Is Catholicism A Democracy?

[JReducation]

St Maria

I will agree that one may worship God in the celebration of the Eucharist using the Tridentine form, if one wishes. Many people find it a very beautiful and moving experience. That is also legitimate. But my background in theology and philosophy tells me that some of your statements are on a slippery slope and I could encourage you to be careful, because you run the risk of putting limits on the God that you’re trying to worship.

To say that the Latin mass is more efficacious than mass in another language flies in the face of logic, because efficacious comes from the word “efficient”; it accomplishes what it sets out to do. What you’re saying is that the liturgy in other languages fails to accomplish what it sets out to do. In other words, it is an incomplete or inefficient sacrifice. That would make it an incomplete or inefficient sacrament. There is not such thing. It is either a sacrament or it is not. It cannot be a mediocre sacrament. There is not such thing.

You said in your reply to Deacon that you believe that the NO may be efficacious for some. Philosophically that is impossible. The efficiency of grace is not determined by the individual, as the individual faithful do not give grace, they receive grace. Grace is the gift that God gives. God’s gift does not depend on the believer. The believer can accept or reject the gift of grace, but cannot stop God from giving it. God is autonomous. Christ gives himself to us through the Eucharist in any language as long as the essential elements are present. Those elements are an ordained priest, bread and wine, the words of consecration. The Church added everything else for the sanctification and the edification of the faithful. None of it causes transubstantiation. None of it is the actual sacrifice.

If you remember, the Latin mass did not come into existence for several hundred years in the history of the Church. Mass was always celebrated in the language of the faithful and the rituals varied depending on the region. Eventually, the Church systematized the mass for the Western world, but allowed the Eastern Christians to retain their languages and form, because they dated back to the apostles. For example, the Greek mass and its form is much older than the Latin mass, as is the Russian mass.

In addition, the absolution in the Penitential Rite of the mass is not sacramental. None of the rites of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church claim that the Penitential Rite of the liturgy is the Sacrament of Reconciliation. While all of the sacraments are intimately connected to the Eucharist, each retains its integrity and its own character. The absolution is achieved through the penitential prayer of the person. The priest is not granting absolution as he would in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. The prayers in this part of the mass are a dialogue between the priest or deacon and the faithful. Observe that the ordo says that if there is a Deacon present, he presides over this rite. Deacons do not have the power to absolve from sin. The absolution from venial sin that is achieved through these prayers is granted through the prayer and contrition of the individual. If there is not contrition, there is no absolution. Absolution from venial sins can also be achieved through many other means, besides this ritual. Therefore, the ritual is optional, because for true absolution from venial sins to occur, one need not use this ritual. To absolve from sin, using the sacramental form, the priest must use the form given in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, “I absolve you . . . “ etc. He must invoke his power to absolve and he must have the intent to absolve.

You quoted what the Holy Father says about kneeling at mass and prayer. No one will dispute that what the Holy Father says is accurate and good. However, the Holy Father is also an excellent theologian. He would be the first to tell you that there are other groups in the Catholic Church that do not use this form of reverence, but use other forms which are equally reverent and should also be preserved, because they are part of the history of the Church.

For example, if you attend mass at a Capuchin monastery no one kneels. There are no kneelers. St. Francis of Assisi did not allow them. It was against simplicity and poverty. It also created a distinction between the Brothers who were in the congregation and the Brother who was presiding at the mass. Therefore, the Brothers always stood around the altar, usually to the left and right. They bowed at the consecration. They kneel after communion. The host is passed to each Brother just before saying the “Lord I am not worthy . . . “ They recite it together. This tradition goes back to 1223.

You said that you want your children to worship God with solemnity and reverence. I congratulate you on that. It’s the sign of a good parent. That being said, you do not have wait for the TLM to become the universal practice. If you want solemnity, mysticism and mystery dramatized at its best, I would strongly recommend a Byzantine parish. They are Catholic and their liturgy is filled with all of the dramatic elements to awaken the sense of mystery and mysticism among the faithful. They are actually more traditional than the TLM.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

As stmaria has stated: “It is not about having the Mass in Latin.”

Rather it is the prayers, the symbolism, the art and architecture, and other factors.

I think a good distinction is between “ex opere operato” and “ex opere operantis”. There is no argument that in either form of Mass if the Priest consecrates the bread and wine it becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus equally and is of infinite worth. This would be ex opere operato.

I believe Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP has written an article on this subject in The Latin Mass magazine, but I don’t think it’s available online. But here is a conclusion based on the article:

“As regards intrinsic merit of course any valid Mass is infinitely meritorious. But we finite creatures are unable to receive infinite grace. Therefore, the fruits of the Mass actually communicated to us are finite and they will be greater or less based on a number of factors. The holiness of the Church who offers the sacrifice affects the merit of the Mass - there is no distinction here between old and new rites, the Church is always spotless. The priest merits graces for us in offering the Mass inasmuch as he is a priest - here again there is no difference between old and new. The priest also merits as a private person - here we have fruits of the Mass ex opere operantis.”

