- Status
S
SFD
Guest
I am “throwing around” what the Church tells us it means. That’s something you seem not to accept.
SFD
E
eelpis
Guest
No one has disputed that the OF is the Mass. The question is wheather the lex orandi of the OF really expresses the lex credendi as well as the EF. There are several genuflections (adorations) that are eliminated in the OF for example. Several kisses of the altar etc. If the priest genuflects several times to the blessed sacrament eveyone understands that it’s worthy of adoration. If the priest kisses the altar several times people see that the altar is holy.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
The “What a mystery” comment turned me off, too. I think part of the problem with that statement is that we’re not native French speakers, and his exact meaning was lost in translation (i.e. he was talking about a European liberal, a la Montesquieu, not Nancy Pelosi). I also think this European bias affects how they see religious liberty issues, since their main bases are in countries that are beginning to outlaw Christianity.Many reasons. Most of them are the older churches, and I wanted to see them. I love older churches.
I wanted to experience the difference in the way different priests offer a homily. For example, a Franciscan, versus a Dominican. Not to compare them for “the best method”, but to experience it. I’ve found that it varies more from priest to priest, rather than from one order to the next.
Part of it is because I wanted to find a parish I felt comfortable with. I admit, at first I was a bit judgemental. During this “parish shopping” period in late '06, I had been on this forum and was, and remain, influenced by Traditional Catholicism.
Anyone who frequents this forum and was a member before I signed up probably noticed how much I’ve jumped back and forth on the issues. I’ve never, nor will I ever, embrace the “chair is vacant” view, but I went through a period where I was almost convinced that a S.S.P.X. Chapel or independent Chapel was where I belonged. I was very close to formally joining and supporting the local S.S.P.X. Chapel. Then came the “perfect liberal/what a mystery” comment from Bishop Fellay, followed by some troubling words from Bishop Williamson. This, and the attitude taken on the FE and AQ forums concerning the Transalpine Redemptorists (now Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer), regarding their regularization, was a huge turn off. Sorry folks, “see ya”.
I must say though, in my brief encounter with the local S.S.P.X. Chapel flock and priest, I sensed no bitterness. Certainly not from the pulpit. I have not been to a Mass there since what I mentioned above, so I’m not sure if these things have been spoken of from the pulpit there.
I still don’t think the criticism applies, though.
Bishop Williamson- He turned me away from day 1. The stuff about 911, the stuff about “Jewry,” etc., are unacceptable. In my view, he might as well have been talking about Area 51.
The way people have attacked the Transalpine Redemptorists is disgusting in my view. I watched a video where they pretty much converted an atheist journalist. I’d like to visit them one day.
O
otjm
Guest
Try reading what I wrote: I didn’t say I did not accept it. The EF and the OF both prove the point. The axiom gets thrown around as if it proved that the OF was not acceptible as Mass.
It goes back to the point in contention. Those who do not like the OF try to say that it is the cause of people’s loss of understanding of doctrine and dogma. Their loss of understanding is not due to that, it is due to the removal of doctrinal formation from catechesis over the last 30 to 40 years.
In the OF (as from the EF), the format is still the same. We still have the Liturgy of the Word, and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. Some prayers were added, some removed, some changed. None of that caused people to lose understanding of Transubstantiation (a term never used in the EF), which is an accusation that gets bandied about with regularity.
As I said in a previous post, my parish celebrates the OF - with reverance - we also have had 24 hour Perpetual Adoration for better than 10 years (I think we are at 15 now). We have had vocations coming out of our parish. So don’t try to throw a Latin phrase at me as if it proves that the OF is grossly inadequate. I accept that there are things that need improving. But it sure is not the source of loss of faith.
E
eelpis
Guest
Of course the Mass cannot be the cause of loss of faith. To state such a thing would be insanity. However, the rites accompaning mass can be more or less inducive to reverance.
O
otjm
Guest
It is my experience and observation that the OF can be as conducive to reverance as the EF, and that in spite of the complaints that the instructions allow some varience. It is not the rite, but the attitude of the celebrant that sets the tone of reverance or lack thereof. It the clebrant’s attitude is that he has fair play with whatever he chooses to alter, reverence will be diminished. If the celebrant has the attitude and demeanor of reverence, reverence will be established.
I am old enough to have seen Mass said in the EF which lacked reverence. And that occured before the OF was introduced.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
I do think, however, that following the maxim you stated of lex orandi lex credendi that as we pray so we believe - so a new liturgy with watered down prayers, that doesn’t make the truths of the Faith as explicitly clear, can lead to a weakening of the reality of the Faith and a weakening of the discipline of living the Faith. I’ve seen it in myself, how the traditional Latin Mass has strengthened all I believed and how it is in accord with the whole faith, forming me in the entirety of the Faith.
