I am a traditionally-minded Catholic who LOVES the Pauline Mass

[Praxis]

I am a traditionally-minded Catholic who LOVES the Pauline Mass! In any given week I attend the OF Mass 2-3 times and the Eastern Divine Liturgy at least once. I make it to the EF almost monthly. As wonderful as the DL and EF are, it is the OF of the Mass that I love most!

Why? There are many reasons. I appreciate being able to INTENSELY follow the Mass which is something I could not do when I need a bi-language missalette. I like the expanded reading cycles and the fact that one is exposed to far more Scripture in the OF. I like the sign value of being able to receive Holy Communion directly from the chalice. The kiss of peace is absolutely wonderful as well. I’m lucky that my parish is deeply into Gregorian Chant – something that is not offered at the EF low Masses I attend.

The reason for this is to note that the EF and even the DL are not inherently “better” than the OF. It depends on how any of the three are celebrated, and on the personal preferences of the attending faithful. The organic/inorganic is largely a bunch of noise. If it had more merit we would ALL be attending the DL.

I really don’t want to hear about clown Masses, whiz churches and liturgical slam dancers. I would never go near a parish that played such games! The Masses I attend are reverent and nourishing, period.

 

[markadm]

Good for you!

Though I will note that certain elements of the Ordinary Form do represent a non-organic departure from the past. I’m not saying they are inherently bad, but we should be aware that things were not always done this way. There is an old dictum: what was true then is true now, what was false then is false now. For that reason, and maybe that reason alone, it is sometimes appropriate to be chary of “new” things.

I don’t want to try and argue against you, because it seems you are joyous and happy about the Mass of Pope Paul VI (a good thing! especially when it is celebrated well!). However, there are some interesting counter arguments which can be made against the new Lectionary (rich as it may be!), viz., the effect of hearing the readings; the interface between the Lectionary and the Divine Office; the problem of cross-cutting one-, two- and three-year cycles; and the texts of the Mass as a composite and complementary “package”. I once read a very good article on it here.

Also, I am specifically wary of receiving from the chalice, but for the same reason as I won’t receive on the hand, i.e. that touching the sacred species or sacred vessel represents self-communing which I don’t want.

But anyway, I’ve been rambling. Like I said, good for you!

 

[Praxis]

Good for you!

Though I will note that certain elements of the Ordinary Form do represent a non-organic departure from the past. I’m not saying they are inherently bad, but we should be aware that things were not always done this way. There is an old dictum: what was true then is true now, what was false then is false now. For that reason, and maybe that reason alone, it is sometimes appropriate to be chary of “new” things.

I don’t want to try and argue against you, because it seems you are joyous and happy about the Mass of Pope Paul VI (a good thing! especially when it is celebrated well!). However, there are some interesting counter arguments which can be made against the new Lectionary (rich as it may be!), viz., the effect of hearing the readings; the interface between the Lectionary and the Divine Office; the problem of cross-cutting one-, two- and three-year cycles; and the texts of the Mass as a composite and complementary “package”. I once read a very good article on it here.

Also, I am specifically wary of receiving from the chalice, but for the same reason as I won’t receive on the hand, i.e. that touching the sacred species or sacred vessel represents self-communing which I don’t want.

But anyway, I’ve been rambling. Like I said, good for you!

It’s also important to try to understand the history of the Mass. Those that would like to imply the current EF is a 2,000 year old linear development of the Mass are simply wrong. While wonderful in itself, it’s basis dates from the Middles Ages and not the early church.

I think any attempts to denigrate the vastly expanded exposure to the Bible afforded by the OF are nothing more than noise. Bitter noise in some cases. This is one area where one Mass (the OF in this case) is clearly superior to another (be it the EF or the eastern Divine Liturgies.)

When it comes to receiving communion I simply follow the Church and not my own sense of pride. There is no prohibition in the USA of receiving in hand or touching a sacred vessel. The Church’s stated instructions are good enough for me. For me to receive on the tongue and to skip the chalice would in no way be “better” or more “reverent.”

You are flat-out wrong to suggest that receiving-in-hand and/or via the chalice “represents self-communing.” That’s a terribly disingenuous canard. Horribly bad form to even suggest such a thing.

In the end my original posting was to underscore the fact that a traditionally-minded Catholic need not prefer the EF over the OF. It is important however for all Catholics to accept that both forms ultimately have the same dignity and reverence within the Church.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[mattwcu]

Hi Praxis, can you explain what you mean by saying you are Traditionally minded?

