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

[GWright]

No problem. Glad you took my comments in the spirit they were intended.

Hi again,

No problem, I appreciate your point of view (and those of others) even if we might disagree.

You say (as I use to) that if Latin were used universally we could follow along in our Latin English missal - everyone would be praying in the same language. This is true, but if one is traveling and owns a N.O. missal one can still follow along. If one does not own a missal, the prayers can easily be printed off the internet. The only hitch would be the “responses”, the Gloria - Lord’s prayer etc…but certainly one could pray these quietly in English while others prayed in their vernacular.

But how is accepting hitches, or printing pages off the internet (which might not always be possible), “better” than just going in to the same old familiar mass, with no fuss or internet searches required?

I don’t discount the advantage of having the universal language mass…and this is an excellent reason for a wider understanding, acceptance and use of the EF - but as I say, I’ve come to regard this particular argument as not being very strong.

Fair enough.

Yes we know it works…But not as well as we might want to think and not necessarily for the reasons we might think.
I believe that the N.O. is something of a “flash point” for the wider issue of what has gone on since the close of Vatican II. Those who believe the return of the Latin mass will fix things are looking at a symptom and not the cause of the problem.

That’s an interesting point and one which I have much sympathy with.

I agree that the state of the liturgy is a symptom, rather than a source.

I don’t think the Latin mass is some miracle cure, for all the ills of the Church. I think its one step - albeit imo an important one - to rebuilding the Church.

You are welcome.

Such a statement is incorrect since the indult - duly and correctly given by the Church herself, (regardless of the reasons) - means there is more than one “proper way” to receive communion (where the indult applies). Such incorrect statements do not promote unity or openness to the wider use of the EF nor do they promote a more reverent celebration of the OF.

(First up - please note that, for as long as indults are around, then of course people can choose to use them if they wish. I, in no way, personally criticise, sneer at, or think lesser in any way people who do choose to receive in the hand. I dislike the practice, but accept others feel differently and I respect their opinion)

It is true that the indults give permission for (ie concede to) communion in the hand.

Accordingly yes it is “above board”. But it is an option, not a norm. Further, Bishops Conferences cannot legitimately offer this option unless they have permission, via an Indult, to deviate from the norm. The norm of the Church is to receive on the tongue, kneeling. (If the Bishops were not deviating from the norm, they wouldn’t need an indult to authorise it.)

In this video below, Cardinal Arinze discusses a document his Vatican dept produced and which was authorised by Pope Benedict.

In it, referencing the document, he variously refers to kneeling / on the tongue (discussed separately) as “the normal for the latin rite” and “preferred” etc.

He acknowledges the possible option to stand (though says the person should bow or genuflect first), and to receive in the hand, but also the fact that the Bishops Conference must apply for permission to deviate from the norm in these ways.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

Pope Benedict discouraged communion in the hand throughout his pontificate.

You are right that the liturgy is not a main problem for the Church: a more pressing and serious problem is that practices born of disobedience are accepted and that the Pope can now only seem to “discourage” or “recommend” things, as opposed to definitely and authoritatively state what is to be done, or not done.

Sorry if the above sounds harsh…but I felt it needed saying.

No problem, fella, I thought you were* robust*, not harsh!

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss with me and completely respect your right to have an opinion and robustly defend it.

Peace
James

Cheers!
Graham

 

[bben15]

If we abolished the Novus Ordo Mass, the Extraordinary Form would become the Ordinary Form.

 

[jwinch2]

Where’s the poll option for make the EF available for all who want it and translate the Anglican Use liturgy into other languages, and make it the OF?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Where’s the poll option for make the EF available for all who want it and translate the Anglican Use liturgy into other languages, and make it the OF?

Oh boy!

 

[jwinch2]

Oh boy!

Hey, it satisfies the goals of liturgical reform in Vatican II (Some or all of the Mass in the vernacular, more Scripture readings, more participation from the laity) but also does so in continuity with Tradition and prevents things like (EMHC’s, female altar servers, non-instituted lectors, CITH, facing away from the tabernacle, etc.).

Its a win win, as they say.

 

[Usige]

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!

