Do you enforce Tradition at Mass?

[pnewton]

I guess we all knew which direction this was liable to take. It was inherent in the way the question was worded. “Enforce” and “tradition” are not compatable. Redemptionis Sacramentum may empower us to address abuses, but then that is not what this thread is about, is it? What are listed are a laundry list of traditional preferencese. I am not familiar enough with the TLM, but I know they are not abuses of the GIRM. The fact is, any attempt to influence others in the name of fighting abuses is arrogant self-righteousness.

If you want to take a stand against priest that violate the GIRM as a matter of course, I think that’s great. If you want to practice some of the traditions as a personal devotion, great. But call a spade a spade. This post did not start about abuses. Let’s not bait and switch now and pretend they are.

 

[johnnydigit]

DOG… liturgical police… “holier than the Catholic church”

when i can be more reverent, i try to. when i can explain and encourage, i try to. when i can set an example, i try to.

when something is done that i dislike but that would hold up in court, i consider that i shouldn’t break from the uniformity of the congregation, so i give in out of charity.

a lot of the things people assume are abuses would not hold up in court. they are breaks from tradition which are being allowed, which currently are viewed as not being detrimental to the Mass.

it seems that these people disagree with the Magisterium about the magnitude of the detriment they are causing the Mass. they want the Magisterium to make a written declaration that something is not permitted. let the Magisterium decide when it is time to take action. instead of chastising, educate people on the history of the tradition of the church and let them decide which is more reverent on their own.

 

[joanofarc3]

If Rome allows what you term “abuses” as cited above…then, they are not abuses.

Good to know. Pope Alexander had mistresses. If the next pope is under 50 maybe I should see how he feels about that.
If Rome were to decide that we should not kneel at all during Mass, you would approve, yes? Grape juice can be used instead of wine, no problem, right? Lay the Holy Eucharist on a buffet table/altar and let each come and take, still okay? I’m not saying this would happen, but it could. Many thought that the abuses back in the day would never be legal, and today they are. I’ll side with the Saints verses common modern protestant practice.

 

[joanofarc3]

Not by our Holy Father.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/religion/060603/vatican.jpg

Again, not to pick a fight (this is a very sincere question) what Saint (canonized before V-II) approved of this practice?

 

[joanofarc3]

But, Jesus also promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Even though, as the late Pope Paul VI lamented, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church”, a good, solid and holy Pope like Benedict XVI is trying to clear the air out. Pope Benedict is still very much Joseph Ratzinger and he has remained consistent. Just read his books on the liturgy. There’s your blueprint for things to come in our Church. Maybe he’s not cleaning out the thrashing floor with his “winnowing fan”, but, he is methodical and very astute. He has the courage to say things that no one wants to hear, but needs to hear.

Don’t be so quick to discout the present administration. By the way, you are in error about the popes and liturgical dance. Just because it happened during one of John Paul’s Masses doesn’t mean that he entirely condoned it. Cardinal Arinze said that sometimes things like that happened without any advnce notice. I’m inclined to believe Cardinal Arinze on this one. To my knowledge (and I’ve seen just about every B-16 Mass, nothing strange has happened under the good pope’s watch. The music has much improved and the liturgies are certainly more prayerful than they’ve been in quite a long while. Don’t get me wrong. I love JPII, but, I think his charisma overwhelmed the liturgies and we all lost focus as to why we were there (wheter in person or on TV).

Very well said. I do not believe that the gates of Hell will prevail, as we have the protection of God Himself, but that doesn’t mean that some popes (and I refer to the whole history, not just since V-II) and cardinals (etc) made bad decisions for the Church. They weren’t right, but the Church always got back on track. I totally agree that Pope Benedict is working on that, and I believe the next pope will continue on that path. Amen!

BTW, about the dancing during a Mass he attended (presided over?) I never heard that he said anything to condemn that, which was my only point. You said the Cardinal did, but I feel that the Pope himself should’ve addressed the issue. Just my opinion.

 

[pnewton]

Again, not to pick a fight (this is a very sincere question) what Saint (canonized before V-II) approved of this practice?

Why? What bearing would that have on this practice?

 

[thechrismyster]

Again, not to pick a fight (this is a very sincere question) what Saint (canonized before V-II) approved of this practice?

St. Basil the Great

It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence,** as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.** All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

St. Basil the Great: Letter 93 in its entirety (c. 378 AD) newadvent.org/fathers/3202093.htm

or howza’bout…

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis”, 21: PG 33. col 1125 (c. 350 AD) the *Quintsext Synod of Trullo Canon 101 *(c. 692 AD)

even a little bit’o…(just to round things out…)

** St. John Damascus**

Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, **and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, **in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.

St. John Damascus: “De Fide Orthodoxa” Book IV, ch. XIII (circa 730 AD) newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

 

[joanofarc3]

Why? What bearing would that have on this practice?

