Extraordinary vs Ordinary

[Ed_Goulet]

At 68 I obviously grew up with the TLM, and I never really understood back then why it was replaced by the Novus Ordo. At the parish in which I grew up the pastor was an older Irish priest who flatly refused to discontinue the Latin Mass, and threatened to retire if he were forced to do so. He was a retired OMI provincial, so he had a bit of leeway there. The bishops of our diocese always allowed him to do as he wished; but finally one bishop forced him into dropping the Latin Mass entirely, so he retired. And he was justin his early 80s when that happened.

I never thought about arguing the matter even though I greatly missed the Latin Mass. The closest thing I found to the traditional Mass was at an Old Catholic parish I found; and it turned out that the pastor was an old college buddy of mine. What they celebrated was the Tridentine Mass but in English. And the priest celebrated with his back to the congregation, as with the TLM. I was immediately hooked, and after having spoke to my current pastor at the time, stayed with this Old Catholic bunch for a number of years: even being ordained through Minor Orders once my priest-friend became our bishop. I never had a clue about the problem of schism involved, and my former pastor had no problem with my making the move to the Old Catholics. In retrospect I have to wonder sometimes, “What was he thinking?”. But my Old Catholic bishop had a great love for the Eastern Rite and decided to take our parish in that direction. At that I left and returned to Catholic Church where I belonged. My friend has now been a Greek Orthodox priest for more than 25 years. One thing I’ve often wondered is why some priests and bishops have been so violently opposed to the use of the Latin Mass. A certain priest in our diocese who became vocations director for the diocese let it be known that anyone who considered themselves “traditionalist” need not approach him for possible admission to seminary training and formation. What a shame.

Now over 40 years later, the Latin Mass is alive and well in West Texas. Fr. Mark Woodruff at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church in Odessa celebrates the Latin Mass every Tuesday morning at 6:30 and on the fourth Sunday of the month at 2 PM. This is the 6th or 7th month of having the Latin Mass at St. Elizabeth’s and I’ve been a regular all along. And we get a sizeable turnout from Midland and Odessa; and much to my surprise we had a family from Lubbock attend the last Mass. The Diocese of San Angelo now has a new bishop, The Most Rev. Michael J. Sis, who was consecrated a week or so ago. He will be in Odessa for the 25th Anniversary celebration of Fr. Santiago Udayar, pastor of St. Mary’s in a couple of weeks. I highly suspect that Fr. Mark will approach the bishop with an invitation to one of the upcoming Latin Masses. I also need to mention that there’s a sizeable SSPX parish in Midland, and a number of their members are also attending Fr. Mark’s fourth-Sunday Mass. They’re only able to have Mass once a month with an SSPX priest from El Paso. I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be some changes coming for that parish as well.

 

[Cojuanco]

The reason with the stigma is that for many people of a certain generation, the Extraordinary Form was to them associated with the SSPX, who are of course, canonically irregular. Those directing vocations might have perceived that someone who took an interest in the Latin Mass might be unduly sympathetic to excommunicates and those who defied the authority of the Pope. And if we are honest, there were and are still people who are thus unduly sympathetic to their viewpoints.

So the reason was essentially the stereotype of the lover of the EF as quasi-schismatic and holding a defective ecclesiology. Luckily, to a large extent Pope Emeritus Benedict has worked to shatter that wrong perception, to the benefit of the faithful.

Just a side note, SSPX does not have parishes so to speak. They have chapels, yes, but not even they claim to have parishes, because those are only legally erectable by a diocesan bishop or equivalent territorial ordinary.

 

[otjm]

Communion under both species is not a requirement and not something that the laity are “entitled” to. If it’s offered, it’s offered, otherwise it isn’t necessary.

That avoids the question. The Church has clearly seen fit to allow reception under both species, and encourages it. If you don’t want to receive under both, that is just hunkey dorey. Your choice is also essentially irrelevant to those who wish to avail themselves to what the Church calls a “fuller sign”.

 

[otjm]

Bingo.

People attacked a teen on here for repeating what the Church had practiced for over a 1000 years, and who himself is personally dealing with a complex situation in order to become Catholic and discern a vocation.
All because he went against the status quo.

