Do you ever regret learning about the Mass?

[FAB]

I will reply to everybody and this post later but I just wanted to say for the above - yes, I know that. They were two separate points but linked.

They are all present at the alter, they have communion at the same time as the Priest. Hence, they are acting like concelebrants.

I would suspect that they were present behind or on the side of the altar when the presider recieved and he then distributed communion to them. This does not make them concelebrants.
Concelbration is a specific term when there is more than one priest. Just being around the altar or in the sanctuary doesn’t meet this criteria.

 

[At_Trent]

Sit in the first row - always.
Put all the movement, distractions and improper behavior behind you.
Focus 100% on the consecration.
When the first bell rings, the church is filled with angels in anticipation of honoring JESUS when HE comes at the consecration. Those angels give GOD the glory and honor we can never provide, so that even during the disrespect of some lay persons, GOD is being honored and adored. Offer your adoration up to GOD, with those of the angels HE has sent to adore HIM.
Be prepared for the consecration, do not let it surprise you by being distracted - be in front - and when the priest lifts JESUS up, that is the highest, most sacred time of the Mass. It is brief, but for a few short moments, you can share with JESUS your most desired request and love. Don’t be caught unawares, JESUS is looking down from the altar at you at that moment, give HIM your love even if it is only My LORD and My GOD When the priest does likewise with HIS blood, be prepared and offer HIM your adoration. Even if you are the only person doing so, you alone will have pleased your GOD and SAVIOR beyond your ability to know.

Excellent advice, I missed it the first time, you beat me to the first pew option That works well.

 

[Ockham]

As a Catholic you have a duty to perform: ewtn.com/expert/answers/cdw_liturgical_abuses.htm

 

[NewsTheMan]

I would suspect that they were present behind or on the side of the altar when the presider recieved and he then distributed communion to them. This does not make them concelebrants.
Concelbration is a specific term when there is more than one priest. Just being around the altar or in the sanctuary doesn’t meet this criteria.

You are missing the point. I know what a concelebrant is. But it is ‘acting like’ concelebrants that is not allowed.

Again, I will reply to everyone later and thanks for the replies so far!

 

[FAB]

You are missing the point. I know what a concelebrant is. But it is ‘acting like’ concelebrants that is not allowed.

Again, I will reply to everyone later and thanks for the replies so far!

To “act-like” concelebrant they would have to actually participant some how in the Consecration of the body and blood. If not they were assisting the presider. You need to be more specific as to their actions.

 

[NewsTheMan]

To “act-like” concelebrant they would have to actually participant some how in the Consecration of the body and blood. If not they were assisting the presider. You need to be more specific as to their actions.

Well, that’s not the topic of this thread. Make a thread about it and I’ll be happy to discuss it further.

 

[Brooklyn]

This is where I start to scratch my head. Because if you put the same people in an EF Mass, you’d get the same irreverence. Its not the form of the Mass thats the problem.

Again, put the same priest in an EF Mass and what do you get?

Again, put the same people in an EF Mass…

Concelebrants are determined by those who are present at the altar during Consecration, not during distribution of Communion.

The OF isn’t the problem here from what I’ve seen. Its really sad that people put the blame on the OF when clearly it wasn’t the culprit. The Mass doesn’t abuse itself. Clearly if these people (priest included) are willing to break the rules of the OF, give them the EF they’d do the same.

Most of the answers here are really good suggestions, and I for one appreciate them. But I have to really disagree here. The people who show irreverence at an OF Mass would not be the least interested in attending an EF Mass. We have one church here in NYC that has a daily EF Mass. I try to go as much as I can. It’s at 6:00 p.m. and in the hours prior to Mass, they have adoration. I can always tell who comes in just to “pray” and those who are there for the EF. The first group far too often barely pays any attention to the exposed Blessed Sacrament. They may genuflect, or give a nod of the head, but sometimes not even that much. I’ve seen people come in during benediction and completely ignore even that. I’ve seem them wander in during the EF Mass, and even during the consecration, they pay absolutely no attention, obviously having no idea what is going on at the altar.