In other words, there are none that approve?

It would show that the practice, endorsed by the Protestant Reformers, is just that: Protestant. I’m looking for Catholic opinions. Everyone acknowledges that Protestantism in the Church has run rampant since the Second Vatican Council. Saints in the past have condemned it. I’m asking for Saints that approved. Popes that approved (popes that didn’t have to tip-toe because of modern, protestant practice).

 

[Wolseley]

How do you enforce Tradition at a Novus Ordo Mass?

“Enforce”??? Are you kidding? The Roman Inquisition went out of business a long time ago.

I say the “Confiteor” (I confess), even if the priest leaves it out.
During the Creed

Yes.

I genuflect at the words "And He became flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and became Man"

I bow.

I kneel at the beginning of the “Sanctus” (Holy, Holy, Holy), even when everyone else is still standing

Yes.

I gently beat my chest as I say the “Non sum dignum” (Lord, I’m not worthy to receive thee)

No, but my wife does. I should.

I only receive Communion if I’ve gone to Confession, and I chastise those who receive Communion without prior Confession

I don’t receive if I haven’t gone to confession. As for everyone else, I leave them to God. It’s their salvation or damnation, not mine.

I receive Communion on the tongue, not in the hand

Yes.

I arrive early… and I say prayers of thanksgiving after Mass, instead of leaving right away

I do my best to arrive on time. With a six-year old, you do what you can. I try to say a quick thanksgiving prayer, but we also have to hustle the same six-year old downstairs for CCD after Mass.

I do not chit-chat in the sacristy, and I chastise those who do

I do not chit-chat in the nave, the sacristy, or the vestibule, but I do not chastise those who do. I leave them to God.

I admonish people who go to Mass dressed like they’re going to the beach or a night club

All I do is shake my head, and leave them to God.

 

[benedictgal]

I totally agree that Pope Benedict is working on that, and I believe the next pope will continue on that path. Amen!

BTW, about the dancing during a Mass he attended (presided over?) I never heard that he said anything to condemn that, which was my only point. You said the Cardinal did, but I feel that the Pope himself should’ve addressed the issue. Just my opinion.

Let’s not worry about the next pope and be grateful to God for the one we have right now.

JPII may not have not outwardly stated it, but, he did order the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to work with six other dicasteries (including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by (drumroll) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, to issue Redemptionis Sacramentum which outlines liturgical abuses (including “liturgical” dance). You can’t get a more definitive reprobation than that.

 

[joanofarc3]

St. Basil the Great

It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence,** as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.** All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.

St. Basil the Great: Letter 93 in its entirety (c. 378 AD) newadvent.org/fathers/3202093.htm

or howza’bout…

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM

When thou goest to receive communion go not with thy wrists extended, nor with thy fingers separated, but placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King, and in the hollow of the palm receive the body of Christ, saying, Amen.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis”, 21: PG 33. col 1125 (c. 350 AD) the *Quintsext Synod of Trullo Canon 101 *(c. 692 AD)

even a little bit’o…(just to round things out…)

** St. John Damascus**

Wherefore with all fear and a pure conscience and certain faith let us draw near and it will assuredly be to us as we believe, doubting nothing. Let us pay homage to it in all purity both of soul and body: for it is twofold. Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, **and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, **in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two.

St. John Damascus: “De Fide Orthodoxa” Book IV, ch. XIII (circa 730 AD) newadvent.org/fathers/33044.htm

Thank you. You only have one, though: St. John D.

St. Basil (330-379) says that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give It.

There’s more to the quote of St. Cyril:

…: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body… When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.”
Scholars doubt the authenticity of this text (superstition). Some believe his successor, John, wrote it, whose orthodoxy was questionable. The correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine is how they know this (regarding John).

Out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Eucharist. Receiving Holy Communion in your hand makes you your own Eucharistic minister. More Saints, popes and others, disapprove of the practice. Luther got it going and the results were disastrous. Bishops disobeyed Paul VI, he gave in, and the results were disastrous. It’s about making the people “feel good” over protecting the Sacred Host. There’s no reason to receive in the hand; it only gives the appearance of receiving something common and ordinary. Honestly, why do it?

 

[Sr_Sally]

There’s no reason to receive in the hand; it only gives the appearance of receiving something common and ordinary. Honestly, why do it?

So don’t do it. But also don’t chastise those who receive in the hand–as is there right. If you are prayer ful receiving and prayerful afterwards, you shouldn’t even be watching what everyone else is doing.

 

[joanofarc3]

Let’s not worry about the next pope and be grateful to God for the one we have right now.

JPII may not have not outwardly stated it, but, he did order the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments to work with six other dicasteries (including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, headed by (drumroll) Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, to issue Redemptionis Sacramentum which outlines liturgical abuses (including “liturgical” dance). You can’t get a more definitive reprobation than that.

