Ash Wednesday isn't the same

  • Thread starter Thread starter bluecake
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bluecake

Guest
I have asked this question in another section, but I think it may not have been the right place, because no-one has replied; I would like to know why/when the words spoken when the Ashes are distributed have changed?

I can no longer get to the Latin Mass dues to problems with vision which have drastically curtailed my driving ability, so I attended Mass at our local parish last week. It was not just the priest who distributed the Ashes, I received my blessing from one of the parish women, and she said “Receive these ashes and repent”.

Why are the old words of the Memento Mori no longer being said? - even in English? - and don’t the new words completely change the meaning of the Ashes?

Not criticising, just genuinely puzzled. It is seeming more and more to me that there exist now two utterly different Catholic churches - am beginning to wonder rather a lot about it all.
 
The woman was not using approved wording. In the Latin Rite, in English, you should have received ashes with either of the following:

“Repent, and believe in the Gospel.”
or
“Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
 
There are indeed 2 settings that are valid.

The one you remember speaks to our fate.
Sort of a “you don’t have forever to begin being good” kind of thing.

The second implores the person to amend their lives and turn away from sin before it’s too late.

in short…the same message…in terms that make the same point a small bit clearer.

These things come about because the church is an organic, living entity.
They do not negate what we believe or somehow “lessen” our experiences as Catholics.

Peace.
 
Keep in mind that it is a sacramental, not a sacrament, and the wording is not necessarily something in stone.

That, and Ash Wednesday is not a holy day of obligation.
 
I suppose, on that score, neither is Good Friday! - but both very holy days nonetheless. Thank you for the explanations - I’m sorry, but to me it seems to be a case of change for the sake of change - and it also seems to be at the discretion of the individual priest/celebrants /parishes which wording is used. I must check it out, I don’t yet have a full Novus Ordo Missal.

I do understand what a sacramental is, but my point is that things are SO different , from one form to the other - other religions don’t seem to have upended everything this way.

However, if I am to continue practising my religion, I must find a way to come to terms with it all I suppose. It is simply not possible for me to travel to the Latin Mass.
 
bluecake said:
I suppose, on that score, neither is Good Friday! - but both very holy days nonetheless. Thank you for the explanations - I’m sorry, but to me it seems to be a case of change for the sake of change - and it also seems to be at the discretion of the individual priest/celebrants /parishes which wording is used. I must check it out, I don’t yet have a full Novus Ordo Missal.

I do understand what a sacramental is, but my point is that things are SO different , from one form to the other - other religions don’t seem to have upended everything this way.

However, if I am to continue practising my religion, I must find a way to come to terms with it all I suppose. It is simply not possible for me to travel to the Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
It can also be a simple case of little to no training. Perhaps some laity were assigned to assist, but were not properly instructed or the person heard wrong what she was supposed to say. 🤷
 
bluecake said:
I suppose, on that score, neither is Good Friday! - but both very holy days nonetheless. Thank you for the explanations - I’m sorry, but to me it seems to be a case of change for the sake of change - and it also seems to be at the discretion of the individual priest/celebrants /parishes which wording is used. I must check it out, I don’t yet have a full Novus Ordo Missal.

I do understand what a sacramental is, but my point is that things are SO different , from one form to the other - other religions don’t seem to have upended everything this way.

However, if I am to continue practising my religion, I must find a way to come to terms with it all I suppose. It is simply not possible for me to travel to the Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
I don’t know how old you are; I m an early baby boomer (you do the math). I have seen a lot of change in the church in those years. I have never, and I mean never, seen any change that was done “for the sake of change”. Having said that, I do not go around demanding that someone tell me why they changed it; to me, that implies an attitude that they have a duty to me. IMHO, they don’t have the duty; I do.

For all I know, they wanted you, and I, and everyone else who received ashes, to get out of a complacent attitude of constant repetition, and “wake up”. In other words, it may have been that the formula, which is not and never was cast in stone, was seen as not sending the essential message of the Gospel - which is in Greek metanoia, or “turning around”; that is, repenting and living a new life.

It is beyond me why some people react the way you do; as if somehow some hoy rituyal has been debased. Rituals do not exist for themselves; they exist for us and as such they need to have an impact on our life. They need to call us out of complacency, and pay attention to what Christ calls us to. And what He calls us to is a radical change. Being human, it is all too easy to be lulled into an attitude of “yep. Un hunh. Got it” without getting it.

Or there may have been different reasons for the change. I really don’t care what the reasons are; I am there to pause, even briefly, to take stock and see if I am actually living as Christ commands, or if I am just on automatic pilot. Maybe you have it down pat; I know I don’t.

And by the way, it is the Ordinary Form. If that was good enough for Benedict 16, it is good enough for me.

I was an altar boy; over the rare times we had a Solemn High Mass, I was a candle bearer, altar boy, thurifer, and Master of Ceremonies; and was in the seminary in college. It absolutely baffles me that people find the Mass forms so different; I am certainly aware of the differences, but the similarities are far greater than the differences.
 
