High Novus Ordo masses

[peregrinator_it]

I’d just like to add that there is a sung Latin Novus Ordo Mass offered at St. Margaret Mary’s in Oakland, CA stmargmaryoak.org . Reverence, bells, incense, and the Communion rail are in use every Sunday!

(But it’s my parish, so to say anything more would be bragging… )

 

[JNB]

Yes, a gem in one of the most hostile areas in the US towrds the faith. Does anyone on the boards know if St. John the Evangelist in Stamford CT is still useing the rails and the high altar?

 

[Olympia]

The beautiful Immaculate Conception Church
in Waterbury, Connecticut still uses the altar rail. They are also blessed to have confessions two or three times a day, except Sundays.

They have Perpetual Adoration on the main altar during the day, moving to a locked in chapel for the night time hours.

Definitely a very reverent church.

 

[Olympia]

oat soda:

can anyone give me legitimate or good reasons why the church allows communion in the hand, mass facing the people, standing to receive communion, and removal of altar rails? if you judge something by its fruits, what are the fruits of these so called VII reforms? i see the fruit being a lack of understanding and respect for the center and summit of the church’s life. if satan was going to sneak into the church, i’m sure he would attack the eucharist first.

This stuff happened in tiny increments back in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
At first I hailed the first tiny changes, welcoming a new atmosphere which would be more ecumenical in nature, an atmosphere in which Protestants would not feel so uncomfortable, and which would be more in tune with the then prevalent “Protestant-American” culture. How wrong I was! The small welcome changes never stopped coming! How heartbroken when I realized there was a bigger agenda. How astounded I am to see how quickly the sheeple latched onto this agenda! How chagrined to see how many of the ancient roots of our faith are being lost. How horrified to hear from our pastor that there are still many more changes to come in the next ten years that will “transform” what we have now!!!

 

[Confiteor]

Olympia:

This stuff happened in tiny increments back in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
At first I hailed the first tiny changes, welcoming a new atmosphere which would be more ecumenical in nature, an atmosphere in which Protestants would not feel so uncomfortable, and which would be more in tune with the then prevalent “Protestant-American” culture. How wrong I was! The small welcome changes never stopped coming! How heartbroken when I realized there was a bigger agenda. How astounded I am to see how quickly the sheeple latched onto this agenda! How chagrined to see how many of the ancient roots of our faith are being lost. How horrified to hear from our pastor that there are still many more changes to come in the next ten years that will “transform” what we have now!!!

Read : Index of Leading Catholic Indicators: The Church since Vatican II
by Kenneth C. Jones for a convincing presentation of information on the impact of VII changes.

Also, for what it is worth: A parish I sometimes attend Mass at has a “Solemn High Latin Mass” - Novus Ordo every Sunday. Sung Mass, great liturgy, wonderful homilies (in English).

 

[Anna_Elizabeth]

Olympia:

How horrified to hear from our pastor that there are still many more changes to come in the next ten years that will “transform” what we have now!!!

Olympia, Your note is heartbreaking, if for no other reason than that it so well describes what so many of us experienced.

That said, please do not give up over what your pastor has announced. It’s very possible that there will be many changes; however, they may be far from what he expects. I would appreciate it if you would give us a clue to his general approach to the Church in the US. E.g., does he seem enthusiastic toward the coming changes? Has he been enthusiastic about “how far we’ve come” in the past 40 years? I think we could give you more encouragement if we had a better fix on his Church-view.

In any case, there are millions of us (including the Holy Spirit!), who are no longer taking the mess the “spirit of Vatican ll” created just sitting down.

I notice you have only about 30 posts, but keep on reading, whether you post or not (altho I’d sure love to hear about the pastor - especially his age and when he was ordained -). You will see that you are not alone.

And pray always,

Anna

 

[JNB]

The damage done to the mass will not be undone overnight. I strongly believe that the more traditional elements in the mass such as kneeling for communion and no EMHCs will speed up the restoration of the sacred.

 

[otm]

JNB:

Well the USCCB comittie on liturgy said that kneeling for communion was illicit, BUT, the Vatican weighed in, and said that people who kneel for communion are not to be denied communion nor are to be considered to be acting in dissent if they choos eto kneel for communion. None the less, some priests and chancery offices took this as another opportunity to stamp out tradition.

No, that is not what was said. Go read the GIRM.

Isn’t obedience wonderful?