Bless you, Father. That is really what I would pray to see in the future; reform of the OF. I’ve always thought that moving from the EF to OF and back again shouldn’t be a “cultural shock”. I love knowing that when I go to the mass in the extraordinary form that it will essentially be the same regardless of the parish I’m in. I just wish the same type of consistency was to be expected when attending in the ordinary form.

 

[L_Marshall]

I personally think that both forms should be able to coexist, without any preference. In my opinion, it depends on what the individual thinks is most spiritually nourishing to them.

Whether the individual finds the most inspiration from the Extraordinary Form, or from a reverent celebration of the Ordinary form, I think the sacramental effect is the same.

I’m also for the re-establishment of smaller Rites which have since been almost entirely abandoned (Dominica, Carthusian, Mozarabic, Galician, Celtic, et c.).

 

[Pulvis]

I voted co-exist. Both can, and do, have value. Down here in South Carolina I just wish we actually had an opportunity for attending the EF. At last check there are three or four Parishes in the Diocese( entire state) that offer it. And only one Parish offers every Sunday. I have studied and compared both forms side by side. I cannot see a clear organic development from the 1962 Missal approved by H.H. +Pope John XXIII and the Missal Promulgated by H.H. +Pope Paul VI. Even the English translations of the Latin from the 1962 Missal is much richer in theology than that which is found in the Pauline Missal.
I wonder…If the EF were done in the vernacular, with the Faithful responding to the Server Parts, would this not be a full participation, rich liturgy? Would this not achieve most of what was suggested by Sacrosanctum Concillium? Because i find very little of S.C. in the resultant missal of H.H.+Pope Paul VI.

 

[GWright]

This is, quite simply put, flawed logic. ** It really strikes me as silly to cite “dirty” hands as if our mouths are objectively cleaner**

The argument in the link isn’t drawing a distinction between our hands and our mouths, rather it is drawing a distinction between the consecrated hands of an ordained priest, and the non-consecrated hands of a lay man or woman.

If you reject that distinction, you are essentially rubbishing the whole concept of an ordained priesthood, which is distinct from the lay people.

]… 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.

Very often we * are * unfit to receive the Eucharist, through mortal sin.

Hence the recommendation for regular confession (and the official advice not to receive communion, if you have committed mortal sin and not yet been to confession).

 

[GWright]

So only 0.1% of those receiving Communion at that Mass recieved it in a proper fashion?

I didn’t calculate the exact percentage, Brendan.

When someone says “99.9%” they mean “the vast majority”. its a ‘figure of speech’.

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?

No I am not exaggerating. Throughout my whole life it has been typical, at any given mass, for the vast majority of people to receive communion in the Indult fashion.

I didn’t comment on the size of the Church (?) at all (?).

 

[YoungTradCath]

I voted co-exist. Both can, and do, have value. Down here in South Carolina I just wish we actually had an opportunity for attending the EF. At last check there are three or four Parishes in the Diocese( entire state) that offer it. And only one Parish offers every Sunday. I have studied and compared both forms side by side. I cannot see a clear organic development from the 1962 Missal approved by H.H. +Pope John XXIII and the Missal Promulgated by H.H. +Pope Paul VI. Even the English translations of the Latin from the 1962 Missal is much richer in theology than that which is found in the Pauline Missal.
I wonder…If the EF were done in the vernacular, with the Faithful responding to the Server Parts, would this not be a full participation, rich liturgy? Would this not achieve most of what was suggested by Sacrosanctum Concillium? Because i find very little of S.C. in the resultant missal of H.H.+Pope Paul VI.

Ah, Fr CS is great!

 

[YoungTradCath]

Hey, it satisfies the goals of liturgical reform in Vatican II (Some -]or all/-] of the Mass in the vernacular, more Scripture readings, more participation from the laity) but also does so in continuity with Tradition and prevents things like (EMHC’s, female altar servers, non-instituted lectors, CITH, facing away from the tabernacle, etc.).

Its a win win, as they say.

Indeed, that would be interesting. Although, I am fully Roman in my ethos. Something about a well-celebrated Roman Rite Mass, in either Form, is palpably different than the more “English” Anglican Use (kind of redundant I suppose).

 

[porthos11]

I attend the EF almost exclusively these days but I would probably consider the ideal to be a hybrid Mass of the two current Uses. I do not find the current two-Use situation (with their different Calendars) a proper situation.

