same as the one to the Traditional Latin Mass, but that remains to be seen from the document. Oh, you don't like documents.

God Bless,

Matt

Different

Matt,

Thanks for your response. I didn't mention the NO in English and the problem of a less than perfect translation is a separate problem.

A comparison of the two liturgical texts does not prove that one is superior. They are both validly promulgated good and holy liturgies. To say one is superior is utterly ridiculous. In your opinion one may be stronger than the other. I may think the Memorare is more beautiful or profound than the Hail Mary, but that wouldn't mean that the Memorare is, in fact, objectively superior.

The Divine Liturgy is not a red herring. By bringing it up I am demonstrating quite clearly, that a comparison between two liturgical texts is nonsense. You wouldn't think of claiming that objectively the TLM is superior and deeper and more profound than the divine liturgy, because you realize that it's a silly proposition to make.

Saying that one text has a better "theological sheen" is silly.

paul zummo

off now

paul zummo

try again

Leigh

Italics going off?
If they are, then I really hope that this story ends up coming out as true. Don't know exactly how it's going to play out in day-to-day life, though - I've got a old-skewing parish with a very liberal (though still orthodox) pastor.

Jarnor23

Oddly enough, I didn't say many things you think I did, Matt. You assume a lot. I'm not against rubrics, I'm against Phariseeical infallible personal interpretations of them. When something is allowed, and the Bishop doesn't go against it, it is a matter of personal preference at that point. You talk as if these things you like aren't allowed at all, when they are.

BillyHW

Can people who forget to close their italics html also be saved?

Esau

Does not Esau's long post break "Da Rulz"? as it is obviously a "cut and paste" which I have no issues with but the length is extreme!

AND

Thank you Pope Benedict, this has been a great week, first with the restoration in the process for the election of a new pope and now allowing priests to learn the traditional mass without being made out to be heretics!


John,

STOP goading me into an argument with you!

Now, you proclaim B16 as some sort of HERO, when awhile back in other threads, you declared him an Apostate!

Not to mention, talk about 'cut-and-pastes', there are several comments you've posted that were obviously cut-and-pastes from other websites including an SSPX one which not only I, but other people on this blog have caught you doing as well!

Tim J.

There should be a distinction made between the basic structure of the Mass - any Mass - and specific kinds of readings, prayers and actions that are used, both at the altar and by those assisting (us).

The N.O. is built on the same basic structure as the TLM, and in that sense is "organic". It is both valid and licit. However, many of the specific changes in terms of details (prayers changed or omitted, the posture and actions of the priest, and of course, the language) were - IMO - not organic.

One big reason is that for a change to be organic (in my mind) it would need to happen gradually, as a result of cultural influences over quite a long period of time.

This was not at all the case with the N.O.. The changes came about not as a result of broad cultural shifts over a long time, but happened very suddenly and basically came from the "top down", engineered by a fairly small number of people, a liturgical elite, rather than bubbling up naturally from the faithful.

For this reason, no matter what kind of liturgical reforms were needed at the time of Vatican II (and they were needed), the Mass in general is in much greater need of reform now than it was before the council undertook to reform it.

This is certainly not entirely the fault of the hierarchy... we in in West have simply forgotten how to treat anything with awe and solemnity. Births, deaths, weddings... all are treated with the same post-modern gloss. Same with the Mass. Most seem to be of a mind that "Mass is great, and all, but let's not get carried away.".

No... let's do. Let's get carried away with the Mass. Let's get extravagant again in our music and church buildings and art. Let the world accuse us of being wasteful and immoderate in our worship. Can we even manage that any more?

And by extravagant worship, I don't mean waving our hands and shouting. I mean extravagantly beautiful. Profound and deep. Movingly significant ALL ON IT'S OWN, and not in need of any pumping up with aerobics and noise and drums.

Esau

Not to mention the fact, John, that MOST of your posts were long AND anti-Catholic AND clearly Protestant in nature!