And I will echo what he said: many priests use EMHC in a way to implement a false notion of lay participation.

There, I said it.

So, you have done a survey? And are going to publish the results?

No?

So you were told this by others, who did surveys?

No? They didn’t do surveys, they just had opinions?

The essence of what you and the 15 year old non-Catholic poster have said is that the bishops of the United States either have no control whatsoever over their individual diocese, or, perhaps better, each bishop, as chief liturgist of their diocese in matter which Rome has seen fit to give them jurisdiction, have exercised that jurisdiction in a way you do not like; so you have in turn impugned the motives of the priests you have seen using EMHCs.

Or what?

 

[felsguy]

Bingo.

People attacked a teen on here for repeating what the Church had practiced for over a 1000 years, and who himself is personally dealing with a complex situation in order to become Catholic and discern a vocation.
All because he went against the status quo.

Perhaps it was a bit of a “straw that broke the camel’s back” reaction to one more in a series of dozens of similar statements over a period of many months on a wide variety of topics delivered in this same ex cathedra tone from a youthful poster with much enthusiam, very little experience, and no formal training.

Perhaps

 

[GangGreen]

That avoids the question. The Church has clearly seen fit to allow reception under both species, and encourages it. If you don’t want to receive under both, that is just hunkey dorey. Your choice is also essentially irrelevant to those who wish to avail themselves to what the Church calls a “fuller sign”.

The Church encourages it “when appropriate.” If there is only one priest available to distribute Communion, it can mean that it is not appropriate to do so. Using the EMHC is not a necessary action as the Eucharist can be distributed under one species.

In the same sense, one should never feel that they have been slighted or deserve to receive Communion in both species. If one were ever to believe that they MUST receive in both forms to get the complete Eucharist, then that’s heresy. It’s up to the priests whether it’s offered under both species and when it’s appropriate. I personally only rarely ever see it offered both ways (and I mean in the OF).

 

[otjm]

The Church encourages it “when appropriate.” If there is only one priest available to distribute Communion, it can mean that it is not appropriate to do so. Using the EMHC is not a necessary action as the Eucharist can be distributed under one species.

Please back that up with a statement from the Church. There isn’t one, and it is not consonant with the mind of the Church.

In the same sense, one should never feel that they have been slighted or deserve to receive Communion in both species. If one were ever to believe that they MUST receive in both forms to get the complete Eucharist, then that’s heresy. It’s up to the priests whether it’s offered under both species and when it’s appropriate. I personally only rarely ever see it offered both ways (and I mean in the OF).

Really - you and I both know this is not the issue at hand.

You don’t like EMHCs and you would appear to not have any desire for receiving from the Cup. You are certainly welcome to your personal opinion, but the bishops of the United States seem to disagree with you as to the appropriateness where there is “only one priest” - which is all too often the case in parishes.

 

[savedbygrace71]

One day I recorded the EF Mass I went to on a little camera. I don’t quite know how many people were at the Mass, but it was probably 100 people, maybe more. Either way, the priest on his own took a little more than 6 minutes from the first server to finishing distributing communion to the laity and then another 6 or so minutes to get everything in order before finishing the Mass. I guess in an EF Mass where it typically isn’t as rushed, this isn’t as big of a deal, i’m not sure. Either way, 6 minutes for Communion is fine. So, if it takes 6 minutes to distribute to 100 people for one priest. Then let’s say in the OF it can take the same amount of time. Then I can get using EMHC if there are more than 100 people per priest. So let’s say you have 3 priests available and there are 400 people in the church, then I can understand having 1 or 2 EMHC (they may not necessarily be as quick as a priest) in order to save a couple minutes.

However, I think there needs to be a rule along those lines. If there are 50 people in a church, there is absolutely no need for EMHC.

IMO, these are among the many things in the OF rubrics which need to be defined more clearly.

I counted our EM on Sunday after reading this thread, and we had about eight. At the 9:30 mass we have around 500 people. By your math with one priest it could take us 30 minutes to distribute communion (wafer only) to each person with just the priest. We certainly don’t have three priests available on each Sunday mass… If we took that long, we wouldn’t be out of the sanctuary in time for the 11 am mass to come in. The parking lot would be a mess. So yes, I think it does make sense that he has EMs at each mass that I’ve ever been to (I don’t go to daily mass but I am quite sure they are not used then). They distribute the bread and the cup.