Those who are there for the EF get down on both knees before the Blessed Sacrament, and pray very fervently. Many of the women are wearing mantillas. They do not go and pray in front of statues when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed on the altar.

And to answer the OP, yes, it is very hard for me to go to the OF after being exposed to the EF. There are many reasons I could give, but one of the main reasons is that people who go to the EF are there because they really love the Mass, as is also true for the priests and altar servers. There is a reverence at EF Masses that you rarely find at the OF just because of the reason why people are there - not just because they have to be, but they genuinely want to be there. And I just prefer the traditional music and the Gregorian chants. When I hear a priest sing “Pater Noster,” I think it is one of the most beautiful sounds in the universe. Hard to get that at an OF.

 

[Pregustator]

This is a hard situation, but you must remember that the New Mass, though perhaps theologically less deep than the TLM, is still valid, and that Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist in the New Mass as he always has been in the old!

Theologically less deep? How is that? I’m not sure how a form of celebration that allows for the use of any of (at least) four canons (one of which is the canon of the “old Mass” and two of which are more ancient) and three cycles of scripture readings (including Old Testament readings), based upon a reform heavily grounded in liturgical scholarship, can be accused of being “theologically less deep”.

What about when the “New Mass” is celebrated using the same canon as the Tridentine Mass (Eucharistic Prayer I…the Roman Canon)? Is it less theologically deep, then, when the very same text is used? Eucharistic Prayers II and IV are even older than the Roman Canon…not to say that older is deeper. Eucharistic Prayer III is just as “deep”, despite being a more recent addition to the Church’s magnificent library of anaphora.

The current Roman Missal is more liturgically pure and more purely Roman than the “Tridentine” Missal, which had become a very Gallic book with many innovations over the centuries–most of which interrupted the flow of the rite with unnecessary penitential declarations. Prayers were often out of sequence. The “New Mass”…provided it is celebrated well and properly…is much closer to the ancient Roman Rite than the Tridentine Mass was.

The problem is, unfortunately, that the Mass, despite having been “Romanized” anew, and better ordered, is often not celebrated well. The reforms introduced happened to coincide with a period of cultural turmoil and things are only beginning to rectify themselves, today, with respect to the proper presentation of the “New Mass”. The fault is not of the Missal, but of our age.

I do not “regret learning about the Mass”. I only wish more people would bother to learn more about the Mass. Were Catholics to so educate themselves–referring to authentic liturgical scholarship, that is, and not to polemical pamphlets, tracts, and wesbites of a partisan nature designed to publish disinformation–fewer misconceptions and ignorant prejudices about one missal vs. another or even one rite vs. another would prevail within our collective dialogue.

“On the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons.”

-St. Justin Martyr, First Apology

 

[FAB]

Well, that’s not the topic of this thread. Make a thread about it and I’ll be happy to discuss it further.

Not off topic but a request for a further and fuller explaination of the original post. It’s easy to through out accusations, harder to back them up.

 

[Damase]

Theologically less deep? How is that? I’m not sure how a form of celebration that allows for the use of any of (at least) four canons (one of which is the canon of the “old Mass” and two of which are more ancient) and three cycles of scripture readings (including Old Testament readings), based upon a reform heavily grounded in liturgical scholarship, can be accused of being “theologically less deep”.

Yes, the New Mass has more scripture. But I am referring mostly to the proper prayers of the Mass, which were, in many cases, substantially reformulated. And though the Roman Canon may be (largely) the same, the priest’s prayers before Communion are different, as are the prayers of thanksgiving after Communion; moreover, the Last Gospel is gone.

In any case, most of what I find theologically rich in the Old Mass has more to do with gesture and signal than spoken word. I admit that many of these gestures could be imported with no problem into the New Mass (the priest can say the New Mass ad orientem, and observe the same rubrical gestures that are made in the Old Mass), but I think the New Mass’s greatest weakness is that these things are merely possible; it should not take a “certain kind of priest” to say Mass in a way that is holy and reverent. The Mass’s holiness and reverence should not be seen as being the product of human effort. The rubrics of the Old Mass, if they were kept, guarded against any possible abuse by constraining and veiling the human personality of the priest. There are too many “options” in the New Mass.