There's a big difference between your posts vs. Joe S. and Matt's -- they're genuinely Traditional Catholics in the sense that they have not abandoned the Catholic Church and still acknowledge the Authority of Peter; not like some fair-weather wannabes like you who had even declared JP II and B XVI heretics and apostates as you had done so in the past!

My, my, how quickly the winds have changed, the tides have shifted, that you suddenly laud B16 with such glowing praise and admiration when it wasn't awhile ago that you considered him one of the most vile heretics in the world, next to JP II!

paul zummo

You talk as if these things you like aren't allowed at all, when they are.

Actually, in the case of EMCs and the like, they aren't. Matt was right: many of the things you see at Mass are not allowed in the rubrics.

paul zummo

Esau:

Friendly advice: stop taking the bait.

Dan

The Ave Maria is superior to the Memorare for it is part of our Ladys Psalter.
The Memorare is not.
God bless you

Tim J.

Esau, John's posts were fairly innocuous, certainly not inflammatory. But there is no need - even if you feel he is goading you - to oblige him. Just ignore it.

As far as his praise of B16... well, thanks be to God for that. Don't slap his hand.

John, please do us all a favor and just don't respond at all to Esau's post.

PLEEZE?

Esau

Paul Zummo:
Thanks for the sound advice.


Dan:
How can you actually claim that one prayer is superior to another?

Aren't all prayers to God just as dear to Him?

Dan

No Esau,
Our Lady has commanded us to pray the Rosary over other prayers.
You have to start understanding that there are degrees of goodness in the metaphysical realm.
This applies to every aspect of creation.
Even God the Father has reserved greater places in Heaven for holier Saints.
This is a matter of Church Teaching.
God bless you.

Esau

Dan,
Your understanding is based on a mis-understanding.

With regards to prayer, when somebody who asks the Lord for help in a time of great adversity be it due to life-threatning illness like cancer, suffering due to incredible oppresion and tyranny, or whatever else the situation might be; if that person were to pray, "Lord, please help me in my hour of need!"

Please don't tell me that you actually think God would say, "Hey, your prayers mean didly squat to me unless you pray the Rosary!"

Different

Dan,

Nice move with the Memorare/Hail Mary bit.

But really that wasn't my point. The point was that you can't prove one liturgical text or prayer is objectively superior and to argue about it is really pointless.

It's like arguing that Flannery O'Connor is objectively a better writer than Evelyn Waugh. You can't make the case if you want, but ultimately, it's a subjective matter.

JoAnna
Women are not supposed to be EMHC's, in fact believe it or not, according to the Church there are not supposed to be any EMHC's except in extraordinary circumstances. When necessary, instituted acolytes (who are all men) are to be chosen first. Furthermore, the readings of the mass are supposed to be done by instituted lectors (also men) unless there are none available. The problem, is that we live in a place and time where many of episcopate, at least implicitly favor womans ordination, and don't understand themselves why women are excluded from certain ministries (as are men).

Can you please cite the Church documents that say this so I can read them in context?

I know and fully understand why women cannot be priests, but I find it hard to believe that the Church feels that women are useless at the Mass in any capacity except for that of the cantor. I enjoy being a lector at my parish and I would be VERY disappointed if women were no longer permitted to serve in such a capacity.

My parish has men and women EMHCs. It is a small college campus church, and there aren't enough small boys attending for alter boys given that the majority of the parish members are single college students. It doesn't make the Mass any less reverent, so far as I can tell.

mt

the fact that being a EMHC has made some people really think harder about living a Godly life, and helped them hopefully obtain salvation upon their passing.

Jarnor23, I am not one of "rubrik's Pharasees" if there really are such people - maybe you are a tad uncharitable? I love both the Novus Ordo (done well - without the worst of the worst hymns, for example) and the Tridentine. I have studied both and both are valid.

