Do you want the EF as normative for the entire Latin Church?

[Esrb99]

But the debate is not about the difference between having a OF mass in your local vernacular and th OF mass in Latin. The debate is between the OF mass (assumed to be in the local vernacular) and the EF mass, which can only be in Latin.

It’s important not to mix up these not very subtle distinctions.

Now some points.
It’s not EF vs NO. it’s EF vs OF. calling the ordinary form of the Mass, the NO, while calling the Tridintine form the EF, is disrespectful. Be consistant in the terms you use. If you say EF, or Extradoradinary Form, then call the Ordinary Form the Ordinary Form. or the EF.

It’ important to remember the distinctions between the EF offered in a proper manner, faithful to the guidance and rulesgiven by the Magisterium, and the EF as it is seen in many parishes littered with every abuse doing the rounds.

If we could follow the rubrics, and offer the Mass how it’s supposed to be offered, and ensure that it includes Mass offered in Latin in every area, and with a proper sense of respect and reverence, then many of those clamouring for the EF mass would be far less upset, and would probably be quite satisfied by the more solemn forms of the OF mass.

Here’s some points: All Catholics should be familiar with the Latin form of the OF. They should know and be able make the main responses in Latin. They should be familiar with Gregorian Chant, and the Antiphons and Graduale. They should be well catechized, and should know better than to be disrespectful in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament or during the Divine Liturgy.

When a mass is being said explicitly for group who do not have a common language IT SHOULD BE OFFERED IN LATIN. - Therefore “Tourist” masses should be the OF in Latin!!!

The only time a touring group should have the mass offered in their own language is when a large pilgrimage group are traveling and are having a mass for their group. - A long term stable group of Ex-Pats, should normally attend mass in Latin, or one of the Permitted Verncular Translations for the diocese in which they are living. - Not the language of their home country. (assuming that’s not a Local Language).

Most Large parishes, or clusters of parishes should have maintained a weekly mass in Latin. The present situation where few parishes have a Latin Mass, and most of those who do have a E.F. mass, was never the intention of the Magisterium (whatever about the intention of the local bishops)

I understand all of this. The reason I bring up latin itself, is many are arguing on the basis of latin, against a wider use of the EF. For the record, I chose option two in the poll-I realize that if the EF was reinstated as the normative form in the Roman Rite, that provisions should be made to ease the transition. I also assist at my local OF parish most weeks, and often daily, so I am not ‘opposed’ to it in a rigidly dogmatic way. I do however have questions regarding many choices consilium made when recreating the Roman Rite, and I vastly prefer the EF and the Eastern Rites over the OF, in its current Latin form.

In reference to the bolded, many may indeed be satisfied, but I still have some concerns. I have assisted at exceedingly reverent OF masses in the U.S. and in Rome, attended a Papal mass with BXVI, etc. There is at the very least a subjective (one could even argue objective) superiority to the Latin or mostly-latin OF, at times offered Ad Orientem. I’ve even been at italian, english, spanish, and Hindi masses in the OF at St. Peters. I have also attended sung/chanted/solemn offerings of Holy Mass in English and Italian, both with and without latin bits, and all latin OF masses as well. They are in fact nice, and would be a huge step up from the minimum standard (or even less than minimum, sadly that is present in many places) offering of Holy Mass that we find in the U.S.

Hoever, when assisting at these masses, the stark difference between the OF structurally versus the EF is still apparent. The mass seems less-focused on the altar of sacrifice, with half of it effectively taking place at the priest’s chair in the OF, for example. In the eastern Rites, one finds the Priest-just like in the EF-facing the altar, proclaiming the scriptures. In this specific instance, we have not only divorced ourselves from an orientation that has been in use in the Latin Rite for over a millennia, but also from a common orientation to all Apostolic traditions.

As such, it could be worthwhile to revisit consilium’s notes on why this rubrical change was made, and examine why the orientation of the priest was the way it was during the Old mass, and if reviving that orientation in the OF would be a good idea.