I did look at the Fr. Z blog on receiving on the tongue, we don’t have the tradition in place in our parish, but I do wish we did. I have never seen anyone kneel and expect it on his tongue, in six years of watching.

 

[Denise1957]

At 68 I obviously grew up with the TLM, and I never really understood back then why it was replaced by the Novus Ordo. At the parish in which I grew up the pastor was an older Irish priest who flatly refused to discontinue the Latin Mass, and threatened to retire if he were forced to do so. He was a retired OMI provincial, so he had a bit of leeway there. The bishops of our diocese always allowed him to do as he wished; but finally one bishop forced him into dropping the Latin Mass entirely, so he retired. And he was justin his early 80s when that happened.

I never thought about arguing the matter even though I greatly missed the Latin Mass. The closest thing I found to the traditional Mass was at an Old Catholic parish I found; and it turned out that the pastor was an old college buddy of mine. What they celebrated was the Tridentine Mass but in English. And the priest celebrated with his back to the congregation, as with the TLM. I was immediately hooked, and after having spoke to my current pastor at the time, stayed with this Old Catholic bunch for a number of years: even being ordained through Minor Orders once my priest-friend became our bishop. I never had a clue about the problem of schism involved, and my former pastor had no problem with my making the move to the Old Catholics. In retrospect I have to wonder sometimes, “What was he thinking?”. But my Old Catholic bishop had a great love for the Eastern Rite and decided to take our parish in that direction. At that I left and returned to Catholic Church where I belonged. My friend has now been a Greek Orthodox priest for more than 25 years. One thing I’ve often wondered is why some priests and bishops have been so violently opposed to the use of the Latin Mass. A certain priest in our diocese who became vocations director for the diocese let it be known that anyone who considered themselves “traditionalist” need not approach him for possible admission to seminary training and formation. What a shame.

Now over 40 years later, the Latin Mass is alive and well in West Texas. Fr. Mark Woodruff at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church in Odessa celebrates the Latin Mass every Tuesday morning at 6:30 and on the fourth Sunday of the month at 2 PM. This is the 6th or 7th month of having the Latin Mass at St. Elizabeth’s and I’ve been a regular all along. And we get a sizeable turnout from Midland and Odessa; and much to my surprise we had a family from Lubbock attend the last Mass. The Diocese of San Angelo now has a new bishop, The Most Rev. Michael J. Sis, who was consecrated a week or so ago. He will be in Odessa for the 25th Anniversary celebration of Fr. Santiago Udayar, pastor of St. Mary’s in a couple of weeks. I highly suspect that Fr. Mark will approach the bishop with an invitation to one of the upcoming Latin Masses. I also need to mention that there’s a sizeable SSPX parish in Midland, and a number of their members are also attending Fr. Mark’s fourth-Sunday Mass. They’re only able to have Mass once a month with an SSPX priest from El Paso. I have a sneaking suspicion that there may be some changes coming for that parish as well.

I’m glad to read your experience with remembering what it was like during the changes from the EF to the OF, way back when.

It’s good to see that interest in the EF is growing in your area of West Texas. I hope that the new bishop will be invited and will then attend the EF there. I’m convinced that the interest in the EF will grow over time, but it may be a slow growth. But that’s okay.

 

[digitalpapist]

So, you have done a survey? And are going to publish the results?

No?

So you were told this by others, who did surveys?

No? They didn’t do surveys, they just had opinions?

The essence of what you and the 15 year old non-Catholic poster have said is that the bishops of the United States either have no control whatsoever over their individual diocese, or, perhaps better, each bishop, as chief liturgist of their diocese in matter which Rome has seen fit to give them jurisdiction, have exercised that jurisdiction in a way you do not like; so you have in turn impugned the motives of the priests you have seen using EMHCs.

Or what?

A person of sound age who ardently desires to be a member of the Catholic Church should not be called “non-Catholic”. It’s a cheap rhetorical way to marginalize what he is saying.

