Does you love for the EF make you anti OF unintentionally?

[paperwight66]

Including our Holy Father who now only distributes the Blessed Sacrament to those who receive it on the tongue at his Masses.

Pax Christi

Here we go again.

Dan, search CA for references and quotes from the Pope’s latest book, ‘the Light of the World’. We have covered this so many times. In his book, he says that he has no problem with CITH, and has both received and given communion that way himself.

He explains that one reason why he only gives COTT kneeling to those who come before him is that people have been known (unbelievably) to have kept the Host given to them as a souvenir, and receiving COTT cuts out that risk, mostly.
He says it is also to underline the holiness of what is happening to those who are watching, including those watching the Mass on tv.

Do you really think that if he thought CITH was wrong, he would still allow it? At his public Masses, he could tell those concelebrating that they could not give CITH. But he doesn’t. Doesn’t that convince you that the Pope only administers COTT for the reasons he himself has given? And if you accept that he is telling the truth with those reasons, can’t you accept as true his words elsewhere in the book where he says he has no problem personally with CITH?

 

[ProVobis]

He explains that one reason why he only gives COTT kneeling to those who come before him is that people have been known (unbelievably) to have kept the Host given to them as a souvenir, and receiving COTT cuts out that risk, mostly.
He says it is also to underline the holiness of what is happening to those who are watching, including those watching the Mass on tv.

Something doesn’t add up here. If they’ve been known to keep the Host as a souvenir or whatever, then why does he still fully allow the possibility, regardless of who ministers it? Are you sure he hasn’t tried to at least make it more restrictive, per his reasons given?

 

[TimothyH]

Again, I have never said the OF is not valid- if that is what you mean by legitimacy.

Dude, you were the one with a list of requirements for a “Legit” OF Mass, not me.

You could have a perfectly legit OF mass with:

-All male servers
-No EMHCs
-Reception of Communion on the tongue, kneeling, and at an altar rail
-Celebrated Ad Orientem
-traditional liturgial music
-modestly dressed and silent (except for appropriate responses) congregation
-in Latin

-Tim-

 

[Melchior_1]

You could have a perfectly legit OF mass with:

-modestly dressed and silent (except for appropriate responses) congregation

Oh junk! That means all it takes is someone coming in late to Church wearing a shot with no collar to make the Mass not legit. Or someone with a cold. I hope those people are happy knowing that they ruined the entire Mass for the rest of us.

 

[Big_Feet]

Oh junk! That means all it takes is someone coming in late to Church wearing a shot with no collar to make the Mass not legit. Or someone with a cold. I hope those people are happy knowing that they ruined the entire Mass for the rest of us.

This makes me Laugh Out Loud!!

has anyone ever heard of just being glad they are there?? Well, I am…though I may remind him/her of the appropriateness of their dress and lateness for the next time.

 

[Warrenton]

Do you really think that if he thought CITH was wrong, he would still allow it?

Sure he’d still allow it. A pope must be realistic. He knows that it he prohibited it, it would lead to the same disgrace as altar girls, making up words at mass, letting people recite the words to the minor elevation and so on.

It does no good for a pontiff to issue repeated calls that are ignored.

The Pope must pick his battles wisely.

It’s for us who know better to thrash it out in the trenches.

 

[JReducation]

Sure he’d still allow it. A pope must be realistic. He knows that it he prohibited it, it would lead to the same disgrace as altar girls, making up words at mass, letting people recite the words to the minor elevation and so on.

It does no good for a pontiff to issue repeated calls that are ignored.

The Pope must pick his battles wisely.

It’s for us who know better to thrash it out in the trenches.

The Church would never make legal that which she believes is wrong. There is a difference between putting up with something, because it’s not worth getting into a fight over it and another thing to make it legal.