 

[otm]

JNB:

Sorry OTM, but Rome shot down part of what the USCCB wanted to do.

adoremus.org/Notitiae-kneeling.html

And here is a highlight

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213). In view of the law that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them” (canon 843 ¶ 1), there should be no such refusal to any Catholic who presents himself for Holy Communion at Mass, except in cases presenting a danger of grave scandal to other believers arising out of the person’s unrepented public sin or obstinate heresy or schism, publicly professed or declared. Even where the Congregation has approved of legislation denoting standing as the posture for Holy Communion, in accordance with the adaptations permitted to the Conferences of Bishops by the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani n. 160, paragraph 2, it has done so with the stipulation that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds.

Try reading what I said. Rome did not shoot down what the USCCB wanted to do. It shot down what individual priests, and a few bishops wanted to do.
Kneeling in direct contradiction to the GIRM or the lawful decision of the bishop is not grounds for denial of Communion. It is grounds for being counseled.

 

[otm]

JNB:

Sorry flounder, you and otm are wrong, nothing come out of the Vatican that made kneeling for communion illicit, the Vatican has made it crystal clear with 3 different letters from the CDW that people who kneel for communion are not to be denited communion nor are to be considered disobidient. The USCCB in reality has no authority, it does not replace the magesterium, it amounts to the equivlent of a trade organization, and Rome over ruled the USCCB on kneeling for communion. Shame on otm for saying kneeling for communion is a mortal sin, shame on him.

Did I say that it was a mortal Sin? I don’t recall using those words, so please don’t put them in my mouth. Go read the GIRM.

 

[JNB]

otm:

Did I say that it was a mortal Sin? I don’t recall using those words, so please don’t put them in my mouth. Go read the GIRM.

I responded to what you said that those who kneel for communion need to go to confession because of their disobidience, and as you know, confession is only used to absolve mortal sins.

In any event, the letters from Rome clearly state that those who kneel for communion should not be considred to be dis obidient. Norm does not trump canon law.

In any event otm, the restoration of the liturgy will go on despite the fact that you and many of your ilk are stuck in a 60s and 70s liturgical mindset.

 

[otm]

JNB:

I responded to what you said that those who kneel for communion need to go to confession because of their disobidience, and as you know, confession is only used to absolve mortal sins.

No, I don’t know that. Last I recall, it is used to confess sins, mortal and venial. And I don’t know any canon law that trumps the GIRM. The GIRM says that those who kneel are to be counseled. Once counseled, second time disobedient. And I never said that all disobedience is a mortal sin.

JNB:

In any event, the letters from Rome clearly state that those who kneel for communion should not be considred to be dis obidient. Norm does not trump canon law.

Are you calling the GIRM a norm? And I do believe that the most recent GIRM came out since that letter.

JNB:

In any event otm, the restoration of the liturgy will go on despite the fact that you and many of your ilk are stuck in a 60s and 70s liturgical mindset.

Given that you have never met me, and know nothing of my mindset, you seem awfully sure of taking a swipe at me. I am not sure how you seem to think that I have any particular mindset. But I do find great amusement in the conservatives doing exactly what they accuse the liberals of doing, and that is, not following the GIRM. The liberals want to stand during the Consecration. The conservatives want to kneel at reception of Communion. Both violate the GIRM.
Lets just follow the rules, shall we?

 

[JNB]

Actually the GIRM came out in 2001, and was started to be implimented in 2002, the 3 letters from the Vatican came out from summer of 2002 to early 2003. Reread teh letters OTM, and again look at this phrase

**this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion"

 **This was the last letter issued, in eraly 2003, after the GIRM was issued, and this was a letter from the Council of Devine Worship from Rome. Indeed OTM, Rome has spoken, and yes, Rome can and does overrule  whatever the USCCB says. Rome is a higher power than the USCCB, like it or not.

In any event, there are many parishes that do not celebrate the Tridentine mass yet still use the altar rail for communion, and like it or not OTM, Rome protects this parctice.

 

[Flounder]

You guys are quoting good stuff…

But I think the kneeling argument really comes down to this:

Am I kneeling out of profound reverence for the physical presence of Christ? If so than I don’t see how I can do anything but kneel.

Am I kneeling to show the Church in general and my congregation in particular that I resent the changes made to the mass? If so, then how can I even pretend to be worthy to approach for communion at all.