 

[Praxis]

Hi Praxis, can you explain what you mean by saying you are Traditionally minded?

That is an excellent question as I don’t think CA has published a formal definition.

First, I did not say “Traditionally-minded.” I said “traditionally-minded” as the CA forum description says: “Forum for discussion of traditional Roman Catholic spirituality.” There is no “Traditional Rite” no “Traditional Catholic Church” that I know of. It’s an adjective not a pronoun.

I consider myself “traditional-minded” because I am a huge advocate of preserving and using those customs and disciplines which are licit and which have been passed down through the ages in the Church. In the case of the Mass, a great many of these customs are licitly used in both the OF and the EF and I say use them all – the Mass can NEVER be too solemn or reverent.

Does that mean that I adopt a severe and/or judgmental manner? Nope. Does it mean that I am serious – perhaps even intensely serious about closely following what the Church actually directs? It certainly does.

Does it mean I necessarily eschew newer developments (such as the expanded Bible readings at Mass)? Nope, it does not. Does it mean that I misapply labels like “modernist”, “liberal” and “progressive?” Nope to that as well.

It also doesn’t mean that I place my own feelings of what is “good” or “better” ahead of what the Church actually directs.

 

[mattwcu]

I’m still confused. I actually capitalized Traditionally-minded for no particular reason. It could appear to some you have an axe to grind. But there is no reason to believe this is the case.

Can you cite some examples of how the EF is a medieval creation? Typically is it agreed upon by all that through organic development, the liturgy grew over time from the early years of the Church until the Second Vatican Council.

I also think everyone knows that this particular forum called “Traditional Catholicism” is for those who have questions or wish to discuss things which are for better or worse considered Pre-Vatican II.

 

[markadm]

I think any attempts to denigrate the vastly expanded exposure to the Bible afforded by the OF are nothing more than noise. Bitter noise in some cases. This is one area where one Mass (the OF in this case) is clearly superior to another (be it the EF or the eastern Divine Liturgies.)

In this instance I beg to differ. More does not always mean better. Did you read the points in the article I linked to? Whilst I agree there is, in some instances, an expanded exposure to the Bible in the OF (though often at the expense of the traditional Graduals, etc., due to Hymns often being used), there are other arguments which I thought were well-made in that article (for example, the one about the cycle, and the other about the coherency of all scripture within a single Mass).

You are flat-out wrong to suggest that receiving-in-hand and/or via the chalice “represents self-communing.” That’s a terribly disingenuous canard. Horribly bad form to even suggest such a thing.

It’s not disingenious, nor am I suggesting anything. I am simply saying that it was Catholic teaching, until the Church was forced to legalise an illegal practice, that the laity were not to touch the sacred species! (Communion in the hand being an indult, a “permission”, that the Church was forced to give after it became a widespread abuse.) I am further stating that I do not view it as proper to the laity to pick up the sacred species and placed it in their mouths. Hence, suggestion is not needed; rather, I say it is maybe not “self-communing”, but maybe “self-distributing”?

Anyway, let’s not argue. Just please bear in mind that you have picked me up wrong.

 

[markadm]

point of grammar:

I, you, he, this, who, what, etc., are pronouns.

Anyway, the small-T big-T thing simply muddies the waters. Many “Trads” use the argument, and I simply don’t like it.

There maybe isn’t a “Traditional Catholic Church”, or a “Traditional Rite” (though even the Holy Father’s argument that the OF and EF are simply two forms of the same rite doesn’t always convince liturgists), however it is fair to say that for the past 20-30 years the OF and EF have represented two different mind-sets. Sadly, the OF (except when properly done, which is seldom [and Praxis, I am so glad for you that you appear to go somewhere where it is! Deo gratias!]) largely represents heterodox practices, and is firmly against 1900 years of Church tradition. Whereas the EF, despite being replete with mediaeval symbolism, does firmly represent the living Tradition of the Church (even when removed from the specific form one sees it in!).

Hopefully all Churches will end up celebrating the OF the way they do at yours, and we can see all the errors of the last 30 years fixed! Then Vatican II won’t have been in vain!

 

[mattwcu]

Small world, Mark we’ve crossed internet paths before. This is Matt from Absolutely No Spin (absnospin.blogspot.com) btw…

As for Communion in the hand I would should say that I do believe it is an unfortunate allowance by the Church. I believe the opinion that it has hurt our reverence to the Eucharist. Whether it is actually self-communing or not, it certainly appears that way.