CITH and female servers are legal. Whether the law should remain in place or not is a whole other question. But that question has been beaten to death on the Internet. I recently had the opportunity to chat with a Cardinal who is in Rome. I didn’t go to Rome, he came home on vacation. I mentioned what people write into blogs and forums. He politely smiled and said something like, the problem with what people say on the Internet is that it’s usually the same people saying the same thing over and over again on different sites. It’s very hard to get a real number.

He said that when someone sends him something from the Internet, he focuses on the content rather than try to figure out how many people are saying it. If it’s worth dealing with, he does so and if not, he puts it aside. Content is more important than numbers.

This actually made sense to me. There are many threads and blogs about this subject. But the fact remains that people often make a claim that is not true. They claim that this is wrong when in fact, it’s legal. The Church does not legalize that which is wrong.

I believe that a better way to frame the question is this way. “We’ve tried this. Has it helped to improve the spiritual life of the Church?”

I think that’s a very legitimate question and it does not get sidetracked into the silly argument “Can the Church do this or not?” At the end of the day, the Church has the authority to change disciplines. The question is whether or not something that has been tried actually helps. This keeps us clear of arguing about the authority of the Church or the bishops in matters of discipline.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

Do you really think that if he thought CITH was wrong, he would still allow it?

If I’m not mistaken, the matter has been left for the bishops and pastors to decide. CITH is still not universally allowed.

 

[Warrenton]

The Church would never make legal that which she believes is wrong. There is a difference between putting up with something, because it’s not worth getting into a fight over it and another thing to make it legal.

I did not understand the question to be would the Church as a whole make legal something it deemed wrong, but rather whether the Pope (or any pope, at anytime) would allow something he thought was wrong to continue.

My answer is that popes will allow a lot if they think not acting is best for the Church.

Put another way, the nature of the pope’s office confers a lot of discretion.

This does not cause me to question either the holiness of the Church or its guidance by the Holy Ghost. I just happen to have a high degree of skepticism, and I do not believe that the Holy Ghost undertakes to protect individual men in the Church, including popes, from folly, mistakes, improvident decisions and errors (with a small “e”). Rather, the Holy Ghost directs the Church through history and protects her from formal heresy.

Many are not comfortable with that kind of outlook, but to me, it jibes with a rational universe and observed experience. I try to keep miracles to a minimum!

 

[Molotov]

I went to a Requiem Latin Mass yesterday for All Souls Day and it was beautiful and reverant as you might expect. The problem is that only 20+ people were there. This was a 5:30 pm Mass at a big parish.

I went to another parish about 10 miles away afterwards because they had Confession going on there. As it turns out they had a Novus Ordo Mass there at the same time which started at 6:30 I presume. It had 300-400 in attendance by my count. So fairly large. So that means the Catholics are coming out but just not to the EF.

I’m tired of Catholics not attending the Latin Mass. It seems like so many of them do not even give it consideration even when it is available. The congregation for the Latin Mass at my parish at 12:30 pm is always a fraction of the congregation that shows up for the 10:30 am OF

I’m 32 years old and for the first 30 years of my life, the Novus Ordo is all I ever knew existed. Once I discovered the EF early last year, I feel in love with it instantly and never went back. But I have sort of become anti-Novus Ordo in the process, which I know is not a good thing because Jesus is still present there. Although that might be the only thing that is keeping me from being such a lover of the EF that I end up becoming anti-OF. Still I know that misinterpretations of Vatican II especially when it comes to the NO Liturgy has caused many Catholics to fall out of Communion with the Church and the Pope of Rome. So knowing what I know now, I can’t help but be weary of the NO and how priests and laity act and behave.

If you have access to a proper EF Mass that attracts 20 faithful, count your blessings and praise God. Then get out there and invite a few more folks who are truly interested.

The TLM is not for everyone. You can’t argue someone into accepting it. Would you really want to be elbow-to-elbow with 1,000 people who loathe the existence of the EF?

Read through this thread AGAIN before answering.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Dude, you were the one with a list of requirements for a “Legit” OF Mass, not me.

