Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?

[LilyM]

While I understand the “ick” factor, I encourage you to think on this. What you see…this is humanity. This is the Body of Christ. This is the Church, the people for whom Christ came to live and die for. This is the communion of believers…the old, the feeble, the young, the ill, the revererant, and those who don’t quite “get it” yet. This is what people are committing to when they take the bread and drink the cup, not to turn away from this people, this Body of Christ.

Drinking from a mutual cup is a strong symbol, it shows a deep and willing trust and commitment to join our lot with those with whom we share the common cup.

It is not surprise, or coincidence that many times the reason people don’t share the cup is that they are not willing to “share” whatever misfortunes might be concealed there. That is one of the symbols of cup sharing. We know the danger and the risk, but we decide to take it as our own. We say to the community, your lot is my lot, we are one.

I am not trying to denigrate anyone who for any reason chooses not to take the cup. I just wanted to share some of that symbolism, and offer something to think about.

Sometimes we offhandedly say “church family”, but haven’t truly taken that on in our hearts and souls. We use the term “communion”, but still hold back, would rather not sit behind THAT family…etc. Sometimes it is good for us to honestly explore the depth of our commitment, not merely to the institutional church, the set of teachings, but to this very earthy Body of Christ. Not just the purified Divine Body received in the Sacrament, but the less than perfect human Body which we are called to be a part of.

Tosh. I love you as a brother but I wouldn’t take over your debts for you or raise your children like they were my own, I simply don’t have the resources to do either.

So why should I make myself (highy likely) seriously ill for half a week for your sake? How irresponsible to knowingly make myself unfit for all the other responsibilities I have, for the sake of some misbegotten notion of community. Children need healthy parents, bosses need healthy workers. These things are much more important than a temporary warm fuzy glow at Mass time.

What would you, I or anyone else genuinely gain by it? I’ve had more than enough serious illnesses of my own to deal with thanks, I don’t need or want yours as well. Neither does being part of the community demand it

 

[Fergal]

No. I don’t.
This is because the Priests that offer it here in this Parish leave two chalices on the Altar and invite folk to self communicate as if they were concelebrating Priests.

It is an abuse that I have brough to the attention of the Priest responsible and have had no success in getting it changed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Communion under both kinds is not permitted as an every day occurrence at Mass but on very special feast days, due to the danger of spillage, not being able to estimate how much wine needs to be consecrate - if too little not everyone can receive - if too much the priest alone has to consume the remainder. It is not necessary anyway because you received the full sacrament when you eat Our Lord’s body because there is not flesh without blood and you get the same feeling you describe just receiving the blessed Eucharist alone.

This is false.

Communion under both bread and wine is allowed on Sundays as well as week days.

Parishes generally don’t do it during the week days because of the cost. However, most parishes in my dioceses offer the wine every Sunday and Holy Day.

I go to a Benedictine monastery on occasion during the week day. They offer the wine to the visitors.

Jim

 

[Theresa65]

I don’t partake of the chalice right now, because my parish does not offer the chalice. I don’t know why, and since I don’t speak Korean, I can’t really find out. But since the Host is the entire Christ, I am not bothered by that fact in the least.

I did receive from the cup when I was in the United States, since the sacrament is also an outward sign, as well as a source of grace. While the grace is the same without receiving under both species, the outward sign is not.

I do agree with the concerns though about self-communicating. I wish more parishes would consider offering communion by intinction. I’ve never seen this done, and I’ve only heard of it through this website. I think this would be a good way to receive the Eucharist, but I’ve never heard of a parish anywhere offering communion in this way.

No, communion by intinction is not allowed because of the danger of the spillage of the precious blood - it is a Protestant practice and the Protestants don’t believe in the real presence so they see nothing wrong with it. But we who do believe in the Real Presence following the Church’s reasoning, so we don’t risk descecration by dripping on to the floor and then walking on our Saviour’s blood.

 

[Theresa65]

No. I don’t.
This is because the Priests that offer it here in this Parish leave two chalices on the Altar and invite folk to self communicate as if they were concelebrating Priests.

It is an abuse that I have brough to the attention of the Priest responsible and have had no success in getting it changed.