Is the New Mass the cause of a loss of faith for some people? Maybe not but it may be weakening their understanding and living out of that Faith because all of the truths of the Faith - especially the truths of Holy Mass - are not as explicitly encased in the prayers of that liturgy.
Pax Christi tecum.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
The thing is that there are gestures and actions in the EF that pertain to the dignity of the Most Holy Sacrament that are not in the OF, such as the many genuflections and receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling (which denotes the great unworthiness of those receiving).
Pax Christi tecum.
O
otjm
Guest
It is not the number of genuflections that are made, but the reverence with which they are made that matters. One genuflection made reverently will exhibit more reverence than ten made with not much more than a bopping up and down.
Some people feel a great deal of reverence in receiving on the tongue. That reduces reverence to a feeling; and if feelings change (and they do) does reverence then change?
Reverence is an attitude, not a feeling. One may be reverent while not feeling particularly reverent.
I have no problem with people receiving in the hand or on the tongue. But to assume that receiving in the hand is not reverent is to say that what the Apostles taught others (it is clear that receiving in the hand was practiced in the early Church) was irrevereant, or not as reverant as something later taught, and that is to go a bit farther than I am willing to go.
S
strugglingalong
Guest
No, to receive while kneeling is primarily a symbol. The action says something that informs the mind and heart. Our outward actions are to be representative of our hearts and if our hearts are wrong sometimes our outward actions bring our hearts to the meaning of those actions. Yes, some may be too attached to a feeling but regardless of subjective experience, kneeling while receiving is a symbol that says something. That action means something. It is like when Ghandi says that if he really believed what Catholics believe about the Holy Eucharist he’d be prostrate on his face. If this is truly God, we ought to act in that accord.
Yes just as one may feel reverent while not being reverent. There is objectivity in reverence, however. One action may be more reverent than another objectively. For example: chewing gum before receiving Our Lord in Holy Communion is objectively irreverent.
The problem here is the idea that because a practice occurred in the ancient church that it means it should be practiced in all ages of the Church. As the church deepened in understanding the Holy Eucharist then other things grew out of it too. There wasn’t Eucharistic Adoration in the early church but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have it today. Also the only real reference we have to receiving in the hand is St. Cyril’s Catechesis. But as the church grew in understanding the Holy Eucharist, certain practices were adopted or dropped. The church and the faith remains the same over time but the faith and practice is deepened.
Pax Christi tecum.
D
Dee_Dee_King
Guest
it can be if all the stars and planets line up, but on a practical level, it does not convey the same level of piety as the latin mass. recieving the eucharist in the hand is not as objectively reverent as recieving kneeling and on the tounge. a vernacular mass with contemporary music is objectively not as reverent as one in latin with gregorian chant. i can go on and on.
the point is the new mass can be celebrated in a dignified way but the old mass is able to do so much more consistently because it can’t be changed it to fit the whims of a progressive parish.
O
otjm
Guest
Ghandi may have said that, but my last recollection was that Ghandi was not Catholic; his comments on our liturgical practices are not exactly relevant.
OK, your comment had to do with the fact that (it would appear) the EF is more revereant because there are more genuflections. I disagree that the number of genuflections is inherent in the issue of one form being more reverent than the other. Neither one of us was discussing gum chewing, so lets not drag red herrings down this path.
T
whether or not it has deepend is open to discussion. In the Roman rite, we knelt for Communion for a period of time; prior to that it was standing. Given that Communion rails were a later adoption, we could argue all day as to when and why they occured. However, in other rites - fully as Catholic as the Roman rite, and fully as capable of reverence, you might find that kneeling for Communion is not and was not a practice. Therefore, it becomes a matter more of custom, which then in turn becomes the norm, which then is assumed to be “more” reverant. and the “more” becomes a matter of personal opinion. The early Church was not without its problems of its own time, but meterialism, individualism and secualrism most certainly were not issues. To say that the early Chuirch did not have a good grasp on reverance is at best debatable; given that it was closer in time to the practices the Apostles learned from Christ I find that a bit - what, amusing? Well, no, that word doesn’t exactly capture it.
I am not an anachronist. Neither am I one to say that because the early Church did that, that the practice should not occur again, because we know oh so much more than those simpletons of yore. We are now so much more theologically sophisiticated than those country bumpkins, who just didn’t get it. Smells like an issue of pride.