I would probably like to see the following in single Use, and the both the 1962 and 2002 Roman Missals suppressed:

• Harmonize the Calendar, incorporate updated Saints and abolish “Ordinary Time” numbering; restore to Sundays after Epiphany and Sundays after Pentecost
• Restore the Asperges and Vidi Aquam to the beginning of the Mass.
• Restore the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, and prayers following (Aufer a nobis, etc.)
• Reduce to a single Confiteor, but as currently recited in the 1962 Missal.
• Retain the three-year Sunday Lectionary, modified accordingly to fit the new Calendar.
• Retain the two-year weekday Lectionary, modified accordingly to fit the new Calendar.
• Eliminate Responsorial Psalms, use Graduals and tracts instead.
• Retain the Prayers of the Faithful, but codify them in the Missal (cf. Book of Divine Worship, Byzantine Divine Liturgy); forbid composition of new ones.
• Restore the Offertory prayers to their 1962 versions and translate accordingly.
• Incorporate prefaces from the 1962 and 2002 Missals and the Gallican Use
• Eliminate all other Eucharistic Prayers except for the Roman Canon.
• Restore the silent Canon, but pronounce the Words of Consecration, Nobis quoque peccatoribus and final Doxology audibly.
• Retain the Memorial Acclamation if desired.
• Retain the Pater Noster and embolism as they are in the 2002 Missal. Keep the Lord’s Prayer a common (not presidential) prayer. Priest should keep hands together.
• Reduce to one Domine non sum dignus, common between priest and people
• Eliminate the common “sign of peace”; keep it between clerics; for the people, the Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum should suffice.
• Retain V. Corpus Christi R. Amen during Communion
• Restore Communion kneeling at a rail.
• Suppression of the Last Gospel.

Other stuff I’d like to see is not due to anything inherent to either Use, but the basics: use of Propers, banning of EMHC’s, use of birettas and maniples, banning of altar girls, mandatory use of ad orientem.

However, I can still see the two Uses coexist, but I would really want the Calendar situation rectified.

 

[GWright]

I’m afraid this is not true…

You spiltting hairs, godisgood77 - we are discussing the advent of communion in the hand in the modern era, and how it came to be a widespread practice in the Church. Its nothing to do with St Cyril of Jerusalem, I can assure you!

You go on to say:

Communion on the tongue became the norm in the Middle Ages.

Showing that there is no continuity between your St Cyril example, and the practice of today - which, as per my linked info, was started quite recently, via disobedience from the norm.

(You didn’t provide a linked source for any of your info either).

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.

No, this is wrong.

If there was “no difference”, then each country would not need an special indult (a permission or concession) from the Vatican, before they could legitimately offer the “in hand” option. (as per the dates + link I posted earlier, showing when various countries got their indult granted)

If there was “no difference”, then Pope Benedict and various Bishops would not discourage taking communion in the hand.

Pope Benedict discourages communion in the hand

(AGI) – Vatican City, 22 May – Benedict XVI gave communion this evening to the faithful who knelt in front of him, following the tradition, that is, not giving the consecrated particles into the hands but putting them directly into the mouth. Both ways are allowed in the present liturgical norms but this way underlines more greatly the meaning of the Eucharist as the renewed sacrifice of Jesus, while the other is more in line with the protestant conception which emphasises more the dimension of the meal

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.co.uk/2008/05/pope-benedict-discourages-communion-in.html

If there was “no difference” then Cardinal Arinze would not be able to quote recent Vatican documents, which describe kneeling / on the tongue as being the “normal” and “preferred” practice etc (as per the video clip I posted earlier).

What my school should have taught, to be more accurate, is: “You are allowed to receive communion in either way, but the normal way is to kneel and receive on the tongue. Accordingly, this is what the Church prefers”.

And then given the various reasons why the Church prefers what it does.

Ultimately at present, yes, both ways are currently legitimate, (assuming an indult has been granted for the territory), but there is only one norm.

I do not criticise or resent people for making either choice; it is their right as per current arrangements and I respect this. But it is not right to say there is “no difference”.

 

[jwinch2]

The argument in the link isn’t drawing a distinction between our hands and our mouths, rather it is drawing a distinction between the consecrated hands of an ordained priest, and the non-consecrated hands of a lay man or woman.