But as for Extraordinary Ministers - I was one, and I just resigned, and my heart is SO much lighter. I don't have the norms in front of me, but I KNOW that John Paul II and B16 did not want four priests sitting idly by while women handed out the Eucharist; nor did they think an "extraordinary need" was when there were -- gasp -- 20 people at a morning Mass. And I don't think they would have been pleased by "training" that included telling women that some who have been trained have left the church to become Episcopal priestesses (and that the Holy Spirit was leading them!!!).

EMs are allowed, and women are allowed to be EMs, and whatever Rome says goes, as far as I am concerned. But in some parishes there is more than Rome ever dreamed of.

It would be wonderful if becoming EMs made all women think harder about living a Godly life, but (1) you'd never know it by the Voice of the Faithful EMs I have met, and (2) all the women of the past two millennia --- all those saints and abbesses and martyrs and blesseds - managed it without having to take over a priestly (not as in "priesthood of all believers" but CLERGY) role.

Skygor

JoAnna,

Here are the Sections from the Canon describing who can be ministers of communion.

Can. 910 §1. The ordinary minister of holy communion is a bishop, presbyter, or deacon.

§2. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte or another member of the Christian faithful designated according to the norm of ⇒ can. 230, §3.


And here is the cross references for concerning the Rights of the Laity

Can. 230 §1. Lay men who possess the age and qualifications established by decree of the conference of bishops can be admitted on a stable basis through the prescribed liturgical rite to the ministries of lector and acolyte.

Nevertheless, the conferral of these ministries does not grant them the right to obtain support or remuneration from the Church.

§2. Lay persons can fulfill the function of lector in liturgical actions by temporary designation. All lay persons can also perform the functions of commentator or cantor, or other functions, according to the norm of law.

§3. When the need of the Church warrants it and ministers are lacking, lay persons, even if they are not lectors or acolytes, can also supply certain of their duties, namely, to exercise the ministry of the word, to preside offer liturgical prayers, to confer baptism, and to distribute Holy Communion, according to the prescripts of the law. (Bold mine.)

Sadly I cannot find a copy of it in Latin to see if "vir" or "homo" was used for the word "man". However in the various sections you can see the terms "person" and "man or woman" used implying that they are being specific with genders. I wouldn't take it too badly since they don't want any laity to perform such services. Even the acolytes are just standing in for Deacons. That is in fact the reason why my parish doesn't have acolytes even though we have a school. The Deacon assists our Pastor throughout the Mass.

matt

Different,

Dan,

Nice move with the Memorare/Hail Mary bit.

But really that wasn't my point. The point was that you can't prove one liturgical text or prayer is objectively superior and to argue about it is really pointless.

It's like arguing that Flannery O'Connor is objectively a better writer than Evelyn Waugh. You can't make the case if you want, but ultimately, it's a subjective matter.

Posted by: Different | Jun 29, 2007 2:09:22 PM

Now you're being ridiculous. There are things which are objective, and things which are subjective. One can make objective distinctions about the liturgy, to say otherwise is silly.

God Bless,

Matt

Different

Matt,

Yes, you can make distinctions about the liturgy.

What you really can't do is build a case that the TLM text is objectively "better" than the NO or the Divine Liturgy. They are all good and holy liturgical texts and pleasing to God. To believe that you can prove one superior is silly.

Esau

To believe that you can prove one superior is silly.


Different,
I believe Dan's rather poor analogy has distorted this topic at hand.

I believe that what Matt is responding to concerns the Liturgical elements of the one vs. the other.

Yes, both are valid.

However, liturgically-speaking, the Tridentine is comparatively better in terms of several aspects in this respects since for one, it is more in line with the ancient Roman canon (when comparing with the Novus Ordo Missae and in spite of its own deficiencies) and, thus, bridges both past and present in terms of the ancient tradition of the Latin Rite.