No, many priests are not following Rome - they are doing their own thing. The Precious Blood is not supposed to be given out at every Mass because of the fact that it is difficult to guage how much wine to consecrate - if too little some miss out - if too much the priest may have a problem consuming a large volume. And anyway we receive the Body and Blood of Christ under whether taking the Host alone or the Precious Blood alone because you cannot have flesh without blood and you cannot have blood without flesh. If people know of the miracle of Lanciano there the priest doubted that he was consecrating and the host bled. There are many instances of that happening around the world.

 

[Theresa65]

This is false.

Communion under both bread and wine is allowed on Sundays as well as week days.

Parishes generally don’t do it during the week days because of the cost. However, most parishes in my dioceses offer the wine every Sunday and Holy Day.

I go to a Benedictine monastery on occasion during the week day. They offer the wine to the visitors.

Jim

No, if you go and look at the documents on the Vatican web site you will find that is not the case at all. Priests are taking liberties with it. The same as extraordinary ministers are only to be used when there are excessive numbers going to Mass but even if there are only five people at Mass there are one or two extraordinary ministers - you will find that any many other things in the documents on the Vatican web site if you bother to read them

 

[Theresa65]

This is false.

Communion under both bread and wine is allowed on Sundays as well as week days.

Parishes generally don’t do it during the week days because of the cost. However, most parishes in my dioceses offer the wine every Sunday and Holy Day.

I go to a Benedictine monastery on occasion during the week day. They offer the wine to the visitors.

Jim

1. Communion under Both Kinds
   Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds. For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent,84 by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire ), thesign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).

This is why from now on, in accordance with the judgment of the bishops and given the necessary catechesis, Communion from the chalice is permitted in the following cases, which were either already granted by previous legislation85 or are granted by the present instruction:

1. To newly baptized adults in the Mass which follows their baptism; to confirmed adults in the Mass of their Confirmation; to baptized persons who are received into communion with the Church;
2. To bride and bridegroom in the Mass of their wedding;
3. To newly ordained in the Mass of their ordination;
4. To abbesses in the Mass of their blessing; to virgins in the Mass of their consecration; to professed in the Mass of their first or renewed religious profession, provided that they take or renew their vows during the Mass;
5. To lay missionaries, in the Mass in which they are publicly sent out on their mission, and to all others in the Mass in which they receive an ecclesiastical mission;
6. In the administration of Viaticum, to the sick person and to all who are present when Mass is celebrated in the house of the sick person, in accordance with the existing norms;
7. To deacon, subdeacon, and ministers, who carry out their ministry in a solemn or pontifical Mass;
8. When there is a concelebration:

a) to all who exercise a genuine liturgical function in this concelebration, including lay people and to all seminarians who are present;

b) in their churches, to all members of institutes practicing the evangelical virtues and of other societies in which the members either through religious vows or offering or a promise dedicate themselves to God; and also to all those who normally live in the house of the members of these institutes and societies.

1. To priests who take part in large celebrations, but are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;
2. To all groups which are making retreats or following spiritual exercises, in a Mass which is celebrated during the retreat or exercises for those who are taking part; to all those who are taking part in the meeting of some pastoral commission, in the Mass they celebrate in common;
3. To those listed under nos. 2 and 4, in their jubilee Masses;
4. To the godfather, godmother, parents and spouse of a baptized adult, together with the lay catechists who have prepared him, in the Mass of initiation;
5. To the parents, relatives and special benefactors, who take part in the Mass of a newly ordained priest.

From Eucharisticum Mysterium

 

[cheddarsox]

Tosh. I love you as a brother but I wouldn’t take over your debts for you or raise your children like they were my own, I simply don’t have the resources to do either.

So why should I make myself (highy likely) seriously ill for half a week for your sake? How irresponsible to knowingly make myself unfit for all the other responsibilities I have, for the sake of some misbegotten notion of community. Children need healthy parents, bosses need healthy workers. These things are much more important than a temporary warm fuzy glow at Mass time.

What would you, I or anyone else genuinely gain by it? I’ve had more than enough serious illnesses of my own to deal with thanks, I don’t need or want yours as well. Neither does being part of the community demand it

That’s fine. Christianity in other times and cultures looked a bit differently than it does in 21st century. There are times and places where it does mean placing oneself in harm’s way or taking on another’s debt or children. That notion may seem misbegotten to you in your situation, but it in not unheard of in the history of Christianity.

I offered it as something to think about.

