O
Oneofthewomen
Guest
I have never heard this before,
and am actually taking classes with many guys who are in various stages of diaconate formation.
Do you have some supporting evidence for these claims?
- Status
and am actually taking classes with many guys who are in various stages of diaconate formation.
Do you have some supporting evidence for these claims?
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
The High Mass that I attend is between 1-1/2 and 2 hours. Low Mass is closer to an hour. Father says Mass slower than many other priests. Saying Mass quickly was an abuse common in the decade before the Council. Perhaps people got used to this before or maybe it’s just our culture. The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom usualy runs around 2 hours. I understand that the Russian Old Believers, Copts and some others have Liturgies upwards 4-5 hours on feast days!
The Western world likes their quickie-mart religion. Stop in, get Communion, leave ~ neither be inconvenienced by religion nor feel bad for not going to Church. Fasting before Communion has gone from days in the early Church (also Old Believers, Copts, and some others) to from midnight, to three hours, to a single hour. Fasting during Lent and other penitential seasons has gone from strict to abstinence from meat on Fridays. The yearly abstinence from meat on Fridays has become optional. Many pious practices have gone from common to rare.
I know that sometimes it’s hard to keep kids in line for two hours but they have a naturally short attention span. But it seems like the real issue isn’t with kids but the adults, who have difficulty tolerating a Mass which lasts for more than an hour. That’s a real problem with our society and one reason why I’m a big fan of the Slow movement (which began with Slow Food and has expanded to other facets). Likewise, I am a big opponent of turning Mass into “religious entertainment” as Ratzinger also criticizes (this doesn’t have to involve the example of “liturgical dance”):
Cardinal Ratzinger:
P
pnewton
Guest
One thing that I am in total agreement with you on, is that I very much appreciate the book you quoted. It is a must-read for anyone in liturgy.
That and I like your logo.
P
PilgrimToChrist
Guest
The three (modern) books I enjoy the most on the Liturgy are Msgr. Gamber’s “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy”, Card. Ratzinger’s “The Spirit of the Liturgy” and Dom Alcuin Reid’s “The Organic Development of the Liturgy” (which doesn’t deal with the modern development). To go a little bit earlier, Dom Prosper Gueranger classic “The Holy Mass” and Card. Newman’s “On the Development of Christian Doctrine” ~ though it doesn’t treat on the Liturgy specifically, it does help to understand the notion of the necessity of organic development which is important to understanding liturgical development.
I also want to read “How Christ said the First Mass” by Rev. James L. Meagher, D.D. I thought about picking it up when I was at Clear Creek but I already spent over $200 in books there and I still had to drag them home on the airplane O_O I understand the SSPX chapel here has a decent little book store with a lot of Angelus Press (of course) and TAN books so they probably have that and others I would like to read. So many books, so little money (that’s why I like borrowing / lending books between friends)
I also had a little interesting booklet from the 1920’s (IIRC) that I found working at Goodwill. It was called “The Drama of the Holy Mass” and I assumed it was Catholic without looking through it too much. It was actually Anglo-Catholic and discussed the superiority of the Roman (or Sarum) Rite to Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer (and that was prior to the dramatic liturgical revision based on the New Catholic Mass). I gave it to an Anglican friend who was contemplating going into seminary (I practically begged him to go to the Nashotah House, which is the last decent Anglican/Episcopalian seminary in America, but his wife wasn’t very interested in moving to Wisconsin) and I haven’t found mention of it online. I don’t recall the author but it was put out by the Church Publishing Society (the Episcopal Church’s publishing arm at the time). It follows the “Liturgy as play” model (as Guardini put it), which I believe Ratzinger criticized (though it’s midnight and I don’t want to track down the quote
…).Anyway, I tend to agree fairly strongly with Ratzinger’s views, though not always. However, when I agree with him, he does tend to be quotable. It’s like when someone asks a theological question and I think, “Hey, Aquinas answered that!” and I just have to go find the article in the Summa (or other books).
I would like to see him, as pope, implement some things more forcefully which he mentions in the book, such as ad orientem worship and the silent canon as well as the issues of Communion in the hand and the abuse of EMHCs. Theological and catechetical reform must start with the Liturgy. The increasing prevalence of Traditional Masses since SP has been very helpful for many people. Between SP, the (ongoing) reconciliation with the SSPX, and the establishment of the Anglican ordinariate, there are many conservative / traditionalist forces which are gaining strength against the liberal / progressive establishment which has dominated Catholic politics since long before I was born.