Dan

Esau,
It was in no way a poor analogy.
The Ave was commanded by our Lady at Fatima. No other corporate prayer was deemed this important by her in 1917.
Of course God will listen to any prayer from the will if addressed to Him.
Any nursery school kid knows this.I am not referring to the general efficacy of all prayer addressed to the Triune Godhead or the Saints.
What I am saying is that just as the Officium Divinum is a more elevated form of prayer than private prayer so the rosary is a higher form of prayer than individual supplication.As the Tridentine mass is a higher form of mass than the Pauline Novus Ordo.
God bless you and yours.

Mary Kay

Dan still doesn't get that his post is his opinion and does not reflect the Catholic Church's view of the 1970 Missal, known as the Novus Ordo.

matt

While I believe we can make objective distinctions where the TLM is better than the Novus Ordo in the theological correctness of it's prayers, the reverence, the inherent catechesis etc. I would be cautious that we are talking only of the appearences of the liturgy, and not any defect in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which is in a state of perfection in any Catholic mass. I also would not necessarily agree with Dan's statement "the Tridentine mass is a higher form of mass than the Pauline Novus Ordo", I just don't think we have a basis for it.

Matt

Jarnor23

I'm sorry some of you apparently live in awful places where EMHCs are nothing but "Voice of the Faithful" spies waiting to pounce upon any abuse they can get away with. I can assure you that every parish I've been to in my Diocese makes an attempt to reverently observe the Mass, even though most DO use EMHCs. I'm sorry, but distribution to hundreds of people with so few priests these days DOES kind of go better with EMHCs. Perhaps the role will no longer be needed when every seminary is overflowing and we just can't place all the priests coming out of them, but until then, by every document I've seen and by the Bishop's decision, it IS allowed, and frankly, a good thing.

And if you've never seen a rubrics Pharisee, I'd say you're not looking very hard. Likely not even on this board, or very thread. Although I am sorry about mixing rubrics up with the cube of similar name in spelling. :)

mt

Dang, Jarnor23! I LIKED "rubrik's pharisees!" Think of the near-infinite levels of meaning :-)

Andy120

The holy sacrifice of the Mass is infinitely holy and good! Saying one rite is 'better' than another is comparing the infinite; it is impossible.


God Bless,
Andy120

Tim J.

Well, no.

Yes, the Mass is holy, but it is still possible to offer valid critique of a particular form of the Mass.

Many things may be holy, but "holy" does not mean "perfect" or beyond criticism.

J.R. Stoodley

EMHCs are intended only for extraordinary circumstaces. A packed Cathedral on Christmas with one priest is an extraordinary circumstance. An average parish with a few hundred people at most is not. I can't imagine justifying using EMHCs in such a situation just to move the line faster, or as I think the reality often is to give as many laity as possible something to do besides sit there like laity. It is a minor sort of clericalization. The Church has been very clear on this issue.

As for the Traditional Latin Mass, it is simply the traditional Roman Liturgy, as it developed organically over many centuries, but still similar or even identical in many respects to that of St. Gregory the Great. The "Novus Ordo" is indeed fabricated, in the sense of being put together at once not the sense of being somehow false. Yes it retains most of the most basic elements from the past but is essentially a new creation.

No Eastern Catholic Church would dream of abandoning their traditional liturgy in favor of a newly fabricated one, even if the new one were in some sense "better". Since Vatican II they, with the arguable exception of the Ruthenians but they are a strange case, have undergone a true restoration of their liturgies, capturing the true form of their traditions as they had been before modern Latinization.

I have yet to talk about the issue an Eastern Catholic or Orthodox who thinks the liturgical reform we underwent was a good thing. At most they think our liturgy should have been translated into the vernacular but kept intact. One Eastern Orthodox on another online forum said to his fellow Orthodox essenially don't listen to these Catholics, they may sound orthodox but go to one of their "Protestant look-alike masses" and you will see how bad they really are. You can hardly blame him, since after all the "NO" does indeed look like one of the more liturgical Protestant services compared to the old Roman liturgy or any ancient liturgy, and I hear not just from traditionalists that this was deliberate on the part of Paul VI, thinking that it would remove a barrier between us and them (this convert from Protestantism thinks it rather confirmed Protestants in their error and made them less likely to convert. I became Catholic because I wanted Catholicism, not Protestantism).