Catholicism has a long history of “radical community”, alongside the more “relaxed” variety. There are stigmatists who regularly took on the ills of others. They chose to do so, were called to do so. They felt it did good, both to their souls, and for the community. If you are not called to that type of community, don’t worry about it, but please don’t discount this valid notion and understanding of the Body of Christ.

Sharing the cup is about more than getting sick. I’ve shared the cup many times, and honestly can’t recall a time that I could remotely connect getting sick, to doing so.

The fact that there is some risk, is valid. And if you choose not to receive the cup for that reason, that is likewise valid. But it does not change the sybolism of radical community that is part of sharing a common cup.

It is good to understand why some people choose to partake, as well as to understand why some people do not.

 

[cheddarsox]

1. Communion under Both Kinds
   Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds. For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent,84 by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire ), thesign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).

This is why from now on, in accordance with the judgment of the bishops and given the necessary catechesis, Communion from the chalice is permitted in the following cases, which were either already granted by previous legislation85 or are granted by the present instruction:

1. To newly baptized adults in the Mass which follows their baptism; to confirmed adults in the Mass of their Confirmation; to baptized persons who are received into communion with the Church;
2. To bride and bridegroom in the Mass of their wedding;
3. To newly ordained in the Mass of their ordination;
4. To abbesses in the Mass of their blessing; to virgins in the Mass of their consecration; to professed in the Mass of their first or renewed religious profession, provided that they take or renew their vows during the Mass;
5. To lay missionaries, in the Mass in which they are publicly sent out on their mission, and to all others in the Mass in which they receive an ecclesiastical mission;
6. In the administration of Viaticum, to the sick person and to all who are present when Mass is celebrated in the house of the sick person, in accordance with the existing norms;
7. To deacon, subdeacon, and ministers, who carry out their ministry in a solemn or pontifical Mass;
8. When there is a concelebration:

a) to all who exercise a genuine liturgical function in this concelebration, including lay people and to all seminarians who are present;

b) in their churches, to all members of institutes practicing the evangelical virtues and of other societies in which the members either through religious vows or offering or a promise dedicate themselves to God; and also to all those who normally live in the house of the members of these institutes and societies.

1. To priests who take part in large celebrations, but are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;
2. To all groups which are making retreats or following spiritual exercises, in a Mass which is celebrated during the retreat or exercises for those who are taking part; to all those who are taking part in the meeting of some pastoral commission, in the Mass they celebrate in common;
3. To those listed under nos. 2 and 4, in their jubilee Masses;
4. To the godfather, godmother, parents and spouse of a baptized adult, together with the lay catechists who have prepared him, in the Mass of initiation;
5. To the parents, relatives and special benefactors, who take part in the Mass of a newly ordained priest.

From Eucharisticum Mysterium

thank you for posting this, very informative and helpful!

 

[tee_eff_em]

No, communion by intinction is not allowed because of the danger of the spillage of the precious blood - it is a Protestant practice and the Protestants don’t believe in the real presence so they see nothing wrong with it. But we who do believe in the Real Presence following the Church’s reasoning, so we don’t risk descecration by dripping on to the floor and then walking on our Saviour’s blood.

You are mistaken.

1. Si Communio calicis fit per intinctionem, communicandus, patinam sub ore tenens, accedit ad sacerdotem, qui vas cum sacris particulis tenet et ad cuius latus sistit minister qui calicem sustinet. Sacerdos hostiam accipit, partem eius in calicem intingit et eam ostendendo dicit: Corpus et Sanguis Christi; communicandus respondet: Amen, a sacerdote Sacramentum ore recipit, ac postea recedit.

1. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, *Corpus et Sanguis Christi *(The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

IGMR/GIRM

tee

 

[JimR-OCDS]

1. Communion under Both Kinds
   Holy Communion, considered as a sign, has a more complete form when it is received under both kinds. For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent,84 by which under either species there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire ), thesign of the Eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly. Moreover, it shows more clearly how the new and eternal Covenant is ratified in the Blood of the Lord, as it also expresses the relation of the Eucharistic banquet to the eschatological banquet in the Kingdom of the Father (cf. Matt. 26: 27-29).