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/12/merit-of-mass.html

So while the Eucharist is infinitely meritorious, we as Catholics only receive a finite amount of grace depending on our disposition. And this is where the liturgy, art, and architecture (among other factors) come in, and why the liturgy is so important beyond just having a valid Mass. Good liturgy, art, and architecture helps lift our hearts and minds to God and helps dispose our hearts and souls to receive the Holy Eucharist in a more efficacious manner so that a greater amount of grace is transmitted to our soul. Which is one reason why we ought to be concerned about the liturgy beyond whether it is valid or not.

I wish I had a link to the entire article as he goes into much more depth than what I am stating here.

 

[Jeanette_L]

As stmaria has stated: “It is not about having the Mass in Latin.”

Rather it is the prayers, the symbolism, the art and architecture, and other factors.

I think a good distinction is between “ex opere operato” and “ex opere operantis”. There is no argument that in either form of Mass if the Priest consecrates the bread and wine it becomes the actual body and blood of Jesus equally and is of infinite worth. This would be ex opere operato.

I believe Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP has written an article on this subject in The Latin Mass magazine, but I don’t think it’s available online. But here is a conclusion based on the article:

“As regards intrinsic merit of course any valid Mass is infinitely meritorious. But we finite creatures are unable to receive infinite grace. Therefore, the fruits of the Mass actually communicated to us are finite and they will be greater or less based on a number of factors. The holiness of the Church who offers the sacrifice affects the merit of the Mass - there is no distinction here between old and new rites, the Church is always spotless. The priest merits graces for us in offering the Mass inasmuch as he is a priest - here again there is no difference between old and new. The priest also merits as a private person - here we have fruits of the Mass ex opere operantis.”

unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2007/12/merit-of-mass.html

So while the Eucharist is infinitely meritorious, we as Catholics only receive a finite amount of grace depending on our disposition. And this is where the liturgy, art, and architecture (among other factors) come in, and why the liturgy is so important beyond just having a valid Mass. Good liturgy, art, and architecture helps lift our hearts and minds to God and helps dispose our hearts and souls to receive the Holy Eucharist in a more efficacious manner so that a greater amount of grace is transmitted to our soul. Which is one reason why we ought to be concerned about the liturgy beyond whether it is valid or not.

I wish I had a link to the entire article as he goes into much more depth than what I am stating here.

You know, this morning I went into a church that I was completely unfamiliar with. I didn’t know the architecture, or the art and I sat in complete darkness except for the candles. All this before the Mass began.

My heart at that moment could not have been more disposed to receive the Eucharist, and it had nothing to do with what I was viewing or hearing, it had to do with my heart at that moment and my desire to be with and receive Christ.

I think we are putting way too much emphasis on these outward things without enough attention on what needs to happen inwardly before we even harken the door of the church for Mass. Yes the rituals and liturgies are beautiful, yes they can and do to lift our hearts and minds to God, but I have seen many people come and go in the most beautiful and reverential churches who could have cared less that they were even there, they just wanted it to be over with so they could get on with their day.

It is the heart of the believer that determines the efficacy of the receipt of Grace, you can’t build that from the outside in, it has to come from the inside to start, and that is the miracle of Grace and repentance, we just cannot fabricate it, it’s the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[JReducation]

Fr. Ripperger is correct in his statement about the importance of sensory (name removed by moderator)ut. This has been proven by psychology. All one has to do is to look at classrooms to see this. Children who learn in a multisensory classroom learn more easily than those who learn in a monosensory classroom. The human brain is fed by many stimuli.

What Fr. Ripperger is defending is the importance of beauty and environment to aid us in predisposing ourselves to the reception of grace. No one would argue with that.

It seems that some believe that the only form of beauty and sensory (name removed by moderator)ut that can predispose the mind to enter more fully or efficaciously into the celebration of the Eucharist is the Tridentine environment. This is not what Fr. Rippperger is saying. I read his article before. He defends the Tridentine form against those who would attack it. He does not attack the NO. I would certainly join my voice to his in defending the Tridentine form against its attackers. Such an attack is unfair and uncharitable, not to mention that it suggests that for hundreds of years the mass that the Western Church celebrated was flawed. Such is not true. Those who believe that the NO is flawed are making the same mistake as those who attack the Tridentine form.

It is equally important to address the other forms that have been used in the Church for hundreds of years. I fail to understand why people keep ignoring them or bypassing them.

In my previous post I gave the example of the mass celebrated in the houses of the Friars Minor since 1223 where there was never any kneeling and where communion is received in the hand by all the members of the community. I posted that as an example for those who decry communion in the hand in the NO. Those who decry communion in the hand ignored this.