That’s good to remember, though I still think JPII should’ve been more direct in matters regarding the Liturgy. Oh well, we can’t expect him to be perfect in everything. Everyone has a weakness, unfortunately. You’re right though, praise God for our German Shepherd!

 

[thechrismyster]

Thank you. You only have one, though: St. John D.

St. Basil (330-379) says that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give It.

There’s more to the quote of St. Cyril:

…: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body… When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.”
Scholars doubt the authenticity of this text (superstition). Some believe his successor, John, wrote it, whose orthodoxy was questionable. The correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine is how they know this (regarding John).

If you doubt the authenticity of St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s citation from his *Fifth Mystagogical Catechesis * circa 350 AD, the Synod of Trullo cites it in Canon 101. So the Synod is obviously in err too. Or do synods habitually refer their Canons to fictional works?

Synod of Trullo:
THE great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, ARRANGING HIS HANDS IN THE FORM OF A CROSS, AND SO LET HIM RECEIVE THE COMMUNION OF GRACE**. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God.** But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON CI.

Whoever comes to receive the Eucharist holds his hands in the form of a cross, and takes it with his mouth; whoever shall prepare a receptacle of gold or of any other material instead of his hand, shall be cut off.

 

[joanofarc3]

So don’t do it. But also don’t chastise those who receive in the hand–as is there right. If you are prayer ful receiving and prayerful afterwards, you shouldn’t even be watching what everyone else is doing.

It’s their right, now. It wasn’t before, and it will be forbidden again. I’m not saying everyone who receives in the hand doesn’t believe in the True Presence, or that they’re not holy, or anything like that. It’s a matter of reverence at the Sacrifice, and of uniformity which the Church lacks very much these days. I don’t watch the others, I keep my focus on Him. The Sacred Host is still left on seats, thrown in the garbage, not consumed. This cannot be ignored, and receiving on the tongue made these sacrileges more obvious. I’m not opposing what I *observe *but what is permitted. I don’t chastise anyone *precisely because *it is allowed. I inform, outside of Mass, and strongly discourage the practice. The Saints did, Councils did, Popes did. It’s not encouraged, it’s permitted. There’s a big difference.

 

[pnewton]

It would show that the practice, endorsed by the Protestant Reformers, is just that: Protestant. I’m looking for Catholic opinions. Everyone acknowledges that Protestantism in the Church has run rampant since the Second Vatican Council.

No it doesn’t. That is one heck of leap of illogic. Besides, doesn’t the Holy Father’s opinion count as a Catholic opinion? If you do not believe it is reverant, then don’t receive in the hand and quit trying to convert the faithful.

 

[Daprato]

Again, not to pick a fight (this is a very sincere question) what Saint (canonized before V-II) approved of this practice?

St. Bonaventure.

 

[alessandro]

I guess we all knew which direction this was liable to take. It was inherent in the way the question was worded. “Enforce” and “tradition” are not compatable.

Actually, to clarify things a bit, “enforce” was a poor choice of words, as what I meant to say was “preserve” or even “defend.” Additionally, the term “abuse” was used in the introductory sentence as a statement of fact (there have been many abuses over these past 40 years, and that is a fact) – but if you read closely, I never described the lack of the traditions, manners or matters of common sense that I listed in the poll as matters of abuse.

What I was pointing out was that in our post-Conciliar Church, certain beautiful and important things got lost – be these differences in levels of belief or be they mere nuances and niceties… and be they due to rejection and rebellion, or mere ignorance.

But the poor choice of words did help start an interesting thread. I must say that I’ve enjoyed reading the dialog.

Since I did use the word “enforce,” I might comment that while I’m not proposing re-establishment of the Inquisition, per se, I do think that we share the Christian duty to do something when we see wrong. And this is not to be self-righteous. In the same way that one would correct a child for being offensive or disrespectful or negligent in matters that affect others, you should correct those who are offensive or disrespectful or negligent to the Faith or the Church or to fellow Christians. By correction, I mean pointing it out courteously and in the hope that it will make the person aware and possibly awaken better instincts. This should by no means dampen the seriousness of the message.

As Catholics, we are taught that we should follow Christ. This means we should try to teach those who are ignorant but also “crack the whip” in the temple when it is necessary.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, everyone.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, to clarify things a bit, “enforce” was a poor choice of words, as what I meant to say was “preserve” or even “defend.” Additionally, the term “abuse” was used in the introductory sentence as a statement of fact (there have been many abuses over these past 40 years, and that is a fact) – but if you read closely, I never described the lack of the traditions, manners or matters of common sense that I listed in the poll as matters of abuse.

What I was pointing out was that in our post-Conciliar Church, certain beautiful and important things got lost – be these differences in levels of belief or be they mere nuances and niceties… and be they due to rejection and rebellion, or mere ignorance.