 

[GangGreen]

So what you want is an OF that looks like or is slowly moving toward the EF?

Why don’t you just say so, rather than being sneaky about it?

I like to call it a hybrid

 

[bsroufek]

Most people don’t understand Latin, so I believe the OF is best.

For those who like the Latin, fine, use the EF.

I wish EWTN used the OF, but some of the time I can remember the English phrases for the Latin.

 

[aTraditionalist]

I would prefer the EF as the norm. I wholeheartedly believe that there is a direct correlation between the introduction of the NO and the decline of the Church. For statistical purposes, I converted 5 years ago and I’m still using an outside looking in perspective.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Esrb99]

Most people don’t understand Latin, so I believe the OF is best.

For those who like the Latin, fine, use the EF.

I wish EWTN used the OF, but some of the time I can remember the English phrases for the Latin.

I thought EWTN usually DID use the OF, in English, and only sometimes…in Latin (which is what the OF was composed in, FYI. That’s the ‘standard’)

 

[jwinch2]

I wish EWTN used the OF, but some of the time I can remember the English phrases for the Latin.

I believe they do. Though, the Franciscan Missionaries of the Eternal Word (EWTN Friars) have deliberately sought out training in the EF as well.

newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/03/st-francis-and-liturgy.html
newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/03/reform-of-reformin-utroque-usu.html#.UbY9aNKsiSo

 

[Lucky7]

I’m a supporter of the EF and offer it usually in private Masses. At some point I hope to offer it every week, as a pastor. As (currently) Parochial Vicar, I don’t have this choice!

I think EF is great for young people who don’t have a grind against Latin and chant. So, it’s going to be in the mix. But reform of how the OF is offered is where there is s huge opportunity: using Gregorian Chant and Propers rather than hymns, Ad Orientem, using communion rail!

Well, Father…WELCOME ABOARD! I like you already.

 

[UncleBill]

I voted “Yes and no exceptions”.

***Mainly because the “EF” (as its now known) was normative for the entire Latin Church for nearly 2,000 years, and was then done away with due to very questionable wisdom indeed.

---

Recently I have learned that Vatican II did not call for Latin to be dropped, or for a totally new mass. Its clear that these things have come as a result of personal agendas. Personally I think we look ridiculous that we do not even seem to clearly understand how we have got to the situation we are in currently.

I dont advocate an “overnight switch” which I think could alienate many people.

Although, ultimately, I want the EF as normative, I would allow both forms to coexist (at least for a while).** I have no desire to marginalise, worry or offend people who are happy to remain at the novus ordo.** In some places, there is a lot of hurt due to how the EF is suppressed or maligned and I do not see any profit in simply switching to the inverse situation.

Ultimately, I think people would vote with their feet and the EF would become more popular. I also think people who are confused about, or dismissive of, the EF would come to love it, if they gave it a chance.

Yesterday, I attended mass twice, one latin mass and one novus ordo.

During one of the masses, all of this happened:

• mobile phones rang audibly during the service on two occasions
• on arrival, a young woman was seen not to bother genuflecting when going into her seat. I presume this was because her skirt was so obviously short that it barely covered her buttocks whilst she was standing, and so genuflecting would have caused (more) problems with modesty.
• another young woman arrived significantly late, during the liturgy of the word. Most of the attention was on her - not the readings - as she noisily entered the Church and proceeded to her seat whilst dressed like Lady Gaga, including towering heels (clack-clack-clack) and exceptionaly revealling “painted on” leggings. At first I thought she was looking for a nightclub and had wandered into the Church by accident.
• many people were observed talking amongst themselves during the mass.
• priests often failed to acknowledge the presence of the tabernacle, often breezing past without a second thought.
• 99.9% of people took communion in a way that is against the norms of the Church and in a casual fashion which weakens belief in the real presence.
• many people left the Church directly after communion, typically in the most noisy fashion possible (while others are trying to pray).
• at the end, a visiting priest was given the chance to make an appeal for charity - lasting just a few minutes. Several people couldnt be bothered listening and rudely got up and noisily left the Church when he was trying to address us.
• some people actually clapped the visiting priest, when he was finished. Obviously they got mixed up and thought they were sitting in the theatre, not Church.