I have also posted that the Eastern Catholics have never used Latin. They have always used their national languages. The defenders of Latin bypassed this.

Then there were my observations of the mystical (name removed by moderator)ut that the Eastern Catholics have always put into the celebration of the liturgy and how that has always been available to any Catholic. The Church never took that away. All one has to do is to find a Byzantine parish in his area. You will find chant, incense, veils, grills in front of the Holy of Holies. No one seems to want to recognize that these are there for us, if we want them.

For those who decry the movement of the tabernacle from the main altar to a side alter or a chapel, I posted how the Byzantines place an icon screen in front of the tabernacle during the mass. The idea being that the priest must focus on the sacrament on the altar. This is a tradition that dates back to St. John the Evangelist and St. Thomas the Apostle. Every defender of the tabernacle on the main altar ignored this too.

In one of my posts, not sure if it was on this thread, I posted how the cloistered Benedictines, such as Trappists, Carthusians, Camaldolese and Cistercians do not keep the Blessed Sacrament in the chapel. They keep it in an oratory. This dates back to the time of St. Benedict, by order of St. Benedict. That was ignored too.

Up until Vatican II, the Dominicans have their own rite, which was neither Tridentine nor NO. The only thing that it had with the Tridentine rite was that it was in Latin. It was given to the Order by St. Dominic and approved by the Holy See. It was discontinued after Vatican II when the Dominican Superior General ordered the Friars to adopt the NO. I was trying to point out how religious superiors have a great deal to say about how religious priests celebrate mass and how the Holy See supports them, as long as they do not derail from the valid mass. That was ignored.

Finally, I stated how the three major religious orders: Franciscans, Carmelites and Benedictines have their own Sacramentary, Lectionary and Liturgical calendar which the faithful in their parishes must follow and which is different from that of the universal Church. That was also ignored.

The sense that I’m getting is that many people on CAF are not just defending their rite to the TLM, they are unwilling to accept the fact that there are many forms of celebrating the Eucharist and that their claims about some of these things such as communion in the hand or language may have exceptions, very old and traditional exceptions.

There is something wrong with this kind of thinking. It sounds almost exclusive rather than inclusive.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

You know, this morning I went into a church that I was completely unfamiliar with. I didn’t know the architecture, or the art and I sat in complete darkness except for the candles. All this before the Mass began.

My heart at that moment could not have been more disposed to receive the Eucharist, and it had nothing to do with what I was viewing or hearing, it had to do with my heart at that moment and my desire to be with and receive Christ.

I think we are putting way too much emphasis on these outward things without enough attention on what needs to happen inwardly before we even harken the door of the church for Mass. Yes the rituals and liturgies are beautiful, yes they can and do to lift our hearts and minds to God, but I have seen many people come and go in the most beautiful and reverential churches who could have cared less that they were even there, they just wanted it to be over with so they could get on with their day.

It is the heart of the believer that determines the efficacy of the receipt of Grace, you can’t build that from the outside in, it has to come from the inside to start, and that is the miracle of Grace and repentance, we just cannot fabricate it, it’s the work of the Holy Spirit.

It’s both/and. And yes, it can be aided and abetted by external forms; that’s why Trent talked about the importance of external forms and the Vatican has talked about the importance of sacred music.

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

(This is in response to JREducation’s post #144 which is a couple posts above this one).

I don’t have the article in front of me, but I’m pretty sure Fr. Ripperger would contend that the TLM is more efficacious than the NO. But regardless, at least (I hope) we can agree that the principles he talked about stand.

I remember you talking about these other rites and I believe I responded then as I would now. There is no argument against these other rites such as the Byzantine even though their forms are different because they are all striving for the same purpose–to represent the awesomeness of what is happening through form, prayer, gesture, architecture, and art. I would never wish to alter the Byzantine liturgy or force the Orthodox to adopt the TLM as if the TLM is better than the Orthodox liturgy. The Orthodox and Byzantine liturgies are ancient, organically developed liturgies which convey a sense of the holiness of God and the profound and awesome mystery of the Mass. And if the Franciscans have received communion in the hand and standing for a solid reason instituted by St. Francis and this reason has been imbibed by the Order so they understand this, then OK. Of course this doesn’t mean that one can take a gesture like standing or communion in the hand and allow it in the universal Church at large (especially after its absence for hundreds of years) and think it’s going to have the same significance as it does for the Franciscans since regular Americans are not part of the Franciscan Order and would not come to it with the same understanding. In our culture standing is not a sign of worship (or even respect). Kneeling is.

Also, if the Eastern rites (and I’ve attended both a Byzantine and Orthodox liturgy) use an iconostasis rather than the Priest facing liturgical East, fine. Both gestures are attempting to portray that this is a sacred mystery which is taking place in the “Holy of Holies.”