My grandmother is a lapsed Catholic (so is my mother but she, after many years, got involved with an Evangelical church) and she has always said to me that “Things aren’t like they used to be” that it’s not even like the same Church anymore. I haven’t convinced her to reconcile with the Church yet, but I keep telling her that things are getting better! Deo gratias!
A
Aramis
Guest
GIRM #94, in the section on the duties of the specific types of minister
- After the priest, the deacon, in virtue of the sacred ordination he has received, holds first place among those who minister in the Eucharistic Celebration. For the sacred Order of the diaconate has been held in high honor in the Church even from the time of the Apostles. At Mass the deacon has his own part in proclaiming the Gospel, in preaching God’s word from time to time, in announcing the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful, in ministering to the priest, in preparing the altar and serving the celebration of the Sacrifice, in distributing the Eucharist to the faithful, especially under the species of wine, and sometimes in giving directions regarding the people’s gestures and posture.
180. At the final doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer, the deacon stands next to the priest, holding the chalice elevated while the priest elevates the paten with the host, until the people have responded with the acclamation, Amen.
…]
182. After the priest’s Communion, the deacon receives Communion under both kinds from the priest himself and then assists the priest in distributing Communion to the people. If Communion is given under both kinds, the deacon himself administers the chalice to the communicants; and, when the distribution is completed, he immediately and reverently consumes at the altar all of the Blood of Christ that remains, assisted if necessary by other deacons and priests.
190-192 covers the Acolyte as EMHC.
Quotes and cites from the 2003 USCCB edition.
Plus my dad is a Roman Rite deacon, and his bishops have been VERY explicit about the deacon being the ordinary minister of the Cup. Even to the point of leaving priests to sit during major concelebration masses, where an equal number of priests and deacons are used… priests for the Body, deacons for the Blood. And the bishops have never been men to sit by the sidelines and leave the distribution to priests; only twice have I seen that done by ABp Schweitz, and once by ABp Hurley… in both cases, at a Byzantine Divine Liturgies, and they left it to the rubrically requisite persons for the Byzantine liturgy.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Indeed. Of course the Deacon is the Ordinary Minister of the Cup, but the claim was that because the laywoman (I don’t why they always use the example of a woman?
) has not had her hands consecrated at ordination, therefore the Eucharist becomes defiled. My question, which hasn’t been answered yet, is whether they think that the Deacon, who also hasn’t had his hands consecrated at his ordination, also defiles the Eucharist while performing his ministerial duties?Another question that could be asked is whether they think that the tongue is so much more holy and worthy to contact the Eucharist than the hand? Have they had their tongues consecrated at some point?
It is the attitude of defilement by others, that same attitude which Saint Paul rightly rebuked Saint Peter for, that I was addressing and opposing.
A
Aramis
Guest
It’s a misunderstanding of the nature of that blessing during the ordination.Indeed. Of course the Deacon is the Ordinary Minister of the Cup, but the claim was that because the laywoman (I don’t why they always use the example of a woman?
Another question that could be asked is whether they think that the tongue is so much more holy and worthy to contact the Eucharist than the hand? Have they had their tongues consecrated at some point?
It is the attitude of defilement by others, that same attitude which Saint Paul rightly rebuked Saint Peter for, that I was addressing and opposing.
More importantly, tho’, that blessing of the hands during the ordination can be seen as specific to consecration of the Eucharist, rather than distribution… for only a priest can consecrate the Eucharist, and he does so by use of voice and hands.
R
rapunzel77
Guest
I wasn’t sure if I should bump up this thread but here it goes:
The biggest myths of Traditional Catholics are:
-that we lack a sense of humor
–that we hate Jews and are anti-semetic
-that we refuse to have interfaith discussions with people of other religions/denominations
-that we hate all forms of music except for Chant and polyphony
-that the women must dress almost if not entirely like the amish or the duggars
-that Vatican was a terrible council and that it might be close to an illegitimate council
-that it is fine to follow clergy and bishops who are either excommunicated or suspended or just independent
-that we are uncharitable and elitist.
-that we are racist
-that all we do is whine and complain about anything “modern”
-that we think that the 50’s and before was the golden age of the Church and that we want to get back to those times.
-that we won’t watch any movies made after 1965
I know, I know the list is endless. Granted, there are some traditional Catholics who reinforce some of these myths. I’ve known some. However, this is the case always. My husband, my brother,and myself almost exclusively go to the EF Mass. We will, on occasion (usually holy day of obligation) go to an OF Mass. That being said, we don’t consider the OF to be invalid or anything. We just prefer to go to the EF. In fact, part of the reason is because we are heavily involved in it. My brother is an altar server and my husband is the choir director for two Masses and I am in the choir as well.