Guess which mass all of this occured at?

Thats right, the Novus Ordo. And you know what else? That is not unusual, but rather ‘par for the course’, in my experience of the Novus Ordo.

And this is exactly why I wasnt the EF back as the norm.

Where do you people come up with this garbage? Now I’m all in favor of the EF, but to say it was normative for almost 2000 years? Come on already! The EF has only been “normative” since TRENT! Come on folks…get your history straight!

 

[GWright]

Could you cite your source, please?

Hi PRmerger,

Glad to:

Regarding “indults”:

Indults are general faculties, granted by the Holy See to bishops and others, of doing something not permitted by the common law

The Latin word “indult” means “concession” or “privilege”.

newadvent.org/cathen/07789a.htm

Regarding Communion in the hand:

Communion in the hand has the potential to promote or at least foster a disrespect for the Body of Christ. As Catholics, we believe this small Host does not represent Christ, but is Christ Himself. How can we, then, possibly touch the living presence of God with our bare, dirty, unconsecrated, and unworthy hands? How? **How have we even considered this as an option in the first place?

The answer can be given using one word: disobedience. The practice came about in the early 1960s (after Vatican II, though the Council never actually called for it), when certain parishes around the world began to disobey the Church’s rule of receiving the Host on the tongue, making their own rules as to whether or not you could receive on the hand**. The Vatican immediately responded in disapproving words, saying that this disobedient practice would lead to “the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist” (Memoriale Domini).

When Pope Paul VI in 1968 sent out a questionnaire to every bishop in the world asking if the Church should alter how Communion was being distributed, the answer came back loud and clear: in the hand was overwhelmingly disapproved of and should not be allowed. The Vatican agreed, stating that if the practice of Communion on the hand be allowed, “it would be an offense to the sensibilities and spiritual outlook of these bishops and a great many of the faithful” (Memoriale Domini).

Unfortunately, the practice continued to be promulgated by parishes and dioceses alike, most especially in France. So, in 1969, Paul IV granted the French bishops an indult—a special permission (not a norm)—to decide the question on their own. What happened next was an abuse of that indult: parishes around the world took advantage and permitted the practice of Communion in the hand. Despite the Vatican’s best efforts, the disobedience continued and today, most Catholics are under the erroneous idea that Communion on the hand is the norm, because it is seemingly most common. However, the norm does not mean the most common, but instead is the practice which is supported by the Universal Church and to which the laity should be adhering

catholicinsight.com/blasphemy-abuse-communion-in-the-hand/

You see, this practice was started by dissidents in the early 1960s. As the information above describes, the Vatican attempted to stop it, but failed in the face of continued disobedience.

As various dioceses / parishes were essentially refusing to obey the Pope on this matter, the Vatican was forced to issue indults (concessions) as a “cover”, to make the practice official and remove the problem of disobedience simply by giving in to that disobedience.

This is why the various Indults (for different countries) came long after the practice of communion in the hand started. The tail was wagging the dog essentially - not a good situation to be in, I would argue.

I consider this phenomenon of the tail being allowed to wag the dog as the genesis behind many of the problems of disobedience in the Church today - from the “Nuns on the bus” in the US, to the dissident priests in Ireland and Austria. They are encouraged in their disobedience by the precedent that has already been set. They don’t really want to be Catholic, they want to invent their own religion and they think the Vatican will let them, if they persevere long enough.

Here are some examples (not a comprehensive list) of the dates of when the various Indults were issued:

(not including France, which got it in 1969, as mentioned above)

South Africa, 3 February 1970
Canada, 12 February 1970
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
Zambia, 11 March 1974
New Zealand, 24 April 1974
Australia, 26 September 1975
England and Wales, 6 March 1976
Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
Ireland, 4 September 1976
Pakistan, 29 October 1976
United States, 17 June 1977
Scotland, 7 July 1977
Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Note - I do not criticise anyone personally for receiving in the hand, given the presence of these indults mean it is allowed. I expect that many people, (like me until very recently), are unaware of the background behind this practice and how it came about.