I have never received in the hand except in my old protestant faith and that wasn’t real anyway. To suggest that being against receiving in the hand is a canard is untoward. We can accept the law of the church on non-doctrinal matters while thinking them imprudent.

 

[bilop]

I think any attempts to denigrate the vastly expanded exposure to the Bible afforded by the OF are nothing more than noise. Bitter noise in some cases. This is one area where one Mass (the OF in this case) is clearly superior to another (be it the EF or the eastern Divine Liturgies.)

I think it is great that you love the OF so much. Just one quibble.

I disagree that an expanded readings cycle is inherently better. I believ the repetition of getting the same readings on the same Sunday each year is more likely to make an impression on the congregation, and they are more likely to understand and retain more. Repetition is the mother of memory.

I also believe that with the added first reading, and the Psalm, there are too many readings, and it distracts from the importance of the second reading. It is too easy to drift off and not pay attention. If I do not follow in the missal, I get very little out of the pre-Gospel readings.

God Bless

 

[mattwcu]

There is one issue with the OF that disturbs me often. You never know what is coming next in regards to the text. For instance, I believe that having a set preface, instead of a dozen or so choices, and a set Canon allow me to more deeply enter into the mystery of the Mass.

I’ve tried on occasion to use a hand missal in the OF and its almost impossible to do so because of the amount of options. I find it very distracting in even the more reverent of settings.

 

[Praxis]

I’m still confused. I actually capitalized Traditionally-minded for no particular reason. It could appear to some you have an axe to grind. But there is no reason to believe this is the case.

Can you cite some examples of how the EF is a medieval creation? Typically is it agreed upon by all that through organic development, the liturgy grew over time from the early years of the Church until the Second Vatican Council.

I also think everyone knows that this particular forum called “Traditional Catholicism” is for those who have questions or wish to discuss things which are for better or worse considered Pre-Vatican II.

I have no ax to grind. But some try to suggest that “Traditional Catholic” is a separate rite in the Church and it’s not. I know of many “traditionally-minded Catholics” and absolutely no “Traditional Catholics.”

Your comment “Typically is it agreed upon by all that through organic development, the liturgy grew over time from the early years of the Church until the Second Vatican Council” is your opinion. It’s certainly not held by all. There are several good books on the development and history of the Mass. Which have you read thus far?

 

[Praxis]

In this instance I beg to differ. More does not always mean better. Did you read the points in the article I linked to? Whilst I agree there is, in some instances, an expanded exposure to the Bible in the OF (though often at the expense of the traditional Graduals, etc., due to Hymns often being used), there are other arguments which I thought were well-made in that article (for example, the one about the cycle, and the other about the coherency of all scripture within a single Mass).

The exposure to the Bible is VASTLY increased in the OF as compared to the EF. That’s not debatable.

It’s not disingenious, nor am I suggesting anything. I am simply saying that it was Catholic teaching, until the Church was forced to legalise an illegal practice, that the laity were not to touch the sacred species! (Communion in the hand being an indult, a “permission”, that the Church was forced to give after it became a widespread abuse.) I am further stating that I do not view it as proper to the laity to pick up the sacred species and placed it in their mouths. Hence, suggestion is not needed; rather, I say it is maybe not “self-communing”, but maybe “self-distributing”?

Anyway, let’s not argue. Just please bear in mind that you have picked me up wrong.

The Church wasn’t “forced” to do anything…

You implied that that receiving-in-hand and by the chalice “represents self-communing” and that is untrue. There really is no way around that. The opinion you expressed is false.

Further, communicants RECEIVE the Blessed Sacrament in their hands if they wish to at Mass in the USA. I never pick up the host from the person distributing communion. Why suggest we who receive in hand do that?

You are providing a pretty good example of some who feels they know better than the Church…

 

[mattwcu]

“There are several good books on the development and history of the Mass. Which have you read thus far?”

I’m in the middle of BXVI’s Spirit of the Liturgy actually. I am also an ardent reader and listener of Fr. Z. I know I am no scholar. Are you suggesting that what we call the Tridentine Mass today represents a rupture in organic development?

What we are really discussing here it seems is terminology. I know plenty of people I could call “Traditional Catholics” who definitely believe they are in a different part of the Church altogether from OF. In fact, I think this is something that needs to be worked out, and it needs time to heal.

