J
JimG
Guest
You may be right. I just haven’t heard one way or the other.
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Fr. Z is big on saying the OF Mass facing ad orientem (away from the people).
So is Fr. Heilman. Both of them think it’s more reverent and also, Fr. Heilman says since he started doing it, his Mass attendance has grown and the contributions to his church are also up 30 percent.
As long as they hold the host and cup up where I can see them during the transsubstantiation, I personally don’t care which way they face. If facing away will save some of those beautiful high altars, by all means, have at it.
So is Fr. Heilman. Both of them think it’s more reverent and also, Fr. Heilman says since he started doing it, his Mass attendance has grown and the contributions to his church are also up 30 percent.
As long as they hold the host and cup up where I can see them during the transsubstantiation, I personally don’t care which way they face. If facing away will save some of those beautiful high altars, by all means, have at it.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Critical of what aspects of it?
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Nothing truly integral to the Mass of course. But I think Eucharist ministers could be used less, Ad Orientem could be used more, sappy tunes could be replaced, less guitars, less modern Church buildings and more Cathedral-types (to be honest, that’s not the Mass’s fault, more a fault of the times), the sign of Peace hand shake-fest (But I’m also critical of it’s placement in the entire Roman Rite including the EF), just to name a few. Granted, there are some beautiful OF Masses. But there need to be more.
Mark121359
Well-known member
A liberal Catholic. My experience with them (and I don’t mean to appear to be judgmental…but since you asked) is that they have disdain for anything tradition. Your mileage may vary. Some examples below from known liberal sites. But my biggest experience comes from the EF parish I attend…National Shrine of Saint Alphonsus Liguori It’s become one of the largest attended Mass in the Archdiocese of Baltimore, and liberal attendance there is non-existent.
Last edited:
P
PRmerger
Guest
Eucharistic Ministers are the ordained–priests and deacons.
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the laity.
And why could they be used less?
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are the laity.
And why could they be used less?
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Oh, excuse me, you’re right about the wording. But in many parishes using a EMC shaves off five minutes at best. I would rather have the priest and Deacon do it all and let folks pray for that five minutes than having the laity hand out the Eucharist.
P
PRmerger
Guest
But why?
What’s wrong with having EMHC?
Certainly you understand that it doesn’t change the substance of the Precious Body/Blood one iota, yes?
Their hands are no more and no less consecrated than your hands/tongue are.
What’s wrong with having EMHC?
Certainly you understand that it doesn’t change the substance of the Precious Body/Blood one iota, yes?
Their hands are no more and no less consecrated than your hands/tongue are.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Nothing is intrinsically wrong with it. I’m just saying that in many cases is lowers the reverence that should be shown to the Eucharist. If only the priest and Deacon were to handle it (and the odd EMC for special occasions), the mystery surrounding it remains in the mind of the faithful.
It the same as if a Dad were the only one who could handle a pop-up book. If the child could bring it down anytime the awesomeness of the book would diminish. But if the Dad was the main one who read it to the child, the book would become all that more awesome. Not that the child can’t read the book himself. But he needs to be careful lest he tear the pop-up book. His hands aren’t trained as well as the Dad.
It the same as if a Dad were the only one who could handle a pop-up book. If the child could bring it down anytime the awesomeness of the book would diminish. But if the Dad was the main one who read it to the child, the book would become all that more awesome. Not that the child can’t read the book himself. But he needs to be careful lest he tear the pop-up book. His hands aren’t trained as well as the Dad.
A
angel12
Guest
Of course, that will depend in part on your definition of “liberal Catholic.” I know quite a few Catholics who are, aside from abortion, well toward what many would call “left” socially (support environmental protections, raising the minimum wage, maintaining safety nets such as medicaid, etc.). Not a single one has any antipathy toward the EF, the rosary, devotion to saints. . .
X
XXI_4
Guest
Monsignor is an honorary personal title, not an office. In Europe the title Monsignor is commonly used for Bishops. There are priestly appointments and awards that carry the title of Monsignor and allow the priest to wear different choir dress.
A priest who is assigned to one of the appointments holds the title only while he serves in that office. For example, the Vicar General of a diocese is ex officio a Monsignor. A priest who is awarded one of the Papal awards holds the title for life. There were 9 levels of these awards at one time. They were reduced by one of the popes (Paul VI?) to 3. Pope Francis reduced it to 1 (the lowest level) and will not approve one for a priest who is under the age of 65 because he considers it “clericalism”.
Last edited:
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t see how this lowers the reverence of the Eucharist.
Once you receive the Eucharist, using this logic, you lower the reverence of it.
Once you receive the Eucharist, using this logic, you lower the reverence of it.
X
XXI_4
Guest
Agreed. However, as my Maronite pastor related to me recently, even though married men in the US may now become Maronite priests there is no funding in the budget for priestly salaries that would support a family. The bishops are exploring options to make it possible.