So it’s not about trying to get ancient liturgies to conform to the TLM and thus this is why traditionalists don’t argue about these other rites you mentioned–they respect them. I’ve attended a Dominican rite Latin Mass a few times and I hope the Dominicans use it more. It did seem quite similar to a TLM (and not just because of the Latin). Most any traditionalist I have heard of fully approves of the fact that Pope St. Pius V, when he codified the Mass, allowed any liturgy or rite which had been around for more than 200 years to continue. Good!

The arguments against the NO revolve around the fact that we aren’t talking about an ancient liturgy developed organically over centuries (and the main issue is not Latin) such as the Byzantine or Dominican rites. We are talking about a liturgy that was fabricated in a committee in the 1960’s whose purpose seemed more to remove whatever is offensive to Protestants and emphasize the Mass more as a communal meal. This is not organic development.

God bless.

 

[JReducation]

It’s both/and. And yes, it can be aided and abetted by external forms; that’s why Trent talked about the importance of external forms and the Vatican has talked about the importance of sacred music.

We can’t deny that art, symbols, rituals, body language have always played an important part of our Judeo-Christian heritage. They were first inroduced by the ancient Jews in the OT. Just look at David’s Psalms and Solomon’s temple. Later the Christians from the Roman, Greek, Ottoman and Ethiopian empries added to it. Then came the Renaissance.

We should not be too quick to dismiss the contribution of modern forms of art and beauty. I have seen some beautiful churches, heard some beautiful modern liturgical music and attended some beautiful liturgies in the NO.

Our parish, which is Franciscan, has a the most beautiful liturgy every October 3 for the Solemnity of St. Francis, Midnight mass at Xmas, and the Easter Vigil. What is especially beautiful about it is the simplicity that they bring, which is part of their Franciscan charism. Everything is very joyful, everyone is involved and the Brothers make it a point to bring into it their traditions from their Order.

What is important is the heart’s disposition to take advantage of this. You can have the most beautiful liturgy and the most dry spirit.

One of the things that our Brothers do is to celebrate the Liturgy of the Hours with the first mass of the day. This is a tradition of their order.

On a lighter note, most people don’t even realize that this is an add-on, as I call it.

In our parish, the superior is not a priest. He is a lay man. When the superior is present at mass, the priest kisses the altar, then goes over to the superior who is sitting on the side in his habit and asks for his blessing. On the solemnity of St. Francis, the superior sits on a special chair and all the brothes kneel before him and placing their hands in his hands they renew their vows right afer the sermon. Then the mass continues.

I’ll never foget this lady who once asked why Father never celebrated mass. One of the Sisters in the parish explained to her that Father was not a priest, but a layman. The lady said, “Why do we call him Father?” It was interesting trying to explain that the superior is always called Father.

On another occassion, we were celebrating the Solemnity of St. Francis and the prayers of the mass for that day constantly say, Our Holy Father St. Francis. Someone turned and said to me, “I didn’t know St. Francis had been a pope.” I explained that St. Francis was a layman, not a priest. I explained that he is called Holy Father becaue the Church gave him the highest title that can be given to a Christian, The Mirror of Perfection. And she say, “Ohhhhhhhhh, that’s so sweet.” She said it in such a gentle and reverential way that I felt happy to have shared something that seemed to make the solemnity very meaningful for her.

These are the little things that we must remember and not lose as we try to preserve the beauty of liturgy and help people get the greatest spiritual benefits.

There are many elements in liturgy and different situations that add a great deal, not just one single thing.

I was in the missions and we didn’t have churches. We had small wooden chapels. We had the NO, but the simplicity of the faithful made up for the lack in externals.

This is one of the problems that many people in the USA do not understand. In mission countries people do not like the TLM. They love the simple liturgy with the simple buildings and local music that they have used for a very long time. In South American the Tridentine mass has often been associated with the oppression by the Spaniards and by the rich social classes. Because the rich and powerful helped fund the great Cathedrals and basilicas, they often had special privileges within the Church. For example, the Churches only had seating for the rich and open spaces in the back for the poor to stand. This disappeared after Vatican II. Their context is different from ours. I know this, because I saw this with my own eyes. I come from Latin America where the Tridentine mass was associated with the Church of the Spaniards and their oppressive successors.

The renewal in Catholicism in Latin America came with the liturgical reforms. It became a Church for everyone. If we look at the Latin American communities in the USA, they are very faithful and are growing. We have to preserve what has brought them back to the Church along with what will bring other Americans back, such as the TLM.

The idea is to bring all people to Christ, whether we use the TLM, NO, Byzantine or the forms of the religious orders.

JR

 

[JReducation]

I don’t have the article in front of me, but I’m pretty sure Fr. Ripperger would contend that the TLM is more efficacious than the NO.

The take I got from the article is that he presents what cannot be argued, that the senses play an important part and there is certainly a great deal of food for the senses. It is not the efficaciousness of the mass, but to the efficaciouness of the symbols and environment. No one with any common sense would argue this.