When I was making my first communion, I clearly remember being taught at Catholic primary school (early 80s) that there was no difference whatsoever between the two ways of receiving and the Church regarded them both as having the same status.

So, what my Catholic primary school taught me about Holy Communion was in fact false information. And we wonder why the faith is falling apart in the West?

Not too long ago, a woman receiving Communion ahead of me received in the hand, and then proceeded to drop the Host on the floor. The woman didn’t mean to drop the host - it was an accident, which could happen to anyone - but the possibility of such accidents are but one problem (of several) with communion in the hand.

Pope Benedict XVI discouraged Communion in the hand and many others (eg Cardinal Arinze, Bishop Schneider etc) have spoken strongly against it.

 

[GWright]

Godigood77:

Your comment about the ‘EF’ being normative for the entire Latin Church for nearly 2000 years simply is not true. Might want to double check your history.

unclebill:

Where do you people come up with this garbage? Now I’m all in favor of the EF, but to say it was normative for almost 2000 years? Come on already! The EF has only been “normative” since TRENT! Come on folks…get your history straight!

Hi guys

Yes you are right I made an incorrect statement, my apologies - the excellent JRKH already corrected me earlier in the thread.

I don’t claim to be a history expert and know that false info is unhelpful. What I was really diving at (or trying to!) was that, throughout our history, my understanding is that our mode of worship has always been very similar until recently, when the novus ordo represented quite a radical departure to what had gone before.

I had not intended to deliberately mislead anyone.

I appreciate your pointing out my error and please continue to do so with any bloopers I may make in future.

Cheers

 

[GWright]

I’ve frequently, when traveling attended Masses in German, Spanish, French and Italian. I would attend Mass in English if it were convenient, but I’ve never felt the need to go out of my way to find one. It is still the Mass, and I still know what’s going on. That’s the universality of the church. No matter what the language, the same Mass is celebrated - it is the same sacrifice. That transcends language.

That’s a fair point babochka.

I guess I attempt to find an English mass, so as to be able to participate with the hymns, creed and responses etc.

I think the novus ordo was designed to allow the lay people more participation and while it achieves this locally/regionally, it (at least in my opinion) works the other way in an international situation.

 

[godisgood77]

Communion in the hand has the potential to promote or at least foster a disrespect for the Body of Christ. As Catholics, we believe this small Host does not represent Christ, but is Christ Himself. How can we, then, possibly touch the living presence of God with our bare, dirty, unconsecrated, and unworthy hands? How? How have we even considered this as an option in the first place?.

This is, quite simply put, flawed logic. It really strikes me as silly to cite “dirty” hands as if our mouths are objectively cleaner… saying that we are unfit to touch the body of Christ is self defeating… you might as well say that we are unfit to receive the Eucharist.

 

[Brendan_64]

• 99.9% of people took communion in a way that is against the norms of the Church and in a casual fashion which weakens belief in the real presence.

So only 0.1% of those receiving Communion at that Mass recieved it in a proper fashion? Wow, that must be a big church to have 1000 people receiving Communion, with only 1 person receiving it correctly. Are you sure you aren’t exaggerating?

 

[GWright]

I’m not sure I understand your problem.

It is okay to have a Mass in Latin even though you don’t understand the language. But it is not okay to have a Mass in Italian, because you don’t understand the language?

Hiya,

The only language I speak fluently is English, so a mass in German, French, Spanish (or whatever) precludes my participating or following the readings etc.

I don’t “speak latin”, but I know the Our Father (Pater Noster), Creed (Credo), in Latin - and so can identify them during the mass. I can recite (or badly sing) them in Latin and know what bits correspond to what, even if I don’t have an understanding of Latin grammar. I know what I am saying, when I say it, even though I could not construct a similar sentence myself.

I can identify, sing (badly) or say the Gloria in Latin.