I heard from a fellow parishioner that Bishop Morlino of Madison, WI had to issue a pastoral letter informing people that they needed to wash their hands prior to communion and informing them that is not appropriate to have profanity written on them in pen when they go up to receive our Blessed Lord. I haven’t bothered to track that down to see if it is true or not, mostly because I’m afraid it is.

 

[jwinch2]

Indeed, that would be interesting. Although, I am fully Roman in my ethos. Something about a well-celebrated Roman Rite Mass, in either Form, is palpably different than the more “English” Anglican Use (kind of redundant I suppose).

Interesting, how so?

Other than the music, which can easily be adapted to local preference, or simply replaced with chant, and the language which would obviously change per the local norm, I don’t see much in here that is specifically English, and not reflective of Roman Catholicism. youtube.com/watch?v=Q251EywW__M

 

[godisgood77]

You spiltting hairs, godisgood77 - we are discussing the advent of communion in the hand in the modern era, and how it came to be a widespread practice in the Church. Its nothing to do with St Cyril of Jerusalem, I can assure you!

I humbly disagree again G… I’m not splitting hairs, quite the contrary actually. I’m showing that Church has employed differing norms at during different periods. It is a living Church with living traditions. At a macro level, receiving on the hand or on the tongue have both been accepted and promoted at different times. I would say it’s rather short sighted to talk about receiving in the hand as some modern phenomenon that came about through dissent… It can clearly be argued (and validly) that receiving on the hand is a traditional practice within the Church going back to antiquity and was only abandoned for a short while. The ancient tradition was simply brought back to practice.

Relative to providing a source, if you look back to my post, I did provide a source for the St Cyril teaching. You can reference History of the Catholic Church from the Apostolic Age to the Third Millennium by James Hitchcock for the how the norms of receiving Communion have morphed over time. When I return to my home office, I’ll cite this part more specifically.

I appreciate the notes on the bishops that have expressed a preference for one style of receiving over another. I sure you will agree that anyone could find an equal number of references to bishops stating an opinion to the contrary. When stylistic preferences become laws, our Church becomes susceptible to legalism or regulating small
“t” traditions to the nth degree…which clearly takes focus from the sacrament of the Eucharist.

 

[otjm]

There is only one “proper” way to receive communion - receiving on the tongue, while kneeling.

Receiving in the hand is an “indult”, widespread in Western nations.

(I presume the two ways you mention are on tongue, and on hand? Sorry If I misunderstood).

Communion was received in both ways up until somewhere between 1000 AD and 1200 AD when the Church went to Communion on the tongue; and although in very limited circumstances, was again allowed in the hand after 1500 AD.

To say that is not legitimate, or that it is “improper” is to say the Church has allowed something improper about the Eucharist, a charge that one should be extremely cautious in making. Whether or not it is an indult has nothing to do with how proper it is.

 

[Saints_Alive]

I voted “Yes, but allow for the OF in certain circumstances.”

The certain circumstances being to allow all priests who are already ordained to pray the OF if they wish. All future priests would be required to pray the TLM (EF).

In other words, the OF would be phased out slowly over time and those current priests who prefer it would not be forced to change forms.

Probably not going to happen, but if Rome decided to make the TLM the norm again, that’s how it might be done.

 

[sw85]

I voted “It should be encouraged as gold standard, but keep both,” though this doesn’t really describe my ideal.

I think we tend to forget that the EF was generally seen as having structural problems and probably would’ve been reformed at some point anyway, even in a hypothetical, counterfactual world-without-Vatican-II. So even if, somehow, Card. Ranjith become Pope Pius the Fifth the Second next week and suppressed the OF, we’d probably see widespread dissatisfaction with it again before long, and clamors for reform.

I tend to think the split we have today is not ideal as a long-term solution. Brother JR says sometimes that it really is only a stopgap, that the intention is to let the OF grow alongside the EF organically with an eye toward merging the two forms at some point down the road. I think that’d be the ideal, with the final product, ideally, more closely resembling the EF than the OF as we experience it today (think more of the OFs as they’re celebrated in St. Peter’s!).

My main concern is that the split will result in ghettoization. I don’t have any information or experience in this regard, though, so I dunno.