My intention in posting this question was not to invite an aggressive attack upon my character or motives, but simply a genuine desire to understand the reasoning behind what was, to me, a completely different format.

Maybe that was not such a good idea, and now I think I will stop reading any more replies.
 
otjm said:
I don’t know how old you are; I m an early baby boomer (you do the math). I have seen a lot of change in the church in those years. I have never, and I mean never, seen any change that was done “for the sake of change”. Having said that, I do not go around demanding that someone tell me why they changed it; to me, that implies an attitude that they have a duty to me. IMHO, they don’t have the duty; I do.

For all I know, they wanted you, and I, and everyone else who received ashes, to get out of a complacent attitude of constant repetition, and “wake up”. In other words, it may have been that the formula, which is not and never was cast in stone, was seen as not sending the essential message of the Gospel - which is in Greek metanoia, or “turning around”; that is, repenting and living a new life.

It is beyond me why some people react the way you do; as if somehow some hoy rituyal has been debased. Rituals do not exist for themselves; they exist for us and as such they need to have an impact on our life. They need to call us out of complacency, and pay attention to what Christ calls us to. And what He calls us to is a radical change. Being human, it is all too easy to be lulled into an attitude of “yep. Un hunh. Got it” without getting it.

Or there may have been different reasons for the change. I really don’t care what the reasons are; I am there to pause, even briefly, to take stock and see if I am actually living as Christ commands, or if I am just on automatic pilot. Maybe you have it down pat; I know I don’t.

And by the way, it is the Ordinary Form. If that was good enough for Benedict 16, it is good enough for me.

I was an altar boy; over the rare times we had a Solemn High Mass, I was a candle bearer, altar boy, thurifer, and Master of Ceremonies; and was in the seminary in college. It absolutely baffles me that people find the Mass forms so different; I am certainly aware of the differences, but the similarities are far greater than the differences.
Click to expand...
Well stated.
Succinct, and not judgmental.
Peace to you.
 
bluecake said:
I suppose, on that score, neither is Good Friday! - but both very holy days nonetheless. Thank you for the explanations - I’m sorry, but to me it seems to be a case of change for the sake of change - and it also seems to be at the discretion of the individual priest/celebrants /parishes which wording is used. I must check it out, I don’t yet have a full Novus Ordo Missal.

I do understand what a sacramental is, but my point is that things are SO different , from one form to the other - other religions don’t seem to have upended everything this way.

However, if I am to continue practising my religion, I must find a way to come to terms with it all I suppose. It is simply not possible for me to travel to the Latin Mass.
Click to expand...
I am an old TLMer, still lost after a year of attending the new mass, I could not follow the missal provided. I subscribed to the Magnificat magazine that has the daily readings, the mass responses in English and Latin, for those parishes that still do that. In all honesty, I do not know what was recited as I received my ashes, I was enthralled by being able to walk up to receive and passing by the tabernacle. I have yet to resume communion yet, still waiting on paperwork. Its been 45 years. So just walking up with everyone else was a tremendous blessing.
 
40.png
PrayRosary:
paperwork?
Click to expand...
Annulment maybe?

@OP - I understand where you are coming from. I go to a NO Mass a few times a year and it feels like two different religions at times. I refuse to take communion from a “Eucharistic Minister” and only on the tongue. Regardless where I sit, I’ll make my way to the priest’s line. Pray for a way to get to the EF or at least spend your hour on Sunday consoling Our Lord.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
otjm said:
It is beyond me why some people react the way you do; as if somehow some hoy rituyal has been debased. Rituals do not exist for themselves; they exist for us and as such they need to have an impact on our life. They need to call us out of complacency, and pay attention to what Christ calls us to. And what He calls us to is a radical change. Being human, it is all too easy to be lulled into an attitude of “yep. Un hunh. Got it” without getting it.
Click to expand...
It’s not beyond me! And I think a second thought on your part might lead to more sympathy. I agree with you as to the wording in a sacramental such as this, but in the main I think it is right to expect to not be subjected to incessant innovation in our worship.

We are a liturgical community. We also believe that the form of the liturgy, even to the words pronounced and the actions used, matters a great deal and rightly so. While this may not extend exactly to our prayers outside the liturgy, there is a certain humility in being satisfied with the form of prayer we have inherited.

And what does the innovation give us? The opportunity for a celebrant, deacon, minister or lay person to demonstrate what a very special, spiritual personage he or she thinks himself.

I’m not offering that’s what happened in this case at all, but I have certainly seen it time and again, less since Pope Benedict, and I totally understand Bluecake.
 
aTraditionalist said:
Annulment maybe?

@OP - I understand where you are coming from. I go to a NO Mass a few times a year and it feels like two different religions at times. I refuse to take communion from a “Eucharistic Minister” and only on the tongue. Regardless where I sit, I’ll make my way to the priest’s line. Pray for a way to get to the EF or at least spend your hour on Sunday consoling Our Lord.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
Click to expand...
I want to preface what I am going to write by first saying that I understand how you think. Better than you know.

