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

[PRmerger]

An indult is essentially permission to “do it wrong”.

Could you cite your source, please?

Hi PRmerger,

Glad to:

An indult in Catholic canon law is a permission, or privilege, granted by the competent church authority – the Holy See or the diocesan bishop, as the case may be – for an exception from a particular norm of church law in an individual case

GWright: are you really going to argue that this means permission to "do it wrong’?

That is: communion in the mouth = right
Communion in the hand = wrong, but permissible?

Because, if that’s really your argument that it’s WRONG, then you are, well, proclaiming here on this CAFs thread that you believe the Tridentine Mass to be WRONG.

From your same source:
The best-known indult among lay Catholics in recent times was the one granted by Pope John Paul II in 1984 authorising the world’s bishops to permit celebrations of the Tridentine Mass liturgy in their dioceses.

So your own argument proclaims that the EF, as it received an indult, was WRONG but permitted?

 

[PRmerger]

An indult is essentially permission to “do it wrong”.

Could you cite your source, please?

Hi PRmerger,

Glad to:

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

GWright: are you really going to argue that this means permission to "do it wrong’?

That is: communion in the mouth = right
Communion in the hand = wrong, but permissible?

Because, if that’s really your argument that it’s WRONG, then you are, well, proclaiming here on this CAFs thread that you believe the Tridentine Mass to be WRONG.

The best-known indult among lay Catholics in recent times was the one granted by Pope John Paul II in 1984 authorising the world’s bishops to permit celebrations of the Tridentine Mass liturgy in their dioceses. source

 

[ProVobis]

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

Like in Asia and Africa, where it’s reportedly flourishing?

 

[YoungTradCath]

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.

Ghettoization is inevitable.

 

[andrewstx]

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!

I have no grind against the Latin Language, but since having a bad stroke eight years ago I have lost the Latin that I had. I am also incapable of kneeling rail or not and genuflecting.

The bad/dirty looks I get from those who think everyone has the same capabilities are terrible. On the toungue I prefer, but I cannot get up the steps to the rail. and I certainly could never kneel.

Come to think of it in the Mass had been entirely in silent Latin I likely would not have converted from Anglican.

 

[jwinch2]

Mass of Christian Burial: Ecclesial crisis on display
By Louie Verrecchio

catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2548

I have read many times here on CAF, discussions on how the OF of the Mass changed the prayers in the EF of the Mass, and how that was a big deal, etc. When I first read such claims, I didn’t really give it much thought as I was quite comfortable where I was. Since that time, I have spent a fair amount of effort looking at the differences in the text between the two forms and have come to understand what people were referring to. Figuring out that there are indeed major differences is easy. What is less so, is determining how big of a deal that is for the Church. However, this article, which only came out a couple of months ago, really drove the point home to me and highlighted why this actually is a big deal.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR NOTICE

First:

This thread is getting out of hand. You may only say what the Holy Father says. If you say anything contrary to what any of the popes have said about the mass in any of its forms, you will be banned.

TC forum exists to support what the Holy See teaches, not what people want to see the Church be.

Second:

DO NOT use TC Forum for gossip. Talking about who does what at mass and who wears what is gossip. It has nothing to do with the Church’s tradition and customs. Please read what Pope Francis said very recently about gossip and about the importance of keeping one’s mouth shut rather than talk about other people.

Again, if you do not want to follow what the pope says or does, do not post on this forum. There are many other forums on the internet where you can spread your venom, your gossip and misinformation.

Keep TC Forum pure. It is for the discussion ONLY of Catholic traditions and customs, not of personal impressions or desires. It is an educational forum.

 

[Brendan_64]

I didn’t calculate the exact percentage, Brendan.
When someone says “99.9%” they mean “the vast majority”. its a ‘figure of speech’.

It’s a basic percentage, which means 1 in 1000.

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

Indirectly you did. If only 1 person out of a congregation received Communion correctly and 99.9% didn’t, then it follows that that person would be 1 out of 1000 people present in the church.

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.

Recieving Communion in the had IS a correct way of receiving Communion, as is receiving communion while standing. You may not like it, but what you like or don’t like doesn’t determine what is or isn’t correct. The Church permits it, therefore it is entirely acceptable and absolutely correct. If it was an incorrect way to receive Communion, the Church would not permit it.

 

[Saints_Alive]

Like in Asia and Africa, where it’s reportedly flourishing?

If it’s bearing the fruit of conversions, let them carry on.