Meanwhile I have yet to find disagreement from Easterners of either persuasion with the proposition that the modern Roman liturgy (seen as a glaring example of "Roman innovation") is one of the major obstacles to Catholic-Orthodox unity.

Not that we should alter the liturgy just to make separated brethren happy. That's part of what got us into this mess. But I think we could learn from their sense of tradition and respect for their own ancient liturgies.

Whether or not the replacement of the traditional Latin Mass with a new, hipper liturgy (painfully 70sish to many of my generation, at least how it's usually done) was worth it to get a more active and conscious participation and a more streamlined, internally unifed liturgy I'm perhaps not qualified to say (though it's obvious from what I've said what I suspect) but I definitely think it is a wonderful idea to allow the TLM to be praciced here and there at least, a witness to the past identity of Western Christianity that any can learn from if they are interested.

matt

Jarnor23,

I'm sorry some of you apparently live in awful places where EMHCs are nothing but "Voice of the Faithful" spies waiting to pounce upon any abuse they can get away with. I can assure you that every parish I've been to in my Diocese makes an attempt to reverently observe the Mass, even though most DO use EMHCs. I'm sorry, but distribution to hundreds of people with so few priests these days DOES kind of go better with EMHCs. Perhaps the role will no longer be needed when every seminary is overflowing and we just can't place all the priests coming out of them, but until then, by every document I've seen and by the Bishop's decision, it IS allowed, and frankly, a good thing.

That might be true if it was just a matter of prudential judgement. It is not. The Bishop has not authority to override the Canon law and other documents about EMHC's, therefore, it is by definition, NOT a good thing, nor is a situation like that going to be very likely to inspire men to hear the call of the priesthood.

Matt

Jarnor23

If the Church were so bloody clear on these matters, the Pope would have brought the smacketh down on these evil rogue Bishops you people concoct in your minds, there would be no doubt, and we would go "Oh, okay, if that is indeed stated so clearly and enforced, then we assent to the Holy See in its judgement." As it is now, Rome ain't been telling Bishops that they are absolutely wrong in their prudential judgement (which, as it turns out, is being redefined for allowing conservative politics to override any Catholic teaching they don't like, much as liberals use primacy of conscience to justify overriding all those they don't like ). Since Rome hasn't cracked down on this judgement by the Bishops, it is an unclear signal at best if they disapprove.

When Rome makes it CLEAR to the Bishops and faithful that EMHCs are only allowed at Christmas, when it falls on Tuesdays, on leap years, or something like that, THEN you would be right in saying Bishops have no rights whatsoever to minister to their Diocese. Until then, cut them some slack, and allow those who reap the good the EMHCs do continue to, even if you don't personally like it.

Because, after all, you MIGHT just be fallible, and MAYBE the EMHC is a ministry intended by God to do some good for those involved. I'll certainly admit it and never try to help the Church out again if it's clarified elsewise. God forbid I do anything else to try to get involved in the Church that could be considered wrong by you people. I'll then learn my lesson, involvement is for priests only, and the laity should sit on their fat butts and do nothing. Just don't be surprised when people who actually want to be involved in their faith start looking elsewhere, or stop attending due to feeling useless, uninvolved, or unwanted.

Josh

I think the tone some opponents of the use of EMHCs are using is unhelpful in explaining why it is objectionable. It's not about shutting laity out - it's about preserving the proper distinction between clergy and laity. For a long time DEACONS were not permitted to distribute Communion! In all of the historic rites of East and West, the handling of sacred vessels and distribution of Communion was done by clergy only. Lectors are one of the ancient minor orders - under previous canon law before the abolition of these orders under Paul VI, they were considered clerics, and not laity.