We enjoy all sorts of stuff. I have many books. I love history and classic literature. I also like sci-fi and fantasy. We watch some of the latest movies if we are interested in watching them. We listen to a wide variety of music from classic rock to bluegrass. I like ethereal type of music or folk. I don’t dress like an “amish” woman. In fact, my clothes are more bohemian or hippie but they are modest and I do wear a veil to Mass.
Granted, we do believe that the 3rd secret that we got in 2000 was only part of it. We think there is more to the story. However, we don’t obsess over it either. Our politics varies as well. My brother is the die hard conservative type while my husband and I are independent so we have a mixture of beliefs.
My husband and I have a mission to try to present a new face of traditional Catholicism. We don’t want to turn back the clock. We want to move forward. We don’t have three heads and we don’t bite. In fact we have a strong sense of humor and we end up enjoying many crazy things like having movie nights at our home where we either watch a good movie or we watch MST3K which means we get more than our share of BAD movies, many of them being made in the 40’s through the 60’s.
So, I think these myths do need to be busted. We are not some strange alien life form. Not all of us anyway.
The biggest myths of Traditional Catholics are:
-that we lack a sense of humor
–that we hate Jews and are anti-semetic
-that we refuse to have interfaith discussions with people of other religions/denominations
-that we hate all forms of music except for Chant and polyphony
-that the women must dress almost if not entirely like the amish or the duggars
-that Vatican was a terrible council and that it might be close to an illegitimate council
-that it is fine to follow clergy and bishops who are either excommunicated or suspended or just independent
-that we are uncharitable and elitist.
-that we are racist
-that all we do is whine and complain about anything “modern”
-that we think that the 50’s and before was the golden age of the Church and that we want to get back to those times.
-that we won’t watch any movies made after 1965
I know, I know the list is endless. Granted, there are some traditional Catholics who reinforce some of these myths. I’ve known some. However, this is the case always. My husband, my brother,and myself almost exclusively go to the EF Mass. We will, on occasion (usually holy day of obligation) go to an OF Mass. That being said, we don’t consider the OF to be invalid or anything. We just prefer to go to the EF. In fact, part of the reason is because we are heavily involved in it. My brother is an altar server and my husband is the choir director for two Masses and I am in the choir as well.
We enjoy all sorts of stuff. I have many books. I love history and classic literature. I also like sci-fi and fantasy. We watch some of the latest movies if we are interested in watching them. We listen to a wide variety of music from classic rock to bluegrass. I like ethereal type of music or folk. I don’t dress like an “amish” woman. In fact, my clothes are more bohemian or hippie but they are modest and I do wear a veil to Mass.
Granted, we do believe that the 3rd secret that we got in 2000 was only part of it. We think there is more to the story. However, we don’t obsess over it either. Our politics varies as well. My brother is the die hard conservative type while my husband and I are independent so we have a mixture of beliefs.
My husband and I have a mission to try to present a new face of traditional Catholicism. We don’t want to turn back the clock. We want to move forward. We don’t have three heads and we don’t bite
. In fact we have a strong sense of humor and we end up enjoying many crazy things like having movie nights at our home where we either watch a good movie or we watch MST3K which means we get more than our share of BAD movies, many of them being made in the 40’s through the 60’s.So, I think these myths do need to be busted. We are not some strange alien life form. Not all of us anyway
.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Here’s something for starters: That “some” you refer to also happen to be the loudest. May I suggest cutting down the volume of their nagging cries for the reverse of civilization?So, I think these myths do need to be busted. We are not some strange alien life form. Not all of us anyway
F
floresco
Guest
How do you propose that I “turn down the volume” of somebody else? Being a trad does not give me any control over my fellow trads. May I suggest that people stop prejudging us by a few loud voices and treat us as individuals.Here’s something for starters: That “some” you refer to also happen to be the loudest. May I suggest cutting down the volume of their nagging cries for the reverse of civilization?
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Sorry but following that logic, good priests shouldn’t call upon scandalous priests. If someone is giving a bad name to a label you affiliate yourself with, what better way than to go up against such a person and say, “Hey! Shut it! You do not represent us! You’re just making us look bad!”
R
revert_jen
Guest
What better way to do what? Antagonize someone? If you go around telling people to “Shut it” because they are making you look bad, you are putting yourself into a bit of a glass house.