However, regarding your refusal to take Holy Communion from an EM, please rethink that. Years ago I used to do as you are doing. One day I was listening to Catholic Answers on the radio, and Fr. Vincent Serpa had a caller that pretty much said the same to him as you are saying. I will never forget what he told the caller. Father said that if Our Lord is humble enough to be handled by an EM, why couldn’t the caller be humble enough to receive Him from an EM.

Just some food for thought.

What I came to realize for myself, and I am not saying that this is so of you as we are all different and it may not apply to you, is that there was a lot of pride behind how I thought and acted.
 
Lormar said:
I want to preface what I am going to write by first saying that I understand how you think. Better than you know.

However, regarding your refusal to take Holy Communion from an EM, please rethink that. Years ago I used to do as you are doing. One day I was listening to Catholic Answers on the radio, and Fr. Vincent Serpa had a caller that pretty much said the same to him as you are saying. I will never forget what he told the caller. Father said that if Our Lord is humble enough to be handled by an EM, why couldn’t the caller be humble enough to receive Him from an EM.

Just some food for thought.

What I came to realize for myself, and I am not saying that this is so of you as we are all different and it may not apply to you, is that there was a lot of pride behind how I thought and acted.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The priest handling the consecrated host does not make it holier.
EM’s do not make Christ less present.
Also, the “innovations” are put forth by lay persons. The Church herself decides what words are used.
All of these things are approved by our Church.
If you believe lay people cannot be EM’s…then it follows lay people also should not comment on the validity of a Mass.

Christ promised He would never leave His church. He has not. He will not.
Turmoil about this only divides us.
As the previous poster said: Humility, not anger.
Peace.
 
pianistclare said:
Agreed. The priest handling the consecrated host does not make it holier.
EM’s do not make Christ less present.
Also, the “innovations” are put forth by lay persons. The Church herself decides what words are used.
All of these things are approved by our Church.
If you believe lay people cannot be EM’s…then it follows lay people also should not comment on the validity of a Mass.

Christ promised He would never leave His church. He has not. He will not.
Turmoil about this only divides us.
As the previous poster said: Humility, not anger.
Peace.
Click to expand...
Let me preface by saying I receive communion in the hand from a EM , no problem. But to say the priest handling the Precious Body does not make it holier is to beg the question. Some of us well remember when, to receive we knelt at the communion rail which was draped with a linen. As the priest presented the Eucahrist for reception on the tongue to the kneeling penitent, the altar boy held a golden patten beneath the recipient’s chin. That patten was then cleansed by the priest as if it were the chalice itself.

While the Eucharist was not made holier, it was certainly treated with more reverence and care. I am remembering Our Lord saying that in Moses time a certificate of divorce was permitted them because they were a “stiff necked people”, and I wonder if Our Lord permits himself to be handled in the way we do today because we are too!
 
40.png
Lormar:
Quote:

Originally Posted by aTraditionalist

Annulment maybe?

@OP - I understand where you are coming from. I go to a NO Mass a few times a year and it feels like two different religions at times. I refuse to take communion from a “Eucharistic Minister” and only on the tongue. Regardless where I sit, I’ll make my way to the priest’s line. Pray for a way to get to the EF or at least spend your hour on Sunday consoling Our Lord.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

I want to preface what I am going to write by first saying that I understand how you think. Better than you know.

However, regarding your refusal to take Holy Communion from an EM, please rethink that. Years ago I used to do as you are doing. One day I was listening to Catholic Answers on the radio, and Fr. Vincent Serpa had a caller that pretty much said the same to him as you are saying. I will never forget what he told the caller. Father said that if Our Lord is humble enough to be handled by an EM, why couldn’t the caller be humble enough to receive Him from an EM.

Just some food for thought.

What I came to realize for myself, and I am not saying that this is so of you as we are all different and it may not apply to you, is that there was a lot of pride behind how I thought and acted.
Click to expand...
The consecrated host only should touch that which has been consecrated. I have no pride in taking communion on my knees. It is just the opposite. I will not participate in any possible sacrilege. Holy Communion is Our Lord and not a piece of bread to merely be distributed. If even the most minute crumb were to fall to the floor, without any regard, turns my stomach. Even unintentional irreverent handling of a consecrated host undermines the dogma of transubstantiation. In the end the Church’s preferred/ordinary method is on the tongue. The indult for communion on the hand has seven requirements in order to be licit. IME, I doubt those requirements are met by churches distributing in the hand. I’m just one guy and I’m no theologian nor do I pretend to be. If the Pope says on the tongue is the ordinary and preferred method, then that’s what I do.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android
 
Joannm said:
EM=extraordinary minister. A short form of EMHC. The priest and deacons are Ordinary Ministers.
Click to expand...
I thought EM=Eucharistic Minister, EMHC=Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion

:confused::confused:

But I’ll concede the point. It’s only English. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top