There are two issues that come up in conjunction with these discussions all the time: papal authority over the liturgy and what it means to participate at Mass. I unhesitatingly affirm that the Pope has authority to change the rites of the Church insofar as he does not alter the essentials. I also unhesitatingly affirm that just because the Pope does change the rites of the Church, it doesn't mean it is automatically good. And I'm not just talking about the reforms of Paul VI. The character of the Roman liturgy began changing at the beginning of the twentieth century with Pius X's reform of the Breviary; there were more radical changes to the Breviary, the Calendar, and to Holy Week under Pope Pius XII, who also completely replaced the Vulgate Psalter in the Breviary. John XXIII's reforms of the liturgical books also caused significant changes. Some of these reforms were good - Pius X's arrangement of the Psalter helped recover the ancient principle of reciting the entire Psalter each week, but the way in which it was changed distorted the character of the Little Hours and Lauds. Similar criticisms and observations can be made in the case of the reforms of Pius XII and John XXIII. Though I don't like all of the changes, that doesn't really matter in the end, does it? :)

As far as lay participation, I think the post-conciliar period has seen a tremendous confusion of the proper liturgical roles of clergy and laity. I concur with the quote by then-Cardinal Ratzinger that the Tridentine Low Mass is not the ideal of liturgy, but it preserved the proper distinctions between clergy and laity, even though it may have exaggerated them. I personally would prefer that EMHCs and altar girls not be used (well-trained and prepared lay lectors and cantors do not bother me) out of respect for liturgical tradition and propriety, but I don't think they are the intrinsically sacriligeous things some traditionalists do. They fall in the category of things that Rome tolerates or even approves, even if it may not have been the best idea, all things considered.

We just need to remember that we're all sinners and that we all need the sacraments. If someone is more spiritually nourished in the Pauline Mass, then glory be to God. And if someone is more spiritually nourished in the Tridentine rite, then thanks be to God for Pope Benedict for bending over backwards to accommodate a numerically small group in the Church. In the modern world, so hostile to Catholicism, we do better to fight the anti-Christian secularism of the West than other well-meaning Catholics.

Jarnor23

See, now the way Josh puts it, I can understand where he's coming from. I still do not think altar girls or EMHCs are harmful, but rather quite helpful, if not what Catholics are used to seeing. If they remain licit, I personally would endorse usage if the Bishop says so, if not, well, then we have to change as the Pope has the final word in the matter.

When put Josh's way though I can understand his point of view and can understand if a parish or diocese prefers to do things that way. When said disrespectfully, it only brings division between Catholics over something licit, which can help no one.

It's like that with the TLM as well. Respectfully requesting to have it normalized makes reasonable people say "well, I don't want to do it that way myself, but by all means, let them if they so wish, it is helping their faith". Disrespectfully insisting that your way is right and everyone should do it or they make baby Jesus cry only makes people think, "I hope the Popes tell them to sit on it for a thousand years".

John

Tim J

I will not respond to Esau as we all need to be charitable, I was just pointing out that "Da Rulz" as Jimmy points out, apply to all

God bless Pope B16!

matt

Jarnor23
If the Church were so bloody clear on these matters

So you read the documents in context, you see the words, but you like what the bishop allows despite them,so now you don't care about the documents or contexts. I understand.

the Pope would have brought the smacketh down on these evil rogue Bishops you people concoct in your minds, there would be no doubt, and we would go "Oh, okay, if that is indeed stated so clearly and enforced, then we assent to the Holy See in its judgement." As it is now, Rome ain't been telling Bishops that they are absolutely wrong in their prudential judgement

Why do you think the Holy Father issued Redemptionis Sacramentum? It should be completely unnecessary as the rules for EMHC's and all the other considerations in that document are clearly spelled out elsewhere. Read the whole document, and you will see that it is the Holy Father putting the smackdown on all sorts of abuses.
Now you know what the Holy Father wants, do you assent? Yes or No. Cardinal Arinze, the prefect of the congregation for divine worship, speaks regularly about cleaning up the abuses, but the bishops in many places do nothing. Once again, check the numbers on vocations in YOUR diocese against Lincoln, Nebraska, against St. Louis, MO. If you want more priests pray, or even ask for obedience by your clergy.