And yes, I have problem with the use of EMHC, and I think their use should be paired down immensely.

And yes, I think the overuse of EMHC’s, even when their widespread use is due to diocesan policies, is a mistake.

I am perfectly free to hold and express these opinions, given that this practice is not of dogmatic value.

 

[paperwight66]

.

And I will echo what he said: many priests use EMHC in a way to implement a false notion of lay participation.

There, I said it.

Indeed, you did. No ‘I think that’ or ‘In my opinion’ or ‘It seems to me that’.

But you made a statement as if it had been proved true, and that is what you are being challenged to produce evidence for.

That is the problem. It’s no use saying now that you were only expressing an opinion. You were stating it as a fact, and so maligning priests, or at the least, calling their judgment into question.

 

[otjm]

A person of sound age who ardently desires to be a member of the Catholic Church should not be called “non-Catholic”. It’s a cheap rhetorical way to marginalize what he is saying.

And yes, I have problem with the use of EMHC, and I think their use should be paired down immensely.

And yes, I think the overuse of EMHC’s, even when their widespread use is due to diocesan policies, is a mistake.

I am perfectly free to hold and express these opinions, given that this practice is not of dogmatic value.

I always find it interesting when people have opinions based on emotional likes and dislikes, rather than substance. The bishops of the US appear to disagree with you. Me; I follow the Church. I don’t pick and choose which bishop I will like, nor do I presume to tell them - directly, indirectly through the various internet forums, or sotto voce - that they are wrong in implementing what Rome puts forward. They have a tad bit more training in liturgy that I do; rather than saying they are wrong in how they implement, I try to understand why they do what they do and conform myself to that.

 

[jeanannemarie]

I did not tell bben15 that he could not have opinions, I told him that he better be very careful about sharing opinions that are unfounded, and not based in his own personal experiences. When a person starts repeating things they have heard form other sources as an opinion, without any actual basis in fact, especially when they are talking about other people, it is not an opinion, it is gossip.

Perhaps the young man, bben15 is a knowledgeable reader. There is plenty to learn about what has happened to the Mass in the past fifty years by reading, as well as personal experience. My own experience is that my son was quite capable of making valid statements about the Church at the same age. Please do not assume the young man is wrong based on the fact that you disagree with.

 

[phil19034]

A person of sound age who ardently desires to be a member of the Catholic Church should not be called “non-Catholic”. It’s a cheap rhetorical way to marginalize what he is saying.

And yes, I have problem with the use of EMHC, and I think their use should be paired down immensely.

And yes, I think the overuse of EMHC’s, even when their widespread use is due to diocesan policies, is a mistake.

I am perfectly free to hold and express these opinions, given that this practice is not of dogmatic value.

Ever since I received First Communion when I was 7 or so, I have never liked receiving The Body from an EMHC. I don’t really have an issue receiving the Blood of Christ from an EMHC, but not the Body. At my Parish, the Priest picks different spots for Communion. Drives me nuts because I don’t know where to sit in order to avoid an EMHC

Though I must say, I was a little sad this past Sunday when my Pastor allowed all the EMHCs to distribute Communion while he knelt in prayer (he was only attending the Mass, he was not the celebrant or co-celebrant).

 

[Bklynguy]

“Poor bben15” should stop taking pot shots at our priests.

Our priests schedule EMHC. Why? Because he knows that approximately 700 people will be at Mass Sunday morning. He can’t schedule additional priests, there aren’t any.

So, it has nothing to do with “having the laity participate more in the Mass.” It has to do with the fact that our priest isn’t a moron and can look at past Masses and know that future Masses will also be packed.

Of course, it is much easier to just make a statement like bben15 did, without back up. It isn’t right or charitable, but it is easier.

I’ve seen Mass with much, MUCH less than 700 communicants that have EMHC. I’ve seen Mass with less than 50 communicants have EMHC.

 

[Big_Feet]

I’ve seen Mass with much, MUCH less than 700 communicants that have EMHC. I’ve seen Mass with less than 50 communicants have EMHC.

It is the responsibility especially of the priest to identify the need for EMofHCs and turn down the help as appropriate.
My pastor has “deputized” me to teach and schedule the EMs of our parish, and I explain to each of them that just because they are scheduled to serve, does not guarantee them the ‘right’ to serve.