I would never wish to alter the Byzantine liturgy or force the Orthodox to adopt the TLM as if the TLM is better than the Orthodox liturgy. The Orthodox and Byzantine liturgies are ancient, organically developed liturgies which convey a sense of the holiness of God and the profound and awesome mystery of the Mass.

The reason I mentioned these is because it becomes tiresome when people repeat over and over again that the Tridentine mass traditional as if it were the only form that we have ever had or even the oldest. I don’t mind people advocating for a TLM mass in their community. But don’t oversimplify (not you) the issue. We have very ancient forms of liturgy, even more ancient than the TLM.

And if the Franciscans have received communion in the hand and standing for a solid reason instituted by St. Francis and this reason has been imbibed by the Order so they understand this, then OK.

In our culture standing is not a sign of worship (or even respect). Kneeling is.

Any secular person who attends mass at a Franciscan friary is going to be included in this custom, whether they understand it or not. To the friars, their rule is sacred and they’re not going to accomodate for the lay visitor and they don’t. It is also true that their chapels are not parishes.

However, in their parishes they do include some of their community’s customs in their celebration of the liturgy, such as using their sacramentary, their lectionary and their liturgical calendar. These take precedence over those of the univeral Church. This is granted them under the title “exempt religious orders of pontifical rite.” If a person who is really set on the good old traditional liturgy and its readings and prayers attends a mass in one of their parishes, they better be ready to find that the prayers on certain days may be different, the colours that the priest is wearing may be different and the readings are different, becaus their celebrating the feast of the Stigmata of St. Francis or the Solemnity of St. Clare or something like that. The same would apply to someone who is set on the NO. They are going to have to deal with the variations.

Also, if the Eastern rites (and I’ve attended both a Byzantine and Orthodox liturgy) use an iconostasis rather than the Priest facing liturgical East, fine. Both gestures are attempting to portray that this is a sacred mystery which is taking place in the “Holy of Holies.”

This is my point exactly. That there are preserved for us these celebrations and they are open to all Catholics. A Byzantine litugy is still a Catholic liturgy. There are some canonical rules about attending an Orthodox mass, but they do make allowances for certain situations.

The Dominican Friars are no longer allowed to use it. I belive it was in the late 1960s or early 1970s that their Prior General forbade it and ordered those friars who are priests to use the NO exclusively.

This is another point that I was trying to call people’s attention to. We have to respect the charism of the religious orders that run many of our parishes. For example, the Dominicans and the Franciscan owe obedience to their Superiors and to the General Chapter of their Orders. Once those General Chapters received the approbation from the Holy See, only another General Chapter and the Pope can change the mandates of the previous one. This has been established in the Church since the 1500s. The Holy See agreed that certain Orders were exempt by Pontifical rite. In essence, they agreed to allow these orders to govern themselves without the interference of Church authority unless they committed heresy or violated canon law.

We are talking about a liturgy that was fabricated in a committee in the 1960’s whose purpose seemed more to remove whatever is offensive to Protestants and emphasize the Mass more as a communal meal. This is not organic development.

I disagree that the NO was born out of a desire to be politically correct or to be ecumenical. I believe that the liturgists who worked on it borrowed many elements from the high Protestant churches not to be ecumenical, but because they made sense.

This does not mean that there haven’t been so called exagerations in the applications of the changes. This happens in both the TLM and the NO.

Just the other day someone on one of these threads was arguing that angels speak Latin; therefore, the Church must celebrate mass in Latin to follow the example set by the angels.

I had to chuckle, because angels do not have bodies. Therefore, they have no brain with no language centre. Even if they did have bodies and a brain with a language centre, to say that they speak Latin would throw a monkey wrench in the works for the Eastern Catholics who have been talking to the angels in Russian, Greek, Romanian, Polish and whatever, for thousands of years. All of these arguments are extremes on both sides.

I am for building bridges, not competing. I’m also for making people aware that we have differences. They’re not going to go away and the are there for us to take advantage of them, if we want to do so.

I don’t know if that makes my previous post clearer.

JR

 

[stmaria]

=JReducation;3406091]St Maria
To say that the Latin mass is more efficacious than mass in another language flies in the face of logic, because efficacious comes from the word “efficient”; it accomplishes what it sets out to do. What you’re saying is that the liturgy in other languages fails to accomplish what it sets out to do. In other words, it is an incomplete or inefficient sacrifice. That would make it an incomplete or inefficient sacrament. There is not such thing. It is either a sacrament or it is not. It cannot be a mediocre sacrament. There is not such thing.

Why does everyone always focus on the Latin? It is not just about the Latin. It is about the rubrics of the TLM that have been removed from the Novus Ordo.

The efficiency of grace is not determined by the individual, as the individual faithful do not give grace, they receive grace. Grace is the gift that God gives. God’s gift does not depend on the believer. The believer can accept or reject the gift of grace, but cannot stop God from giving it

.