(which, as it turns out, is being redefined for allowing conservative politics to override any Catholic teaching they don't like, much as liberals use primacy of conscience to justify overriding all those they don't like ).

What exactly are you are you referring to about conservative politics overriding Catholic teaching, I'm interested in a segway.

Since Rome hasn't cracked down on this judgement by the Bishops, it is an unclear signal at best if they disapprove.

What does the Holy Father have to do beside issuing a Canon law, and a string of documents decrying the situation on liturgical abuse, annulment tribunals, liberation theology etc. You want him to fire 1/3 of the US Bishops??? Just because he doesn't do so, doesn't mean he approves of all they are doing. Do you only obey the 10 commandments if you see someone being struck down by God for violating them?

saying Bishops have no rights whatsoever to minister to their Diocese. Until then, cut them some slack, and allow those who reap the good the EMHCs do continue to, even if you don't personally like it.

Please try to stop making up things. Nobody said the bishops have no rights to minister to their diocese. Read the documents, it explains exactly what the bishop has authority over, which is a whole lot. It's not about what we like, it's about obedience, and disobedience does not reap a good. By the way, in this age of EMHC's, how many Catholics believe in the Real Presence? The numbers are sad, and it's in part because the much more relaxed attitude towards the Eucharist, that EMHC's are a part of.

Because, after all, you MIGHT just be fallible, and MAYBE the EMHC is a ministry intended by God to do some good for those involved. I'll certainly admit it and never try to help the Church out again if it's clarified elsewise. God forbid I do anything else to try to get involved in the Church that could be considered wrong by you people. I'll then learn my lesson, involvement is for priests only, and the laity should sit on their fat butts and do nothing. Just don't be surprised when people who actually want to be involved in their faith start looking elsewhere, or stop attending due to feeling useless, uninvolved, or unwanted.

This attitude is precisely what the document is suggesting must be avoided, you saw the statement earlier, that liturgical ministries are not a part of active participation. You do your most important job as a Catholic when you assist at mass by joining your prayers with the priest and the rest of the congregation. There are many other important ministries that lay Catholics are called to lead, ending abortion being first and foremost, feeding the poor, instructing the ignorant, etc. etc.

Disrespectfully insisting that your way is right and everyone should do it or they make baby Jesus cry

you're tilting at windmills, the problem is that is not anything like anyone on this thread has said, nor would I agree with it if anyone said. Truth is very important and it's uncharitable to bear false witness and misrepresent the other's position.

God Bless,

Matt

Different

Matt,

Why mention St. Louis as an example of orthodoxy in the liturgy?

Everytime I have been to Mass in St. Louis there has been the typical EMHC circus on the altar, "fractioning" of the Precious Blood, practically no altar boys, grand piano next to the altar, etc. If they're getting lots of vocations it's not through their liturgies. Of course, that's only my experience in 7 different parishes over the years.

Jarnor23

I'm sorry, but talking to the Pharisees here is clearly an utter waste of time. I'll be following the guidance of my priest, a VERY holy man, and Bishop. They are the ones responsible for these decisions, not you, thank God. Enjoy your holier than thou mass, it wouldn't hurt you to remember though that some of us have our faith built through these practices that ARE licit whether you like them or not.

Dr. Eric

Different,

I don't know where you went to church, but I've never been to an unorthodox Liturgy in St. Louis. Unless you count the Latizations at the Ruthenian Mission at the Bl. John XXIII center.

Dr. Eric

I agree with JR's post. Except that a packed church on Christmas Eve with only one priest still shouldn't have EMHCs. Everyone should have to wait their turn.