 

[Miserissima]

One Blogger gave an unpopular opinion when he wrote, " EMHC’s have become the butt of jokes because some bishops and priests have over-used them during Mass (see GIRM 162 and RS 88)," and then went on to give only anecdotal evidence , the same as heard on CAL when the topic comes up, but CAL gives more reference.

The GIRM 162 and RS 88 were written in response to confusion over what constitutes “overuse” and clarify when EHMCs are to be used:

1. Celebrant only, who judges the size of the congregation
2. First assisted by ordinary, who may just be in attendance
3. Acolytes
4. EMHC

It is up to the prudential judgment of the celebrant to determine EMHC use.

Is that judgment always prudential? Based on the fact that clarification had to be made and anecdotal evidence, this is not always the case.

Which brings us to the second point made here: if we criticize the judgment of the priest, do we share in the sin of detraction by making it known to the public?

If we use the system of going up the chain of command and the liturgical abuse is not rectified, what recourse do we have? I’ve read on CAF that this is when to bring it to public attention, but that only scandalizes more.

Now for the other issue. Ones who call themselves elders should demonstrate that in charity of deed and word. I’ll send you my baptism and birth certificate if those constitute qualifications for attempting to address the question. And in keeping with my age, am responding with charity / manners to all. That is, in this Internet environment, one of the simplest ways for elders to lead by example.

 

[Miserissima]

Perhaps it was a bit of a “straw that broke the camel’s back” reaction to one more in a of dozens of similar statements over a period of many months on a wide variety of topics delivered in this same ex cathedra tone from a youthful poster with much enthusiam, very little experience, and no formal training.

Perhaps

There are less passive aggressive ways to address “irritating posters,” such as PM and mod intervention.

Elders, by virtue of the long breadth and depth of their hard won experience, are (anecdotally and traditionally) expected to say, “hey poster, I have an issue with your tone because…” as opposed to, “because of your age I discount what you say…” After all, knowing the poster’s age and spiritual disposition can come into play in an appropriate manner, and everyone gets to demonstrate spiritual maturity.

 

[Miserissima]

as of now, The TLM is assigned the term “Extraordinary Form” because it is not the official Mass of the Church, but it used to be 40 years ago.

To my knowledge, it is not known as TLM, it is the EF; please check you’re timeline of when and where these acronyms changed. I’m not sure if they’re still interchangeable.

B16 has stressed in SP that both the EF and OF are equal in dignity. They are both official Masses of the Latin (Roman) Rite. Please be careful when you relate anything as “official” of the Church. That sentence is could easily be misconstrued as even the Divine Liturgy has no place in the Universal Church, which is false.

Digressing, as the USCCB noted, the more ancient EF is extraordinary because of the lack of priests who demonstrate “minimum rubrical and linguistic ability” to perform it, as, even after indults were granted before 2008, this has not been the Mass in current use.

Also, here’s the crux: using the EF and the use of EMHCs are both extra- ordinary, because both are used by the the prudential judgment of the ordinary.

 

[Rich_C]

To my knowledge, it is not known as TLM, it is the EF; please check you’re timeline of when and where these acronyms changed. I’m not sure if they’re still interchangeable.

IMO, it’s not something to worry about. Neither Traditional Latin Mass nor Extraordinary Form are proper names for the liturgy, anyway.

“TLM” or “Traditional Latin Mass” or plain “Latin Mass” are common names, kind of like “Bald Eagle.”

“Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite” isn’t really a name, it’s a description like “national bird of the United States of America.”

If you want to stick to proper names, I suppose it would be “1962 Missale Romanum” and “Haliaeetus leucocephalus” (that’s the scientific term for the eagle–I had to look it up).

But whatever you call it, if people know what you mean then why worry?

P.S. In my experience, older Catholics who don’t frequent the Internet don’t know what “Extraordinary Form” means, even though they may have assisted at a Latin Mass for years. Same for most Catholics who don’t go to the EF. This might be the one case where one of these terms is better (i.e. more useful) than another, and why I usually just say “Latin Mass” in daily speech.