This is why from now on, in accordance with the judgment of the bishops and given the necessary catechesis, Communion from the chalice is permitted in the following cases, which were either already granted by previous legislation85 or are granted by the present instruction:

1. To newly baptized adults in the Mass which follows their baptism; to confirmed adults in the Mass of their Confirmation; to baptized persons who are received into communion with the Church;
2. To bride and bridegroom in the Mass of their wedding;
3. To newly ordained in the Mass of their ordination;
4. To abbesses in the Mass of their blessing; to virgins in the Mass of their consecration; to professed in the Mass of their first or renewed religious profession, provided that they take or renew their vows during the Mass;
5. To lay missionaries, in the Mass in which they are publicly sent out on their mission, and to all others in the Mass in which they receive an ecclesiastical mission;
6. In the administration of Viaticum, to the sick person and to all who are present when Mass is celebrated in the house of the sick person, in accordance with the existing norms;
7. To deacon, subdeacon, and ministers, who carry out their ministry in a solemn or pontifical Mass;
8. When there is a concelebration:

a) to all who exercise a genuine liturgical function in this concelebration, including lay people and to all seminarians who are present;

b) in their churches, to all members of institutes practicing the evangelical virtues and of other societies in which the members either through religious vows or offering or a promise dedicate themselves to God; and also to all those who normally live in the house of the members of these institutes and societies.

1. To priests who take part in large celebrations, but are not able to celebrate or concelebrate;
2. To all groups which are making retreats or following spiritual exercises, in a Mass which is celebrated during the retreat or exercises for those who are taking part; to all those who are taking part in the meeting of some pastoral commission, in the Mass they celebrate in common;
3. To those listed under nos. 2 and 4, in their jubilee Masses;
4. To the godfather, godmother, parents and spouse of a baptized adult, together with the lay catechists who have prepared him, in the Mass of initiation;
5. To the parents, relatives and special benefactors, who take part in the Mass of a newly ordained priest.

From Eucharisticum Mysterium

This has been amended.

Text of the General Instruction

Here is the text of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, n. 283:

"Communion under both species is permitted, over and above the occasions listed in the ritual books.

a) to priests who cannot celebrate or concelebrate Mass;

b) to the deacon and others who perform a service during the Mass;

c) to the members of communities during the Conventual Mass or in the Mass that is said to be of the community, to seminarians, to all who participate in a spiritual retreat or in a spiritual or pastoral conference.

The diocesan Bishop can define the norms for Communion under both species for his diocese, to be observed even in the churches of religious and in celebration with small groups. To the same Bishop the faculty is given to permit Communion under both species whenever it seems appropriate to the priest who has the pastoral responsibility for the community, provided the faithful are well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the sacrament or that the rite would be too difficult to carry out on account of the number of the participants or for some other reason.
The Bishops’ Conferences can publish norms on the manner of distributing Holy Communion under both species to the faithful and on the extension of the faculty, with norms that have received the recognition of the Apostolic See".

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWNORMS.HTM

My emphasis in bold.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

No, communion by intinction is not allowed because of the danger of the spillage of the precious blood - it is a Protestant practice and the Protestants don’t believe in the real presence so they see nothing wrong with it. But we who do believe in the Real Presence following the Church’s reasoning, so we don’t risk descecration by dripping on to the floor and then walking on our Saviour’s blood.

SELF Intinction is forbidden. And intinction in general is a very Catholic practice, as it has been practiced for centuries prior to Luther.

And it is most certainly permitted by the Church, in fact it is the only method of recieveing both speices that is permitted throughout the entire Church.

In the instruction to the US bishops on the purification of vessels, Cardinal Arinze, Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments noted that

1. Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

 

[Theresa65]

I don’t, and never did, for the following reasons:

1. The entirety of the eucharist is present in both species. One does not get “more” grace by receiving both species. I believe it was the pre-reformation heretic Jan Hus who first popularized the heresy that one needed both forms in order to have a full communion.
2. Receiving in the chalice (as commonly done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite) is the precious blood’s equivalent of receiving in the hand and is tantamount to self-communication. In fact, both practices became popular at about the same time. I can remember when only the priest drank the blood. Just as I believe that only a priest should handle the host, so only he should handle the chalice.
3. It greatly increases the danger of sacrilege by risking spillage.
4. It needlessly increases the number of extraordinary ministers.

(Although receiving under both forms increases the length of the Mass and is unhygenic–these are not problems for me.)

I can think of absolutely not one reason that I should receive from the chalice, as is typically done in the Novus Ordo Latin Rite.

Do you NOT partake of the chalice? If so, why not?

What you say is 100% correct. It is a protestant practice as are many other practices adopted by Bishops around the world and Pope Benedict is slowly restoring things back again.