-Tim-

Please read what I wrote again. “COULD” is the key word. My point isn’t that the items I listed are required for the OF…because they are not. My point is that there is nothing that makes them especially particular to the EF, and there are no Church rules or regulations which prohibit them from being part of the OF as well.

I hope that explains things better.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

I believe that a better way to frame the question is this way. “We’ve tried this. Has it helped to improve the spiritual life of the Church?”

I think that’s a very legitimate question and it does not get sidetracked into the silly argument “Can the Church do this or not?” At the end of the day, the Church has the authority to change disciplines. The question is whether or not something that has been tried actually helps. This keeps us clear of arguing about the authority of the Church or the bishops in matters of discipline.

Thank you for making my point more clearly than I seemed able to, Brother.

Pax Christi and God bless.

 

[TrueLight]

I did not understand the question to be would the Church as a whole make legal something it deemed wrong, but rather whether the Pope (or any pope, at anytime) would allow something he thought was wrong to continue.

My answer is that popes will allow a lot if they think not acting is best for the Church.

Put another way, the nature of the pope’s office confers a lot of discretion.

This does not cause me to question either the holiness of the Church or its guidance by the Holy Ghost. I just happen to have a high degree of skepticism, and I do not believe that the Holy Ghost undertakes to protect individual men in the Church, including popes, from folly, mistakes, improvident decisions and errors (with a small “e”). Rather, the Holy Ghost directs the Church through history and protects her from formal heresy.

Many are not comfortable with that kind of outlook, but to me, it jibes with a rational universe and observed experience. I try to keep miracles to a minimum!

I think you and I have a similar outlook.
I tend to be skeptical as well.

The good thing about this type of outlook is that our faith is not easily shaken when priests or religious that we hold in high esteem make mistakes.

And unless something id de fide, we realize that reforms may be in order and we don’t question the Holy Spirit abandoning his Church.

 

[choliks]

I was watching the local news the other night and there was a reel of the elevation during Mass. It was an interesting story so I checked for further details on the internet and due to the repeated mentions of ‘the Church’ I naturally assumed it was a Catholic Church.

It was the Church of England and one of their services…

I was thinking the whole Mass… not just a part of it.

 

[JReducation]

Thank you for making my point more clearly than I seemed able to, Brother.

Pax Christi and God bless.

I think you and I have a similar outlook.
I tend to be skeptical as well.

The good thing about this type of outlook is that our faith is not easily shaken when priests or religious that we hold in high esteem make mistakes.

And unless something id de fide, we realize that reforms may be in order and we don’t question the Holy Spirit abandoning his Church.

I would offer the example of great saints. There are four who come to mind for their allegience to the Church, specifically to the pope. They actually mention this in their writings and lived it in their lives.

St. Francis of Assisi
St. Teresa of Avila
St. Vincent de Paul
Bl. Teresa of Calcutta

They all used the same phrase, which I believe may have come from Augustine.

“I am a child of the Church.”

As long as the pope, the bishop or the superior did not command sin, they went along without thinking about it too much, because they were truly sons or daughters of the Church. They trusted that the pope, bishop or superior would figure it out with the help of grace. The wonderful thing about their lives is that they did not spend time on the things that we do. They spent their time doing three things:

1. Praying
2. Serving
3. Penance

I think that we make too many things important in our lives that at the end of the day are not going to make us saints. Sanctity is achieved through the heroic practice of virtue, detachment and trust in the Blessed Mother who will always lead us to her Son.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[markomalley]

ut what about those of us who just don’t like the OF because it feels so artificial and “showy”? All the fiddling with microphones and the endless talking.
.

All the fiddling with microphones

Where is "fiddling with microphones’ listed in the rubrics? It’s not.

endless talking

Just to clarify, are you referring to ‘endless talking’ that is actually in the Ordinary (or Proper for the day)? Or are you referring to ‘endless ad-libbing’?