 

[Basilios]

The Church permits it, therefore it is entirely acceptable and absolutely correct. If it was an incorrect way to receive Communion, the Church would not permit it.

Calling it something the ‘Church’ allows is a bit misleading, since it’s not something that ‘the Church’ has ever done traditionally (spare me St Cyril please, that’s already been debunked). CITH is not something that has been done always, everywhere by everyone in the Latin Church for centuries and centuries. COTT is what the Church teaches. CITH is what the Pope allowed 40 years ago and what Bishops continue to allow now.

In any case, it is possible to have something permitted that is bad. Disciplinary changes, indults, all these things are not anywhere near close to infallible. It’s not incorrect legally speaking. It is incorrect morally speaking. But don’t take my word for it - even the indult itself tells people that it’s allowed if sacrilege can be avoided. It turns out that it’s never avoided. There are videos floating around doing experiments with hosts on hands where every single time bits and pieces are left behind. Now that’s where the Holy Ghost protected us in this crisis of CITH - posterity will show that it was allowed in circumstances that would almost never happen and thus in practice it should never happen. Unfortunately the innovators and super-ecumenists and Aquarius-age types will never have the humility to admit that CTT has been the universal norm no exceptions for centuries for a very good reason: to protect Our Lord, to promote reverence, and to recognize that this is God and we are but small humans receiving a gift not taking something to handle as if it is our’s to handle. You go from Priests with consecrated hands barely touching the host (thumb and forefinger only) to everybody in the parish taking Jesus in their hands and leaving crumbs everywhere so that people can step on Him. Gotta be something wrong here.

 

[Brendan]

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?

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.

The point was, the person is not coversant in Latin, but that does not mean that the poster does not understand what is being said.

There is a difference between knowing that “Et cum spiritu tuo” means “And with your spirit” or recite the Pater Noster, and being able to converse in Latin about last weeks episode of Game of Thrones.

The advantage of using Latin is that each Catholic only has to learn the Mass in one other language to be able to fully participate in the Mass everywhere.

When I used to travel globally, I’d email the Chancellory office of the diocese I was going to and find out where they had a Latin Mass ( generally the OF in Latin)

With that, I was able to pray along side all my fellow Catholics no matter where I was, Germany, France, Brazil, Korean, Japan, Mexico, etc…

To do the same thing at a vernacular Mass, I would have to try and memorize the Mass in at least a dozen languages.

Either that, or quietly mumble the responses in English.

That is why Vatican II noted that the faithful SHOULD know all the Mass responses in Latin, and Pope Benedict required that all large, multicultural Masses be said in Latin.

 

[thomas_jd]

I attend many, many Masses at different churches each year in the Archdiocese of Chicago.The ordinary form is the prefered rite for most of the priests. Some pastors offer the extraordinary form on a rare occasion.There are over three hundred Churches that utilize the O.F. rather than the few that offer the E.F. If memory serves me right that number is less than ten.
There are many reasons that the E.F. is not the prefered rite.I think the fact that most priests today do not speak Latin as it is no longer a requirement of the seminaries is the number 1.
I personally encourage the O.F. rite ad-orientum in the venacular, this combines the Sacred and reverant with the mother tongue.

 

[curlycool89]

I didn’t read through, but I wonder if anyone noticed the paradoxical nature of the question.

“Do you want the EF to be the normative Form of the Mass in the Latin Church?”

As a matter of basic logic, what is extraordinary cannot be normative, because by definition it is “out of the ordinary”, and you cannot base norms on what is not ordinary.

 

[Lucky7]

I didn’t read through, but I wonder if anyone noticed the paradoxical nature of the question.

“Do you want the EF to be the normative Form of the Mass in the Latin Church?”

As a matter of basic logic, what is extraordinary cannot be normative, because by definition it is “out of the ordinary”, and you cannot base norms on what is not ordinary.

LOL…good point.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I didn’t read through, but I wonder if anyone noticed the paradoxical nature of the question.

“Do you want the EF to be the normative Form of the Mass in the Latin Church?”

As a matter of basic logic, what is extraordinary cannot be normative, because by definition it is “out of the ordinary”, and you cannot base norms on what is not ordinary.

I think this is at best reading a bit too far in to the question. Clearly, the Pope does have the authority to make and un-make things ordinary and extraordinary. (BXVI did so with SP.) Enjoy the paradox, I think this is a bit absurd on the practical level.

 

[Brendan_64]

It’s not incorrect legally speaking. It is incorrect morally speaking.