Let’s be honest here. Many of those that go to the OF are not in a state of grace. As you well know the confessionals are seldom used. The Mass on Holy Days of obligation are at best 50% full. Yet all of those folks that miss the Holy Day are receiving communion in a state of sin. Aren’t they rejecting grace? This doesn’t happen for those that prefer the TLM. They are dedicated Catholics. If they were to miss Mass there is no way that they receive communion without going to confession.

Now as to why, in my opinion the TLM is more efficacious. In the OF there are too many options. My local priest** never **says the Penitential Rite except during Lent. He will use option B or C. He also has never used the Roman Canon. He always uses Eucharistic Prayer II. It is the shortest and it is the one that the *Short Criticial Study of the Mass *said could be used by a Protestant minister. And why? In Eucharistic Prayer II the communion of the Saints has been omitted as has the mention of the Blessed Mother, the Apostles and martyrs and especially St Peter and St Paul. It could in fact be used by a Protestant. Nothing is omitted in the TLM. From the prayers at the foot of the altar to the elevation of the host, which is omitted in many OF masses, to the reading of the Last Gospel of John it is clear that this is a sacrifice made to God with the utmost respect.
How does all of the above affect Catholics? Consider the current posting. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=223852
Here is a young man that went to the Traditional Mass for the first and it brought him to tears. He says that he can’t wait for Sunday so that he can go to Mass. He says that it has made him a better person.Why has the Traditional Mass affected him in this way? Could it be that the TLM is more efficacious ?

Also In the Traditional Mass your venial sins are absolved if your are sorry for them and you receive a plenary indulgence by saying the Leonine prayers which are said after every low Mass. That is not available in the OF.

In addition, the absolution in the Penitential Rite of the mass is not sacramental. None of the rites of the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church claim that the Penitential Rite of the liturgy is the Sacrament of Reconciliation. While all of the sacraments are intimately connected to the Eucharist, each retains its integrity and its own character. The absolution is achieved through the penitential prayer of the person. **The priest is not granting absolution as he would in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. **

This is true in the OF where the absolution has been suppressed. Here are the two Prayers

“May almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to life everlasting. [Amen] May the Almighty and merciful Lord grant us pardon, absolution [he blesses the people with the sign of the cross], and **remission of our sins.” **TLM Absolution

“May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.” Ordinary Form
From the GIRM usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect3a
The Act of Penitence in the Ordinary Form]

1. Then the priest invites those present to take part in the Act of Penitence, which, after a brief pause for silence, the entire community carries out through a formula of general confession. The rite concludes with the priest’s absolution, which, however, lacks the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance.

You quoted what the Holy Father says about kneeling at mass and prayer. No one will dispute that what the Holy Father says is accurate and good. However, the Holy Father is also an excellent theologian. He would be the first to tell you that there are other groups in the Catholic Church that do not use this form of reverence, but use other forms which are equally reverent and should also be preserved, because they are part of the history of the Church.

But the Holy Father is speaking of the Universal Rite where kneeling is the ultimate form of reverence

You said that you want your children to worship God with solemnity and reverence. I congratulate you on that. It’s the sign of a good parent. That being said, you do not have wait for the TLM to become the universal practice. If you want solemnity, mysticism and mystery dramatized at its best, I would strongly recommend a Byzantine parish. They are Catholic and their liturgy is filled with all of the dramatic elements to awaken the sense of mystery and mysticism among the faithful. They are actually more traditional than the TLM.

Byzantine parishes are as rare as TLM parishes. I want my children to experience " elements to awaken the sense of mystery and mysticism " in the Ordinary Form. There is no reason for it to be supressed in any rite.

 

[Brother_John]

Let’s be honest here. Many of those that go to the OF are not in a state of grace. As you well know the confessionals are seldom used. The Mass on Holy Days of obligation are at best 50% full. Yet all of those folks that miss the Holy Day are receiving communion in a state of sin. Aren’t they rejecting grace? This doesn’t happen for those that prefer the TLM. They are dedicated Catholics. If they were to miss Mass there is no way that they receive communion without going to confession.

How can you possibly know all of this to be fact? That it may be your opinion does not make it fact. How incredibly judgemental. In your words, one must crave the TLM to be a “dedicated” Catholic. What utter rubbish.

 

[Jeanette_L]

How can you possibly know all of this to be fact? That it may be your opinion does not make it fact. How incredibly judgemental. In your words, one must crave the TLM to be a “dedicated” Catholic. What utter rubbish.

I go exclusively to the ON, I will not receive the Eucharist without confession if I think I’m not in a state of Grace. I don’t presume to judge those around me, I’m forbidden to do so by our Lord.

I agree, this is a very wrong and judgementalist attitude. I’m starting to get a bad taste in my mouth about this whole issue, seems that charity and/or mercy is hard to come by in the TLM only crowd. It’s a shame. Doesn’t make their side very appealing to me at all. The letter without the spirit.