 

[ConstantineTG]

They are all present at the alter, they have communion at the same time as the Priest. Hence, they are acting like concelebrants.

I see, then that is wrong.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Most of the answers here are really good suggestions, and I for one appreciate them. But I have to really disagree here. The people who show irreverence at an OF Mass would not be the least interested in attending an EF Mass. We have one church here in NYC that has a daily EF Mass. I try to go as much as I can. It’s at 6:00 p.m. and in the hours prior to Mass, they have adoration. I can always tell who comes in just to “pray” and those who are there for the EF. The first group far too often barely pays any attention to the exposed Blessed Sacrament. They may genuflect, or give a nod of the head, but sometimes not even that much. I’ve seen people come in during benediction and completely ignore even that. I’ve seem them wander in during the EF Mass, and even during the consecration, they pay absolutely no attention, obviously having no idea what is going on at the altar.

Those who are there for the EF get down on both knees before the Blessed Sacrament, and pray very fervently. Many of the women are wearing mantillas. They do not go and pray in front of statues when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed on the altar.

Bold and underscore is mine. I agree that today those who go to the EF Mass are those who are devout. And that is what makes the EF Mass today more reverent. Its not the Mass itself but the people in there. From the priests down to the last person in the pew, they all see a very traditional and very solemn Mass. My point is that many people make it as if the OF is nothing but irreverence and the EF is nothing but reverence. Not true. Its people who break the rules, not the Mass. If you impose and TLM-only liturgy throughout the Roman Church, then everyone would be attending the TLM. These same people who abuse the OF right now will abuse the TLM if they have no other choice but to be in the TLM. I know its a hypothetical scenario but that was just my point. They will abuse no matter what you give them. Give them the Divine Liturgy and they will do the same thing. Its not the form of liturgy.

 

[puzzleannie]

And subsequently lean towards the quite traditional Mass? I tend to enjoy Mass less since I learnt more about Mass, and the Latin Mass. Not placing TLM above anything else… but I enjoy Mass less knowing what it could be like. I try my best to just go along with it but I just cannot. I was almost in tears today in Mass (sounds weird huh) but I just couldn’t understand how what I was attending was an actual Mass!

none of these abuses have anything whatever to do with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and are abuses of that rite, so it makes no sense to prefer the TLM to the OF based on the fact that in one parish, in your experience of one Mass, these abuses and other aberrations (not all were liturgical abuses, annoying as they were) happened.

there are many excellent reeasons to appreciate the EF, or the TLM (they are not necessarily precisely the same thing), but the fact that the OF is often not celebrated properly is not first on the list. Those in my generation have many recollections of less than reverent Mass in the old days as well.

 

[ProVobis]

none of these abuses have anything whatever to do with the Ordinary Form of the Mass, and are abuses of that rite, so it makes no sense to prefer the TLM to the OF based on the fact that in one parish, in your experience of one Mass, these abuses and other aberrations (not all were liturgical abuses, annoying as they were) happened.

Most of the “abuses” came about with innovations (“spirit of Vatican II”) and the acceptance of them by the congregations. If you introduce the EF into a parish which tolerates abuses, chances are you’re going to have them in the EF as well, even if in different ways.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I bet if you get the usual group here at CAF into an OF Mass (lets include Fr. David so he’ll celebrate), then you’ll have a very reverent OF Mass.

I volunteer to be the EMHC

 

[Ockham]

Those in my generation have many recollections of less than reverent Mass in the old days as well.

Examples?

 

[Pregustator]

Yes, the New Mass has more scripture. But I am referring mostly to the proper prayers of the Mass, which were, in many cases, substantially reformulated. And though the Roman Canon may be (largely) the same, the priest’s prayers before Communion are different, as are the prayers of thanksgiving after Communion; moreover, the Last Gospel is gone.