That'll teach 'em to only come to church 3 times per year.

Mary

The Ave was commanded by our Lady at Fatima. No other corporate prayer was deemed this important by her in 1917.

Private revelations are not binding on the faithful.

Different

Dr. Eric,

In the western suburbs and some parishes in the north part of the county. To be honest, I have never been to an orthodox Mass in the archdiocese except at the new cathedral. Again, this is just one person's experience. I had always thought of St. Louis liturgies as a bit liberal.

Dan

Mary,
Ironic that you disagree with your Holy Namesake.
The Blessed Mother was telling the Truth.
The Church has aproved of Fatima.
If the Church aproved it,it is 100% true.
God bless you.

bill912

Mary! How dare you post a fact! Don't you know better?

Jarnor23

Oh, and a few last things before saying to hell with this thread (where it belongs):

- Since in the old days it was unlikely to have pollsters asking about true belief in the Divine Presence, and even more unlikely for someone to honestly say no if they were lukewarm or even cold, how are you SO sure that the situation is actually a lot worse than it was when Church was something people did because they were expected to, whether or not they really let it change their lives?

- How are you SO sure N.O. masses and EMHCs are to blame? Could it not be the sinful culture of the 60s-70s-80s-90s that caused the most problems? Many youth are having the fire of Christ lit in their hearts these days, thank God, and it's MOSTLY in N.O. parishes by holy priests doing their jobs despite what you people think.

- Do you really think that simply having the priest say things in Latin, which few have any clue about anymore, will actually improve anything at all for the vast majority of Catholics anymore? If so, I've a bridge to sell you.

- Why do you think the Diocese of Fargo must be losing people and have problems? We're doing quite well, thank you very much.

- As pointed out, your example of St. Louis DOES use EMHCs. Whoops, guess they're suddenly Satan instead of a fine example. Funny that, I thought that Bishop was doing pretty well at speaking out against abortion and other issues. Much like the Bishop of Fargo does. Woah, but he allows EMHCs and seems fine with the N.O. Mass... does not compute! Must be Satan in disguise again.

- Funny how you always say "read these documents" instead of simply quoting where it says "EMHCs and N.O. are always evil, stop doing this now".

- Please point out again where it says that actively being a part of the liturgical celebration is a bad, bad thing that must be discouraged. If it ain't in something infallible, I believe I'll do your trick and use my "prudential judgement" to disagree.

- If 1/3 the Bishops weren't following something the Pope found important, the Holy Father danged right should talk to them and tell them to obey. Frankly, most people in the Church NEED to make sure they can trust their Bishop's guidance, instead of being mini-Popes themselves. That way lies Protestantism. Oh, and if they still won't obey? You're damned right they should be sacked. I can't possibly imagine that no priest in the Diocese would accept the job to replace them.

I'm pretty sure you folks have nothing ACTUAL to persuade me with, but I may poke back in to see the silly attempts. In the meantime, trusting in my priest and Bishop rather than random Internet Bozos.

Silas

Re: Dan

Oh no. Not another apparitions nut. Look, apparitions are private revelation and are never binding on anyone except those who received them. Ever. No matter how approved they are. That is basic Church teaching on apparitions.

Elijah

Can someone clear something up for me? How does the N.O. cause an obstacle to reunion between East and West? I don't much about the rules and issues involved in regulation of liturgies, but don't the Eastern churches have their own separate rites, rites they would certainly keep after such a reunion? Are other Eastern rite churches that have returned to the Catholic Church affected by the new mass, or is it only for the Latin rite?

Dan

Silas,
Why would you be so uncharitable as to call me a nut.
I am just stating what the Church Teaches.
I fail to understand your ad hominem attack.
I could get personal with you and cast an insult but I choose the higher, more Christlike road.
God bless you and yours

Elijah

Oops, my post above should read '...don't *know* much about' etc.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31