 

[Indyann]

I go exclusively to the ON, I will not receive the Eucharist without confession if I think I’m not in a state of Grace. I don’t presume to judge those around me, I’m forbidden to do so by our Lord.

I agree, this is a very wrong and judgementalist attitude. I’m starting to get a bad taste in my mouth about this whole issue, seems that charity and/or mercy is hard to come by in the TLM only crowd. It’s a shame. Doesn’t make their side very appealing to me at all. The letter without the spirit.

It is for this reason they are a very small minority and will most likely remain so.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s get this right, before we begin to violate charity around here. I started this thread and I don’t want to see it closed, because people begin to offend each other.

The TLM has its merits and it should be preserved as part of the Church’s heritage, as should be the Byzantine and as the years go by the NO will also become part of our heritage. This will not happen over night and without many revisions as was the case with the other forms.

What is wrong here is the theology of many of the lay people who are defending the TLM and in some cases their attitude toward the universal Church. These errors need to be addressed.

EFFICACIOUS

To say that one is more efficacious than the other is theologically incorrect. A valid liturgy is always efficacious.

To say that the symbols and the rituals are more efficacious in bringing out the sensibilities and reverence of those who participate is very different than the efficaciousness of the liturgy itself. The symbols and the rituals are not essential, but they are helpful.

The Eucharist will be the Eucharist with or without all of the symbols of the TLM and the sacrament will be efficacious, because the sacrifice will be offered and complete.

If those who love the TLM want to use the term efficacious, you must make sure that you are clear that you are referring to the ritual, not the sacrament and you must make sure that your target audience understands this. Otherwise, you are sending a message to your target audience that the sacrament is only efficacious in the TLM.

RUBRICS

You may like the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Roman canon. You may like the reading of the last Gospel at the end of mass and love the penitential rite. That is all fine. However, you must understand that the rubrics are not static. They can change by the authority of the Church. You may say that you prefer the rubrics of the TLM over those of other forms. But you must be careful not to condemn the rubrics of other forms, because many of these other rubrics have been in use for a very long time. What you do is condemn and offend those who have been using them.

As I posted before, Franciscan friars do not kneel at mass and receive communion in the hand since 1223. They do not use crucifixes, but crosses by order of St. Francis. They started to kneel with the NO and it is up to the superior of the house. When you call this irreverent, you are judging and condemning millions of holy men who have come and gone for almost 800 years.

In enclosed monastic orders the Blessed Sacrament is kept in an oratory, not in the main Church. It has been this way since the time of Benedict. When you denounce this as a bad thing, you offend the Benedictine family.

When you say that the use of Latin is more reverent than the national language, you offend the entire Eastern Church and the Orthodox Church.

If you truly want to build up the Body of Christ, you must be careful not to send the wrong message to those who hear you. What you’re telling them is that all of these people and those who worship in the NO today are in error and danger of serious sin. This is theologically incorrect.

Some parts of the NO and the changes in the architecture of our churches were borrowed from religious orders which had them in place for centuries.

PRAYERS AND CANONS

Some of you love the Roman Canon. There is nothing wrong with it. The fact that the Eucharistic prayers can or cannot be used by a Protestant minister does not make it anathema. The Eucharistic prayer of the Roman Missal does what it sets out to do, to transubstantiate the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. It doesn’t matter that it can be said by a third grader. What matters is that when it is prayed by a priest, it effects the sacrament of the Eucharist. You must be careful to mention that it does do what it is supposed to do, otherwise you make it sound as an invalid prayer. That would be misrepresentation.

Many of us belong to parishes run by religious orders. On some days the prayers and the readings are different, even the Eucharistic prayer is different. Some religious orders have their own Sacramentary and lectionaries, as well as liturgical calendar. You must also keep this in mind. And when you teach about the TLM you must remind people that if they attend a parish run by an Exempt Order of Pontifical Right, not to be afraid of different words, readings or prayers. Because these communities are exempt from following the Roman calendar on certain occasions.

If you do not mention this, people are going to walk into a Benedictine parish and be shocked to see the priest wearing white and singing the Gloria and Alleluia during Lent, not knowing that his Order is celebrating a Benedictine solemnity. This surprise happened to me once. If you do not know which order celebrates what solemnity and when, that’s ok. But you must be very clear in your explanations that there are variations that are very legitimate, otherwise people will believe that any variation is wrong.

Remember that the priest does not grant absolution in the TLM any more than in the NO. The absolution comes through the indulgence. To say that the priest absolves a the beginning of the TLM mass is incorrect sacramental theology. That is misrepresentation.

Keep it clear and keep it charitable toward those who, for many centuries, have held many of the practices adopted by the NO and Vatican II.