In any case, most of what I find theologically rich in the Old Mass has more to do with gesture and signal than spoken word. I admit that many of these gestures could be imported with no problem into the New Mass (the priest can say the New Mass ad orientem, and observe the same rubrical gestures that are made in the Old Mass), but I think the New Mass’s greatest weakness is that these things are merely possible; it should not take a “certain kind of priest” to say Mass in a way that is holy and reverent. The Mass’s holiness and reverence should not be seen as being the product of human effort. The rubrics of the Old Mass, if they were kept, guarded against any possible abuse by constraining and veiling the human personality of the priest. There are too many “options” in the New Mass.

The Last Gospel is gone because, like many other elements of the Tridentine form, it was completely out of place. It was an add-on: an odd innovation; one of a number of innovations that spoiled the flow and purity of the Roman Rite. We come to the dismissal, then, instead of being actually permitted to leave, as the celebrant has instructed us to, we’re back to the Gospel, again. “Go. That is the Mass…well, except for this: one more Gospel…hold on…” It was nonsensical.

Options are not the issue and the rubrics of the ordinary Missal are not the issue: the modern priesthood is the issue. If a priest celebrates the “new” Mass according to its own rubrics, there is no problem. It’s when they ignore the rubrics that a problem arises. So many people want to view the Tridentine form vs. the Ordinary Form as a difference between “old” and “new” or “conservative” vs. “liberal” or “traditional” vs. “modern”. And that’s just not right.

If you ask me, the correct way to observe the two is not as “traditional” vs. “modern” but as “Gallican” vs. “Roman”. Today’s ordinary form of Mass–when presented properly–is purely Roman in structure, whereas the “old” Mass was heavily-burdened by awkward Gallican innovations, the awkwardly-situtated Last Gospel being but one of them.

 

[Vixit]

I’m glad that I stopped paying so much attention to all the abuses or ‘should-be-abuses’, and started to actually learn about the OF Mass as it is supposed to be celebrated. It’s still a beautiful thing in the right hands. Corpus Christi Cathedral in Corpus Christi, TX, especially, does a lovely OF Mass, with incense, lovely chant and song, and respect and honor for the Eucharist, as do others I’ve visited. I’ve been to the EF (well, actually, the TLM) when I was a child, and loved it. I haven’t been since, but I would love to go. In the meantime, I must attend OF, and since both parishes in my town are pretty liberal, I can only follow along in the missal and try to see that same beauty in what results in the same thing- Communion. But I’d be just as happy to find an OF parish that does things properly! The problem is not with the OF Mass, but with the people who have turned it into a meet-and-greet Protestant thing, more so than the changes of V2.

Edit: I’m pretty sure the Corpus Christi Cathedral still broadcasts its Masses. I will look to see if I can find a link. They are very nice OF Masses.

 

[Pregustator]

Examples?

What are you looking for? “On April 18, 1951, at St. Ambrose Parish in Cheektowaga, New York, this happened…”?

I think it is legitimate for one to recall that not everything was peaches and cream before Vatican II without being able to offer a specific example.

I was not around back then, but I did attend the Tridentine liturgy with the Society of St. Pius X for a number of years. Although when I describe the magnificent ceremonies at the seminary and other SSPX venues to people who were actually around before Vatican II, the response is typical: “that’s nice, but Mass was nothing like that back then…it was usually whispered and over and done with in 15 or twenty minutes with an ancient organist warbling away in the choir loft as women clicked their beads.”

So, it seems to me that your typical parish mass was no less grand or magnificent then than it is now, in many cases.

 

[Ockham]

What are you looking for? “On April 18, 1951, at St. Ambrose Parish in Cheektowaga, New York, this happened…”?

I think it is legitimate for one to recall that not everything was peaches and cream before Vatican II without being able to offer a specific example.

I was not around back then, but I did attend the Tridentine liturgy with the Society of St. Pius X for a number of years. Although when I describe the magnificent ceremonies at the seminary and other SSPX venues to people who were actually around before Vatican II, the response is typical: “that’s nice, but Mass was nothing like that back then…it was usually whispered and over and done with in 15 or twenty minutes with an ancient organist warbling away in the choir loft as women clicked their beads.”

So, it seems to me that your typical parish mass was no less grand or magnificent then than it is now, in many cases.

So you believe Mass was over in twenty minutes pre-V2? I wonder why they scheduled them two hours apart then?