 

[Theresa65]

This has been amended.

My emphasis in bold.

Jim

Jim if you look seriously into what is happening in the Church you will find that many practices: communion in the hand, Extraordinary Lay Ministers, Altar girls and other things have been allowed in countries where Bishops have allowed priests to do what they like and so they have allowed these practices in by a back-door method. It has only led to more and more abuses - have a look at the Halloween and Clown Masses on YouTube - the Holy Father has allowed the Tridentine rite simply because of the abuses that have come about with the Novus Ordo Mass - With the Tridentine Mass you will not see Communion in the Hand, Intinction, Communion under both kinds, Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist. The Novus Ordo Mass will eventually die out sadly because of these abuses. You have all the lay people fighting and vying with each other to be readers, Extraordinary Ministers, etc and if they don’t get their way they leave and go to another parish. You don’t get any of that disagreement and arguing at the Tridentine Mass or at the Opus Dei Masses I have been to. The way things have gone it is all directed away from God and on to man - a Protestantisation of the Church and people are leaving - looking for the sacred. They will find that in the Tridentine Mass. I have always gone to the Novus Ordo Mass but am sick and tired of the abuses - priests sitting on the floor during Mass - handing communion round to one another - priests coming down and saying Mass virtually from the aisle - inviting lay people up to concelebrate. The Church is in a mess because of the Novus Ordo Mass which wouldn’t have happened if the Bishops had kept a proper constraint on things and had followed Rome in the first place. Those things you talk about are only allowed on extraordinary occasions but they are daily used and abused in many parishes and that’s what people should be concerned about.

 

[Theresa65]

This has been amended.

My emphasis in bold.

Jim

This is more up-to-date than EWTN: " The Holy Father understands this and has emphasized for this reason that Communion under one species is therefore the “most common form in the Latin rite” for pastoral reasons." See the whole item below:

Extended Indult?

A. No, the indult has not been extended. According to the clear indications found in the GIRM, no. 279, the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, deacon, or instituted acolyte. An instituted acolyte is always a male, and usually a seminarian on the way to the priesthood.

        In a letter dated October 12, 2006 (Prot. N. 468/05/L), from Francis Cardinal Arinze, Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, to Bishop William Skylstad, the president of USCCB, the US Bishops were informed that Benedict XVI told the Prefect to reply as follows:

1.  There is no doubt that "the sign of Communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly" (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 240; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

2.  Sometimes, however, the high number of communicants may render it inadvisable for everyone to drink from the chalice (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 102). intinction with reception on the tongue always and everywhere remains a legitimate option, by virtue of the general liturgical law of the Roman Rite.

3.  Catechesis of the people is important regarding the teaching of the Council of Trent that Christ is fully present under each of the species. Communion under the species of the bread alone, as a consequence, makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace (cf. Denzinger-Schônmetzer, no. 1729; General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 282). "For pastoral reasons", therefore, "this manner of receiving Communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 390).

4.  Paragraph 279 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal directs that the sacred vessels are to be purified by the priest, the deacon or an instituted acolyte. The status of this text as legislation has recently been clarified by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It does not seem feasible, therefore, for the Congregation to grant the requested indult from this directive in the general law of the Latin Church.  (emphasis added)

5.  This letter is therefore a request to the members of the Bishops' Conference of the United Status of America to prepare the necessary explanations and catechetical materials for your clergy and people so that henceforth the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 279, as found in the editio typica of the Roman Missal, will be observed throughout its territories.

What does all of this mean? Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may no longer purify the sacred vessels. In practice, this may lead to a reduction in the frequency and scope of communion under both species.

The purification of the sacred vessels is to take place after communion and before the vessels are put back in the closet. It is a two step process. First, any remaining ‘bread’ crumbs in the ciboria or paten are wiped into the chalice. Next, the chalice is purified by consuming what remains of the precious blood, performing the ablution (pouring water into the chalice in order to subsume any and all remaining drops of the precious blood and crumbs) and then the ablution is consumed by the minister (priest, deacon, instituted acolyte) by swallowing it. Then the chalice is wiped dry with the purificator.