I think the most significant reason for the supposed split in the Latin rite is the use of a different calendar. If I didn’t play for an OF mass on Saturday nights I wouldn’t even be able to tell you what week in Ordinary time is was. In fact, when I got to mass last week I was expecting the 3rd or 4th week. When I looked at the sheet it said 9th and I was pretty surprised since I am on the 3rd Week After Pentecost.

I also use the 1963 Monastic Diurnal from St. Michael’s Abbey Press, so I am very entrenched in pre-Vatican II spirituality, if you can call it that.

But if you get a lot out of the modern liturgy, then good for you. After all, the changes were made in good faith and for the benefit of the faithful. If it works for you then so be it.

 

[Praxis]

…however it is fair to say that for the past 20-30 years the OF and EF have represented two different mind-sets. Sadly, the OF (except when properly done, which is seldom [and Praxis, I am so glad for you that you appear to go somewhere where it is! Deo gratias!]) largely represents heterodox practices, and is firmly against 1900 years of Church tradition…

No way. No way can that generality be spread across the entire Church. Absolutely no way. It’s a personal opinion that simply is not true.

Whereas the EF, despite being replete with mediaeval symbolism, does firmly represent the living Tradition of the Church (even when removed from the specific form one sees it in!).

Again, no way. Not only are you ignoring the Eastern liturgies, you also seem to be using the term “Tradition” in an odd manner. Do you mean Sacred Tradition?

 

[Praxis]

I think it is great that you love the OF so much. Just one quibble.

I disagree that an expanded readings cycle is inherently better. I believ the repetition of getting the same readings on the same Sunday each year is more likely to make an impression on the congregation, and they are more likely to understand and retain more. Repetition is the mother of memory.

I also believe that with the added first reading, and the Psalm, there are too many readings, and it distracts from the importance of the second reading. It is too easy to drift off and not pay attention. If I do not follow in the missal, I get very little out of the pre-Gospel readings.

God Bless

The expanded cycle is inherently superior. There really is no way around that truth…

 

[Praxis]

“There are several good books on the development and history of the Mass. Which have you read thus far?”

I’m in the middle of BXVI’s Spirit of the Liturgy actually. I am also an ardent reader and listener of Fr. Z. I know I am no scholar. Are you suggesting that what we call the Tridentine Mass today represents a rupture in organic development?

What we are really discussing here it seems is terminology. I know plenty of people I could call “Traditional Catholics” who definitely believe they are in a different part of the Church altogether from OF. In fact, I think this is something that needs to be worked out, and it needs time to heal.

I think the most significant reason for the supposed split in the Latin rite is the use of a different calendar. If I didn’t play for an OF mass on Saturday nights I wouldn’t even be able to tell you what week in Ordinary time is was. In fact, when I got to mass last week I was expecting the 3rd or 4th week. When I looked at the sheet it said 9th and I was pretty surprised since I am on the 3rd Week After Pentecost.

I also use the 1963 Monastic Diurnal from St. Michael’s Abbey Press, so I am very entrenched in pre-Vatican II spirituality, if you can call it that.

But if you get a lot out of the modern liturgy, then good for you. After all, the changes were made in good faith and for the benefit of the faithful. If it works for you then so be it.

The “split” is only in the eyes of those who wish to fabricate one. I’m not sure what needs to be “worked-out” as there is only one Latin Rite in the Church.

I don’t view the Pauline Mass as “the modern liturgy.” I view it as the best of the Church’s efforts after 2,000 years of existence.

 

[mattwcu]

It is not “true” that the 3 year cycle scripture cycle is inherently better. That is your opinion. Show us the empirical evidence for this “truth”. More doesn’t equal necessarily equal better.

Can I ask what this back and forth is accomplishing?

 

[PrayforMallory]

The expanded cycle is inherently superior. There really is no way around that truth…

More readings might not necessarily indicate better.

The traditional homilies, having greater content, illuminate the readings of the EF more. Could this also be a factor?

 

[PrayforMallory]

The “split” is only in the eyes of those who wish to fabricate one. I’m not sure what needs to be “worked-out” as there is only one Latin Rite in the Church.

I don’t view the Pauline Mass as “the modern liturgy.” I view it as the best of the Church’s efforts after 2,000 years of existence.

Then you have not been reading history.