But the poor choice of words did help start an interesting thread. I must say that I’ve enjoyed reading the dialog.

Since I did use the word “enforce,” I might comment that while I’m not proposing re-establishment of the Inquisition, per se, I do think that we share the Christian duty to do something when we see wrong. And this is not to be self-righteous. In the same way that one would correct a child for being offensive or disrespectful or negligent in matters that affect others, you should correct those who are offensive or disrespectful or negligent to the Faith or the Church or to fellow Christians. By correction, I mean pointing it out courteously and in the hope that it will make the person aware and possibly awaken better instincts. This should by no means dampen the seriousness of the message.

As Catholics, we are taught that we should follow Christ. This means we should try to teach those who are ignorant but also “crack the whip” in the temple when it is necessary.

Thanks for the interesting discussion, everyone.

Of course, Jesus wasn’t afraid to crack the whip Himself. Remember the story of the Cleansing of the Temple, which we heard last Friday. Do any of you know why it irked Him so much?

The temple had three sections: the Holy of Holies, the Court of the Jews and the Court of the Gentiles. The court of the Gentiles was built to allow those Gentiles who had converted to Judaism (or felt so inclined) to pray to God. This was a holy space. Unfortunately, the money changers and animal vendors took over this sacred spaced and turned it into a market. Now, there was a need (it made no sense to drag your lambs, oxen and fowl 300 miles to Jerusalem to offer it up as a sacrifice and you also could not use Roman coinage at the Temple) to have these “businesses”, but not at the Temple. Jesus was protecting the integrity of the worship area.

Alessandro, even though some of your choices did come across as rather brusque, I can see your points. Unfortunately, we have come to a crossroads in our Church. We may not have money changers and a zoo in our parishes, but, some sort of cleansing needs to happen. Pope Benedict may not be swinging a whip, but, the reform of the reform has begun.

 

[alessandro]

Just a few examples of what I meant by pointing out certain offenses or oversights:

For example, if people are socializing in the Church after Mass, this should be nipped in the bud – It is disruptive to the contemplative environment of the Church; it is disrespectful to those who want to pray; and it demonstrates that the people doing it are missing the boat, since one of the purposes of Mass is to pray and give thanks to God, and what better way then to spend an extra 5 or 15 minutes at the end of Mass in silent recollection? The TLM sort of had this built in with the final Gospel, Salve Regina, Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel, prayers of thanksgiving after Mass, etc. But nowadays, people think "Ite, Missa est" means “The End” instead of “Go out and do your Christian duty.” Similar things can be said about over-zealous handshaking and hugging during the kiss of peace, when people may even float down the aisles to greet others in distant pews. (That’s what Church functions are for!)

Dressing disheveled or “sexy” for Mass is a rather widespread and serious offense, and in marked contradistinction to when people wore their “Sunday best.” Some people may be unaware, or maybe they think that society has changed and it just doesn’t matter anymore. Well, I would argue that there is still a standard for decency, and God and the Church deserve at least that.

More serious still are matters of misunderstanding or ignorance of dogma and practice. In the “olden days,” maybe 10-25% of the congregation went up to receive Communion, and yet many went to Confession. (It’s still that way in some parts of the world, like rural Spain.) Presently, the situation is reversed, with few going to Confession, and nearly everybody going to receive Communion. Obviously, the nature and number of sins is unlikely to have changed – if anything, they’ve worsened, not gotten better. Therefore, the same number of people today would be in need of going to Confession for absolution from mortal sins, prior to being able to receive Communion, as in the past. And yet most people don’t. Since most people don’t go to Church alone (they usually go with friends and families), I would argue that those moms and dads and brothers and sisters and cousins and spouses should wave the red flag and object or at least question when someone receives Communion after knowingly being in a state of mortal sin. I’m not sure how many people do this (and hence the question in the poll).

On a related note, I’d say that the priest has the duty to object to this trend, as well: Surely, the priest can see the imbalance between number of communicants and number of penitents who seek the sacrament of reconciliation. Not every priest is gifted with the ability to read men’s hearts, but every priest should be able to put two and two together. This type of thing calls for a sermon on what the requirements are for receiving Communion, and yet extremely rarely do you ever hear about such a thing. I often wonder why not… especially at the overcrowded Easter and Christmas Masses, when all the “cafeteria catholics” or fallen-away cradle-Catholics go up and extend their hands to receive Our Lord transubstantiated.

Anyway, these are just a very few examples. There are countless more – some mere details; some very serious abrogations.

If I may be so bold as to change the direction of discussion in this thread, may I ask everyone to give some specific examples of the more serious problems they’ve seen at Masses, and how they approached them? Maybe together we can come up with some inventive and effective ways to turn the tide.