I will agree that one fallacy that is perpetuated with the “versus populum” position in the OF is that the Mass appears to be about the celebrant – “Father Smith’s Mass” rather than the celebrant leading the people in common prayer before God (before somebody corrects me, I know this is clumsy wording, but I’m still working on my first cup of coffee). The temptation to make this into “ecclesiastical entertainment” is always present.

I, personally, think that this tendency could be easily corrected…if the celebrant would merely turn around and celebrate the Mass “ad orientem” — not all the time, just on occasion. Many of the gestures (for example, waving the consecrated host or the chalice around during the elevation) that many are addicted to would be utterly silly if the ad orientem position was used. Well, if it’s silly “ad orientem”, it is equally silly “versus populum.”

Not holding my breath, though.

 

[TheMc]

I will agree that one fallacy that is perpetuated with the “versus populum” position in the OF is that the Mass appears to be about the celebrant – “Father Smith’s Mass” rather than the celebrant leading the people in common prayer before God (before somebody corrects me, I know this is clumsy wording, but I’m still working on my first cup of coffee). The temptation to make this into “ecclesiastical entertainment” is always present.

You’re absolutely right. It doesn’t seem clumsy to me…

 

[Warrenton]

I think you and I have a similar outlook.
I tend to be skeptical as well.

The good thing about this type of outlook is that our faith is not easily shaken when priests or religious that we hold in high esteem make mistakes.

During the Western Schism, and the 60 years the papacy resided in Avignon, a strong case can be made that the highest levels of the Church consistently exercised questionable, if not outright poor judgement.

But the Church survived, and its work continued all during that period.

 

[auntpat45]

I have recently starting attending the Latin Mass due to my sister(that is all they now attend)… Took me a few times, but now I really look forward to it, Mantilla(chapel veil) and all. I can only fit in a weekday Mass during the lunch hour and although I do my Sunday obligation at my regular church, I find that I can’t wait until Wednesday’s Mass. Prefer it instead… Although I didn’t grow up with the Latin Mass, I was born when the changes were starting and there was still reverance, bell’s, patens, Communion on the tongue, communion rails and the tradition that is now lacking in some of our more “Kumbaya” Masses… I absolutely cannot stand all the disrepectful talking as soon as Mass is over, song is still playing… Not into hand holding during the Our Father. I would encourage all to try one out and not give up on the first time.(and there is a differnce in the High Mass and the Low Mass)… Although I do not know or speak Latin, it’s amazing how you can follow along with the Mass and know exactly when the Consecration is. Most have Mass booklets to follow along (although I do not recommend at first-too distracting)… Just watch and pray…

 

[Hadrianus]

So you love the OF conditionally?

Seems to me that someone who prefers the OF should accept all the options, all the vernaculars which are offered, all the music, and all the new church architecture. If you only like certain things about it and only in English, sorry, I don’t see any true love there. Just my opinion.

I never said that I loved the OF unconditionally. The rubrics are too general and there are so many variations that one can hardly speak of a rite in the scholarly sense. When the OF is said in such a way as to be in continuity with the Catholic liturgical tradition one can love it. What I did say was that the question of language which people fixate on seems to me to be a secondary point. What makes the EF superior is in the richer content of the ordinary of the mass. This is not to say that the OF does not have some good prefaces and even a rather good Eucharistic prayer (no III) but even when the rubrics are being followed so much depends upon the style of the celebrant.

Naturally, the great advantage of the EF is that it is rubrically very tight and like the Eastern rites comes from a long living tradition. The present Holy Father is clearly desirous of a reform of the OF which will bring it more in line with this tradition, but there has been so much upheaval in the past 45 years that a restoration of the sacred will take time and prudence.

The scholarly critiques of the OF are now so numerous and respectable that I don’t think anyone should now be required to pass a loyalty test for not finding the liturgical reform a winning success.