I believe the Roman Church would have the same problem. Unlike the Eastern Churches, they’ve never budgeted for families.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
That’s actually the same argument I have for clerical celibacy. That being said, I get tired of people trying to tell me that it can’t be changed. I don’t think it should be changed, but it gets a little annoying when people think it is dogma and not discipline. I’ve met several married Eastern Catholic priests.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
Well, it lowers the reverence folks should have for it in their mind. If any old joe can give out the Eucharist (which is what it looks like even if the EMCs are trained) how special can the Eucharist truly be? But if it’s mainly priest’s and deacons who distribute it, it appears as something special. Something that few can touch, but that we can receive as a gift from God.
X
XXI_4
Guest
I detest when people use that argument as well. As far as changing it, I think the “culture shock” could be disastrous. For a period of time, anyway.
Although I’ve briefly met married priests (Byzantines) I’ve never had one as a pastor. Married Maronite priests in the US was only approved in 2014 and I believe there is only one in the whole US.
I cannot imagine though what a burden it must be to try and balance the duties of being a pastor with being a husband and parent. The priests I know all barely have any time for themselves as it is, let alone add a family into that mix. God Bless them!
Although I’ve briefly met married priests (Byzantines) I’ve never had one as a pastor. Married Maronite priests in the US was only approved in 2014 and I believe there is only one in the whole US.
I cannot imagine though what a burden it must be to try and balance the duties of being a pastor with being a husband and parent. The priests I know all barely have any time for themselves as it is, let alone add a family into that mix. God Bless them!
Last edited:
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, let’s say I’m an apologist for “No One Should Receive The Eucharist Except Priests” (after all, it was only the apostles in the Upper Room at the Last Supper).
I say: when any old layman can receive (Catholics in good grace), how special can the Eucharist be?
What’s your response (as it applies to this particular argument. I don’t need to hear apologia for how the Church decided that all Catholics can receive. I’d just like your response to the argument that if anyone can receive, then that makes the Eucharist not very special)
I say: when any old layman can receive (Catholics in good grace), how special can the Eucharist be?
What’s your response (as it applies to this particular argument. I don’t need to hear apologia for how the Church decided that all Catholics can receive. I’d just like your response to the argument that if anyone can receive, then that makes the Eucharist not very special)
X
XXI_4
Guest
Also, at least in some Eastern Churches, only celibate priests are confessors. I heard this from a Ruthenian Byzantine priest, I’m not sure which other Eastern Churches it applies to.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
I think it all comes down to perception.
It’s like if a person received with a tank top, shorts, and flip flops on. Is he doing anything wrong? No, but the perception that others have is his respect for the Eucharist is not all the way there. You should always dress up for Church and receiving the Eucharist. If you can’t, that’s fine, but the norm is to dress up. Otherwise, if everyone just goes to Church and receives in that outfit, folks might come to believe it isn’t as important as all of that.
The same can be said of EMC. It doesn’t have anything to do with touching skin. It has to do with perception and in the minds of most, there is a difference between them receiving the host and others distributing it.
This kind of goes back to the idea of altar servers wearing gloves when handling the sacred vessels. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with them touching the vessels but it shows a certain respect.
It’s like if a person received with a tank top, shorts, and flip flops on. Is he doing anything wrong? No, but the perception that others have is his respect for the Eucharist is not all the way there. You should always dress up for Church and receiving the Eucharist. If you can’t, that’s fine, but the norm is to dress up. Otherwise, if everyone just goes to Church and receives in that outfit, folks might come to believe it isn’t as important as all of that.
The same can be said of EMC. It doesn’t have anything to do with touching skin. It has to do with perception and in the minds of most, there is a difference between them receiving the host and others distributing it.
This kind of goes back to the idea of altar servers wearing gloves when handling the sacred vessels. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with them touching the vessels but it shows a certain respect.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I don’t know one single Catholic who has “disdain for anything traditional”. I know some of them who would not feel comfortable at Latin mass (although many will go to a Latin Mass sometimes, or when there is a special big one scheduled in a Cathedral) or prefer the OF for other reasons, I know a few who do not care for the Rosary or for the Mary devotions, but just about every Catholic I know grew up in a Catholic family and has some Catholic traditions they revere.
The only ones who might act like you say are the ones who are old 60s hippie/ social justice types and to be honest a lot of them up and left the Church a long time ago. Or if you’re speaking of priests, maybe some of them have strong preferences. But I really haven’t seen people in the churches I attend be up in arms one way or the other.
The only ones who might act like you say are the ones who are old 60s hippie/ social justice types and to be honest a lot of them up and left the Church a long time ago. Or if you’re speaking of priests, maybe some of them have strong preferences. But I really haven’t seen people in the churches I attend be up in arms one way or the other.
- Status