I know when the priest says “Dominus vobiscum”, he is saying “The Lord be with you”.

I know when he is saying “Kyrie elesion” that he is speaking in Greek, not Latin, and saying “Lord have mercy” (similarly “Christie elesion” is “Christ have mercy”).

And so on…

So although I could not say I speak Latin, I can understand a Latin mass, which is / would be the same everywhere.

I learned this stuff mainly from You-tube, from my experience of school and Church in the 80s + early 90s (till I stopped going to Church, at 16) I would never have known that we Catholics have such an amazing, deep and beautiful liturgical culture.

Why hide it away?

When I attend a Mass in another language, it is easy to follow along because I know “what comes next.” If for some reason, I want to follow along, I simply print out the Mass in the language of the Mass.

Fair enough, if this is possible to do.

Its not as convenient as going into a mass, which is the exact same as the mass back home however.

NB - in my experience of tridentine liturgy, the readings / homily are in the vernacular, so I guess you can lose out on that (abroad) regardless of what the main language used is.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I just want to point out that quoting someone’s blog does not make it authoritive, and what is expressed is their opinion only.

That being said, I voted for both to co-exist, as different people have different spiritual needs. I prefer the OF because I prefer Mass in the vernacular, the expanded scripture readings, the
greater audible participation of the laity and being able to hear what the priest says. (Yes, I am quite aware of inner participation during the liturgy, but I prefer being able to participate out loud). I am one who grew up with the EF and can honestly say I hope we never go back to it exclusively although that statement could get you hung around here.

However, I respect the fact that others’ spiritual needs are met at the EF, and I am happy the Church tries to meet the spiritual needs of all her children, something which, I am afraid, is not taken into consideration by many of the laity, who feel their way is the only way (on both sides ). I believe Mother church is wiser than any and all of us, as she is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Also, to me, to be still arguing about this after 40 years, esp. since the EF is permitted, is counterproductive to the unity of the Church. To be blunt, it is also getting tiresome. This has to be the second longest argument since the Reformation.

 

[SaintFrancis333]

I prefer the EF because it is the heart of Catholicism done right. The Mass is just as valid in the OF, I certainly don’t deny that. And while the OF can be done reverently (though this is rarely the case in my personal experience), the EF trounces the OF in showing the utmost reverence and respect to our Lord whom we are there to worship.

 

[GWright]

The Church allows Communion in the hand. I don’t have the authority to overrule the Church’s decision.

That is correct, and I do not criticise you or anyone personally for doing so.

But if you review the post I made to PR merger, you will see that the practice was started by dissent and only covered later by indults.

The Pope didn’t ever think “hey, lets allow people to receive communion in the hand” - people started doing it on their own.

No Pope decided to allow this, but was essentially forced to accept it due to mass disobedience to his authority.

That is not a situation I am comfortable with, (which is why I went back to receiving on the tongue), but I respect your right to hold a different opinion.

For the record - please know that in no way do I harbour any resentment of your own preference, nor arrogantly think myself a “better” Catholic for mine.

For me, the Pope should define aspects of the Catholic religion and practice to the faithful; the faithful should not attempt to dictate to him, via disobedience.

If we become accepting of disobedience, where does it stop?

You might want to re-think accusing the Vatican of deliberately misleading the faithful.

I did not! You must have misread!

 

[godisgood77]

You see, this practice was started by dissidents in the early 1960s. As the information above describes, the Vatican attempted to stop it, but failed in the face of continued disobedience.

I’m afraid this is not true… As early as the 4th century, St Cyril of Jerusalem provided very specific instruction on how to receive the Eurcharist. See St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s fifth Mystagogic Catechesis (21f), which he preached to neophytes in 348 A.D., in which he counsels the faithful to “place your lefthand as the throne of your right one, which is to receive the King [in Holy Communion]” (apudL’Osservatore Romano. English edition of June 14, 1973, p.6). Communion on the tongue became the norm in the Middle Ages. Receiving in the hand is as old as the Church as per the Last Supper.