So receiving in the hand is immoral now? A sinful thing to do? So the Church, by permitting it, is allowing immorality in the Mass? Allowing sin as part of the service?

Receiving in the hand is not immoral. If it was immoral the Church would not permit it. Maintaining that recieving Communion in the hand is quite ludicrous, and is insulting to the vast majority of Catholics and the clergy.

I’ve never actually attended a Latin Mass in my life. There isn’t any locally (apart from an SSPX church, and I simply would never go there) but a church 20 miles away has one and I and was thinking that I might go on an occasion. But to be honest, some of the comments I’ve read on here have quite frankly put me off attending it.

If a Latin Mass is a place where the congregation would be judging me on whether I genuflect on entering or leaving the pew, whether I’m dressed appropriately, and now even have people judge as immoral the way i would receive Communion (and I would receive in the hand if I attended a Latin Mass, as is my right under Canon law) then I will give it a miss and be happy to attend the OF form in my local parish where the congregation isn’t concerned with such things to the extent that they tut at people not complying with what they view as appropriate.

 

[jwinch2]

I didn’t read through, but I wonder if anyone noticed the paradoxical nature of the question.

“Do you want the EF to be the normative Form of the Mass in the Latin Church?”

As a matter of basic logic, what is extraordinary cannot be normative, because by definition it is “out of the ordinary”, and you cannot base norms on what is not ordinary.

eyeofthetiber.com/2013/02/10/extraordinary-mass-should-not-be-the-norm-extraordinary-minister-of-holy-communion-reporting/

 

[Basilios]

I didn’t read through, but I wonder if anyone noticed the paradoxical nature of the question.

“Do you want the EF to be the normative Form of the Mass in the Latin Church?”

As a matter of basic logic, what is extraordinary cannot be normative, because by definition it is “out of the ordinary”, and you cannot base norms on what is not ordinary.

…No…

 

[Basilios]

So receiving in the hand is immoral now?

Objectively sacrilege I would say. Subjectively, it is up to the individual.

Receiving in the hand is not immoral. If it was immoral the Church would not permit it. Maintaining that recieving Communion in the hand is quite ludicrous, and is insulting to the vast majority of Catholics and the clergy.

Your opinion. I’d rather insult clergy and laity than insult God Almighty be treating Him like a cookie.

I’ve never actually attended a Latin Mass in my life. There isn’t any locally (apart from an SSPX church, and I simply would never go there) but a church 20 miles away has one and I and was thinking that I might go on an occasion. But to be honest, some of the comments I’ve read on here have quite frankly put me off attending it.

If a Latin Mass is a place where the congregation would be judging me on whether I genuflect on entering or leaving the pew, whether I’m dressed appropriately, and now even have people judge as immoral the way i would receive Communion (and I would receive in the hand if I attended a Latin Mass, as is my right under Canon law) then I will give it a miss and be happy to attend the OF form in my local parish where the congregation isn’t concerned with such things to the extent that they tut at people not complying with what they view as appropriate.

Well, that’s up to you. We’re discussing things here that are obviously going to be a bit heated. We’re discussing things here from an objective standpoint as adults and those mature in the faith. All I can say is that it’s not very mature to play the guilt card and say “well because of you guys I won’t do xyz!”. What you do is up to you; not me or anybody else. I sincerely hope you attend the TLM but I can only say that you will find sinners there like anywhere.

Also, you are not allowed to receive CITH at a TLM. Ask the priest beforehand, if he knows what he is talking about, he’ll tell you the same thing.

God Bless.

 

[Brendan_64]

Objectively sacrilege I would say. Subjectively, it is up to the individual.

Your opinion. I’d rather insult clergy and laity than insult God Almighty be treating Him like a cookie.

No, it is not my opinion. It is not sacrilege to receive Communion on the hand. It is a manner of receiving permitted by the Church. Are you maintaining that the Church is not in the business of permitting sacrilege as part of the liturgy of the Mass?

It is not immoral to receive Communion on the hand. It is absolutely not a sin. This is not simply my opinion, that is the teaching of our Church.

To maintain that it is immoral (and therefore sinful) to receive Communion in the hand is a heretical position which is contrary to the teaching of our Church.

And as for attending a Latin Mass, if the congregation is made up predominantly of people who pay more attention to whether someone attending follows various rules and regulations correctly, than accepting those attending as attending in a spirit of Christian fellowship, then I will give it a miss thank you.