Reception of Communion is universally kneeling on the tongue within the Roman rite, with indult standing and in the hand. The issue of lack of reverence is not a minor issue, nor is it one I am not aware of; however, I disagree that the form is the issue. I suggest that catechesis is the issue. to assume that real piety was a universal prior to the changes in the Mass is at best a fool’s dream; people were people as much then as they are now, meaning they were jsut as capable of fault, sin, and a lacakdasical attitude then as now; there was less expression of it then than now, just as there was less violation of, ignorance of, or varience of general social and cultural norms in both the US and Europe
S
strugglingalong
Guest
My point was not to say we should base liturgical norms on Ghandi but to say that he has a point: if the Holy Eucharist is what we say it is we should respond and action towards it in the most fitting way that corresponds to the reality of it.
My point was simply that reverence cannot be reduced to feelings but that also there is objectivity in actions as to whether or not they are reverent.
Our understanding of the Holy Eucharist has deepened at least theologically. Practice has deepened too, as evidenced in one example by Eucharistic Adoration that was not known before the Middle Ages. But practical issues come into effect too. It is easier to steal a Sacred Host from a liturgy when receiving on the hand whereas it is more difficult (although not entirely impossible) to steal One when receiving on the tongue. I’m just saying that over time the Church in her wisdom discerns what practices are better suited and the Church is not stale (as you noted) so she grows under the influence of the Holy Spirit. My point wasn’t to imply we know so much more than the Apostles now (I’d never say such a thing!) but to say that the Church grows over time from her infancy.
We’ll just have to disagree here because I do think the form contributes to the issue. Actions mean and say something to our hearts and hearts of other people. While people may have always been prone to lack of reverence and devotion at times, having actions that reinforced reverence and devotion could only assist in fostering it. We do these actions because of what they mean, because of what they are to include internally also. It seems your point can lead to saying that it doesn’t matter how we receive so long as our hearts are right. What we need is to receive in the most reverent manner with hearts right and those reverent actions can help our hearts to be right.
I think most people would think a little more about What they are receiving at Holy Mass if they were kneeling and receiving on the tongue from a priest - as opposed to walking up and grabbing it just as they do pretty much anything else in life.
Pax Christi tecum.
O
otjm
Guest
Now I thifnk we are getting to the heart of the matter. I don’t know what parish or diocese you belong to, but I am aware that there are some dioceses that are more troublesome, and troubled, than others.
It has not been my experience, for as long as I have seen reception in the hand, that anyone goes up and “grabs” the Eucharist.
Either your experience is very different than mine, or you are responding to the issue with strong emotional overtones. If your experience is that people are going up and grabbing it, then I perhaps could understand your strong dislike of Communion in the hand. Somehow, I just kind of doubt it, though.
To describe reception in the hand as “grabbing” is to color reception in the hand in a way that does not comport with the reality of the experience.
S
SFD
Guest
And try reading what I wrote.
I’m not trying to prove what you say here…I’m merely trying to use Catholic principles to analyze the two forms.But you provide no evidence for this idea. Tell us why then, that the catechisms were destroyed and replaced with new ones that were “less doctrinal”. The Church says that “The Law of Prayer is The Law of Belief”.
The format? That’s a bit vague…let’s see if it gets any better.
And what was changed is what is at issue here. Take a look at the prayers of the propers of the Mass…and pay attention to what was removed…it is very systematic.
So you at least admit they have lost the understanding…the dispute is how they lost it. I’ll post more on that later.
Well, that great for you, otjm. What about the rest?
SFD
P
ProVobis
Guest
From what I remember reading, Bugnini wanted to make his “revision” permanent, thereby sealing the death of the traditional rite. The Pope or Vatican overruled Bugnini by calling it the Novus Ordo, in effect keeping alive the Traditional Rite, though the 1962 Missal was not that prominent yet.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Because that’s all they had?
P
ProVobis
Guest
Yes, but when one recites the Consecration as a narrative rather than pausing and bending over with a distinct “Hoc est enim Corpus Meum,” there does seem to be a little difference in the presentation. This may explain the loss of the understanding. However, it’s not the OF or EF per se that is at the root of the problem.
S
SFD
Guest
What is “the root of the problem” then? Within the form of consecration of the Precious Blood it is said, “Mysterium Fidei”…“the mystery of Faith”. This was changed to “Let us proclaim the mystery of faith” to which the response is, “Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again”. So the “Mysterium Fidei” is no longer seen as the consecration…but the historical (Christ has died and risen) and the future (Christ will come again). It does not refer to the present (which is happening on the Altar)…oops…there’s no altar either. The imagery of a table says “a meal and no mystery” whilst an altar conjures up images of sacrifice.
SFD
- Status