When I was making my first communion, I clearly remember being taught at Catholic primary school (early 80s) that there was no difference whatsoever between the two ways of receiving and the Church regarded them both as having the same status.

It appears you had good orthodox Catholic instruction at your our primary school, there is no difference between the two way of receiving. It is simply a subjective/stylistic preference or little “t” tradition of the Church.

 

[GWright]

I voted for the ordinary form exclusively.

I don’t like latin, but that’s not the main reason.

Hi Fairwinds,

I respect your opinion to prefer whichever liturgy you please. Why don’t you like Latin, incidentally?

For the record, there are aspects of the ordinary form which I like - I enjoy doing readings, for example, but I would gladly give this up for the latin.

I don’t like this kind of angry scrutiny (especially of the priests who “breeze by the tabernacle”), the us-against-them divisiveness and all it implies.

I am not trying to be divisive with the points I raised.

I reject claims of “scrutiny” (especially angry scrutiny). I don’t go to mass seeking ways in which to criticise people, nor do I watch people like a hawk. I try to concentrate on the mass, and I resent it if there are repeated distractions due to thoughtlessness. The mobile phones are the best example of this - why cant people turn them off, or at least put them on silent? Most people remember to do this in the cinema, why not Church?

Catholic believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I think, therefore, we all - both clergy and laity - ought to behave accordingly around the Tabernacle and receiving communion.

If it is apparent that many people are not displaying due reverence around our Lord, then that is sending a subtle message and undermining Catholic belief.

My wife and I hope to start a family soon - if I am to pass on my Catholic faith, it would be useful if the behaviour of others did not undermine what I am to teach my kids about the faith. For example, If I teach the kids to genuflect towards the tabernacle, when entering and leaving their seat - but then someone just walks past it with no acknowledgement at all - that is sending a confusing, mixed message to the child.

the same people attending that ordinary form Mass will attend the latin mass if that’s all there is. babies will cry, people will seat late (unless you were also watching the doors they may have been standing in the back, looking for a seat, possibly at an usher’s direction).

Of course.

You cant turn a baby “off”, like you can a mobile phone!

I didn’t criticise babies or kids for making noise - that’s what they do! I did criticise parents for some of the behaviour they allow. If a child is unruly, it is better to remove them from the mass for a short while, until they have settled down, rather than let them play during the mass.

And yes, people will always be late - sometimes through no fault of their own. But they can enter the Church discretely, not to cause a distraction.

one question: in your parade of horrors, why do you selectively use the indirect form “a young woman was seen”

That was just what I typed, there was no specific thought or purpose behind it.

and then give a detailed description of her attire and figure?

I did not give a detailed description of either her attire or her figure. I mentioned one body part only, (her backside), and noted that her skirt barely covered it.

Of course people can wear whatever they like, but then dressing appropriately for the environment is a virtue. A skirt like than is perhaps more suited to a nightclub, than it is a sung mass.

Inappropriate attire is a general issue, I don’t suggest its only women, those were just the examples I had seen recently. Once a man wore low slung jeans, which meant that - during kneeling parts of the mass - we in the row behind were treated to a large part of his bare backside being exposed to us.

I much prefer the Blessed Sacrament to be exposed in Church, not the bare backsides of worshippers.

why were **you **paying so much attention to her?

I was sitting, looking straight ahead at the altar, waiting for the bell, as usual.

Several rows forward she entered the pew casually, directly in my line of sight. I originally noticed her for the complete lack of genuflection or bow on arriving, and general casual demeanor.

I figured she must be a visitor, but then I suddenly recognised her and her companion as the two people who had chatted and joked throughout mass, in the seat directly in front of me, a few weeks back. Because of this, I held my gaze a few seconds longer and then realised that, due to her attire, she could not have comfortably/safely genuflected, even if she had been inclined to!

I am not judging these people, or picking on them - I am sure they are lovely people - I just lament how casual our behaviour has become in Church and how it is often distracting to others in various ways - noise / behaviours etc.

 

[Daniel1Catholic]

Yes, No exceptions.