In practice, this will be difficult if many chalices are used to distribute Holy Communion under both species. It will not only be difficult, but I sense many priests will also find it distasteful, especially during the flu season. (Really, who wants to swallow the ablutions from several chalices that have touched the mouths, lips and tongues of hundreds of congregants?) The Holy Father understands this and has emphasized for this reason that Communion under one species is therefore the “most common form in the Latin rite” for pastoral reasons.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What you say is 100% correct. It is a protestant practice as are many other practices adopted by Bishops around the world and Pope Benedict is slowly restoring things back again.

Actually receiving in the hand and from the cup, predates protestantism. It also predates the council of Trent, which established the Trinidine Mass which so many seem to think goes back to the early Church, it doesn’t. The Novus Ordo is closer to how Mass was celebrated for 1500 years, before Trent.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Theresa

this has nothing to do with prohibiting the faithful from receiving from the cup. As specified in all documents from Rome, the Bishop is the one who sets the norms on this. Purification of the
cups is still done by the deacon or priest.

You can read the USCB’s words on reception under both species.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

Jim

 

[AlexV]

Historically inaccurate balderdash.

Trent didn’t establish a liturgy. It CODIFIED what was ALREADY the mainstream liturgy of the West, i.e., the great fusion of Gallic and Roman traditions.

The 1570 Missal is virtually indistinguishable from the first printed Missal, of 1474. And that Missal wasn’t invented in 1474 either.

It’s a commonly repeated falsehood that the so-called Tridentine Mass was somehow created in 1570.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Historically inaccurate balderdash.

Trent didn’t establish a liturgy. It CODIFIED what was ALREADY the mainstream liturgy of the West, i.e., the great fusion of Gallic and Roman traditions.

The 1570 Missal is virtually indistinguishable from the first printed Missal, of 1474. And that Missal wasn’t invented in 1474 either.

It’s a commonly repeated falsehood that the so-called Tridentine Mass was somehow created in 1570.

According to an article in the Catholic Free Press this week by
Father Robert Girattaroti:

“The Trinidine Mass came as a result of codification of the liturgy at the time, following the Council of Trent, in the 1500’s. It was the work of Pius V. Though the Mass had been celebrated in Latin at the time, the various liturgical experssions were quite different, including the Dominican Rite, the Ambrosian Rite in Milan, the Franciscan expression, not to mention the variations which took place from dioceses to dioceses, including the dioceses of the Sarum in England.”

So, the codification to the Trinidine, was to organize the Church into one expression.

Fr. Girattaroti, also explains in the article, that Vatican II restored the “Mass in the truest sense.” The ancient Mass was celebrated in the “circular form” where the altar was free standing and the priest stood in “persona Christi.” Also the Masses were celebrated in the language of the people.

So, by the time the Trinidine Mass was codified, Latin was a common language of most of Western Europe.

Those who try to tell us that the Trinidine Mass was the Mass of the ancient Church, and the Novus Ordo is not, are way off base.

Jim

 

[Theresa65]

Actually receiving in the hand and from the cup, predates protestantism. It also predates the council of Trent, which established the Trinidine Mass which so many seem to think goes back to the early Church, it doesn’t. The Novus Ordo is closer to how Mass was celebrated for 1500 years, before Trent.

Jim

That may be so, but originally the Jews offered the sacrifice facing away from the people facing East - as the Tridentine Mass does, so that predates the Novus Ordo Mass. I have no problem with the Novus Ordo Mass provided it is not abused and I attend it but with growing misgivings now because of all the problems we are hearing of around the world. You only have to look on YouTube at the Haloween and Clown Masses the extreme examples of just how low it has sunk. The Holy Father in reinstating the Tridentine rite says it is because people are upset with the abuses in the liturgy that they have asked for the return of the Tridentine rite of Mass. He says also that the Tridentine Mass was never aborgated**** If you look on YouTube you can see the Tridentine Mass - how beautiful it is - the abuses associated with the Novus Ordo Mass I have heard of are: “consecrating” coca cola and buns; making the church sem-circular so that people look at one another, rather than what is happening on the altar - priests sitting on the floor during Mass - handing communion from one to another - people being invited up to stand with the priest during the consecration - how many people since the introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass now believe in the real presence? Less than 70% according to surveys. It is simply because the sacrificial element is not recognised and only a meal is being promoted and in memorium at that - whereas among those who attend the Tridentine Mass you would find 100% believe in the Real Presence. When the Novus Ordo Mass was introduced there was a concern that what has happened would happen and it has had serious repercussions for the Church - people no longer know what they believe in.