Also it is reasonable to calculate the likelihood of success for even a more polite form of reprimand before trying it.
And it is really a better idea for the bishop to call out a priest than for another priest to do it, at least if you are talking about in public. Priests generally just strongly reject the scandalous behavior, rather than calling out their brother priests individually.
Actually, rejecting the behavior seems to be what floresco did.
What were we talking about again?
–Jen
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Look at Jack Chick. Back then in the 80s, he probably represented the whole of Christianity. Today, how many Christians even wanna be in the same room with him? I believe the same can be done (or maybe it’s already being done) to the more obnoxious and offensive of Trads.
Polite, impolite, however you wanna do it. The point remains is that if you don’t want people reinforcing a stereotype, then the best way is to go up to them and tell them to stop. It’s a greater blow to a person when he/she is being rebuked by his/her own kind you know.
F
floresco
Guest
Have you any experience with such a technique working? I cannot recall ever seeing anything like this. The most common response I have seen to your suggestion is for the one rebuked to tell the rebuker that he (the rebuker) is not a “true trad”.
I do post to disagree with other trads when that is what I think or to say that an argument is illogical even if I agree with the conclusion. That should make it obvious that the person with whom I am disagreeing is not representative of all trads. I think it highly unlikely that any rebukes from me will make the slightest difference to a “loud” person’s behaviour. I have no authority over these people and no responsibility for them.
People do, however, have a responsibility not to judge others based on stereotypes.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Believe me, I’ve seen the same thing said by fundamentalist street preachers. You think I haven’t had my own share of being chucked the “Not a True Christian” card? That’s why the naysayers should be greater than number. If you can show people that there are many out there who bear the same label but disagree with that person, you show that the person is actually very alone in his/her twisted world view and kill any notion that he/she is representative of anything except himself/herself. Like I said, look at where Jack Chick is now.
Disagreeing with them counts as telling them off. Like I said, if a Trad were to have (let’s say) an anti-semitic and sexist position, to be disagreed with by a man who shares the same label he proudly bears is still quite a blow to his ego. It’s like thinking you have found a kindred spirit in the midst of people you know who don’t like your view yet only to be more isolated when the same kindred spirit disagrees with you.
F
floresco
Guest
I have never noticed any reluctance among trads to disagree with each other. If this is what it took to stop stereotypes, there wouldn’t be any.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
That’s why I say make your voices louder. Cut off the other’s volume.
F
floresco
Guest
I don’t do loud. I’m going for the sophisticated and subtle image.
A
Aramis
Guest
Stereotypes arise because we humans are naturally pattern-seeking… we often see patterns that are present but non-representative of the larger whole, simply because we tend to look for patterns. Moreover, we automatically discount exemplars that don’t fit the pattern we’ve already noticed…
Therefore, when a significant minority of a population exhibits some notable behavior, many will notice the pattern, and it becomes the stereotype.
In the case of the Traditionalists, the most visible segments are either those directly affecting one, and the ones in the news (mostly the SSPX, and a lesser array of ICRSS, FSSP, SSJK, and SSPV, plus the TAC)…
The Traditionalists who are NOT whining, are not being disobedient to Rome, and are not trying to Latinize the ECCs, these “quiet Trads” don’t get noticed… but the radicals, they do get noticed.
The more vocal and obnoxious are the ones who get noticed, and whose behavior is seen as pattern, and that pattern becomes stereotype.
Therefore, when a significant minority of a population exhibits some notable behavior, many will notice the pattern, and it becomes the stereotype.
In the case of the Traditionalists, the most visible segments are either those directly affecting one, and the ones in the news (mostly the SSPX, and a lesser array of ICRSS, FSSP, SSJK, and SSPV, plus the TAC)…
The Traditionalists who are NOT whining, are not being disobedient to Rome, and are not trying to Latinize the ECCs, these “quiet Trads” don’t get noticed… but the radicals, they do get noticed.
The more vocal and obnoxious are the ones who get noticed, and whose behavior is seen as pattern, and that pattern becomes stereotype.
P
patrick457
Guest
I have a better idea…why don’t we just set them off to ‘mute’?
…Eh, sorry, sorry. Bad joke.
And BTW, Aramis makes a good point.
Another aside. Can one be considered ‘traditional’ even if one hasn’t attended an EF Mass in person (but would love to)? Or is it some unwritten rule that you’ve got to have attended 10, 200 or 365 EF Masses?
If that’s the case, I’d better stop sporting my traditionalistic leanings. - Status