JR

 

[stmaria]

Originally Posted by stmaria
Let’s be honest here. Many of those that go to the OF are not in a state of grace. As you well know the confessionals are seldom used. The Mass on Holy Days of obligation are at best 50% full. Yet all of those folks that miss the Holy Day are receiving communion in a state of sin. Aren’t they rejecting grace? This doesn’t happen for those that prefer the TLM. They are dedicated Catholics. If they were to miss Mass there is no way that they receive communion without going to confession.

How can you possibly know all of this to be fact? That it may be your opinion does not make it fact. How incredibly judgemental. In your words, one must crave the TLM to be a “dedicated” Catholic. What utter rubbish.

Not my opinion. It is fact and you know it but just like the priests you are afraid to address it. Don’t want to offend anyone?
A Church has four Sunday Masses and yet on the Holy Day they schedule only Two. Even the Priest knows that only half will show up yet, come Sunday, they will all be there to receive communion in a state of sin.

Please feel free to accuse the Synod of Bishops for being judemental

SYNOD OF BISHOPS
XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY October 2005
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

"Certainly, thought needs to be given to the great disproportion between the many who receive Holy Communion and the few who go to confession. **The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion, without even thinking that they might be in the state of mortal sin… **

Or accuse Pope Benedict of being judgemental

Pope: Make confession a time for God’s merciful love
catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew.aspx?action=3010
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – With fewer and fewer Catholics going to confession, Pope Benedict XVI urged priests and seminarians to make the sacrament of penance a time for sinners to feel God’s merciful love.

“Sin does not lie at the heart of the sacramental celebration, but rather God’s mercy, which is infinitely greater than each of our faults,” he said March 7
The pope said that today, unfortunately, there is a growing lack of any sense of sin.

Those who are too self-confident and confide only in themselves are blinded by their ego “and their heart hardens in sin,” he said"

 

[JReducation]

Not my opinion. It is fact and you know it but just like the priests you are afraid to address it. Don’t want to offend anyone?
A Church has four Sunday Masses and yet on the Holy Day they schedule only Two. Even the Priest knows that only half will show up yet, come Sunday, they will all be there to receive communion in a state of sin.

Please feel free to accuse the Synod of Bishops for being judemental

SYNOD OF BISHOPS
XI ORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY October 2005
vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc_20050707_instrlabor-xi-assembly_en.html

"Certainly, thought needs to be given to the great disproportion between the many who receive Holy Communion and the few who go to confession. **The faithful frequently receive Holy Communion, without even thinking that they might be in the state of mortal sin… **

Or accuse Pope Benedict of being judgemental

Pope: Make confession a time for God’s merciful love
catholicreview.org/subpages/storyworldnew.aspx?action=3010
By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – With fewer and fewer Catholics going to confession, Pope Benedict XVI urged priests and seminarians to make the sacrament of penance a time for sinners to feel God’s merciful love.

“Sin does not lie at the heart of the sacramental celebration, but rather God’s mercy, which is infinitely greater than each of our faults,” he said March 7
The pope said that today, unfortunately, there is a growing lack of any sense of sin.

Those who are too self-confident and confide only in themselves are blinded by their ego “and their heart hardens in sin,” he said"

HOLD THE PRESSES!

I believe that we have gotten off thread. We were discussing the TLM, not confession.

Let’s keep focussed on one subject at a time.

If we go all over the place, then we get no place.

If you want to discuss confession, please open a new thread. That’s an entirely different discussion.

Thanks,

JR

 

[stmaria]

EFFICACIOUS

To say that one is more efficacious than the other is theologically incorrect. A valid liturgy is always efficacious.

To say that the symbols and the rituals are more efficacious in bringing out the sensibilities and reverence of those who participate is very different than the efficaciousness of the liturgy itself. The symbols and the rituals are not essential, but they are helpful.

The Eucharist will be the Eucharist with or without all of the symbols of the TLM and the sacrament will be efficacious, because the sacrifice will be offered and complete.

If those who love the TLM want to use the term efficacious, you must make sure that you are clear that you are referring to the ritual, not the sacrament and you must make sure that your target audience understands this. Otherwise, you are sending a message to your target audience that the sacrament is only efficacious in the TLM.

RUBRICS

You may like the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Roman canon. You may like the reading of the last Gospel at the end of mass and love the penitential rite. That is all fine. However, you must understand that the rubrics are not static. They can change by the authority of the Church. You may say that you prefer the rubrics of the TLM over those of other forms. But you must be careful not to condemn the rubrics of other forms, because many of these other rubrics have been in use for a very long time. What you do is condemn and offend those who have been using them.

If you truly want to build up the Body of Christ, you must be careful not to send the wrong message to those who hear you. What you’re telling them is that all of these people and those who worship in the NO today are in error and danger of serious sin. This is theologically incorrect.

Some parts of the NO and the changes in the architecture of our churches were borrowed from religious orders which had them in place for centuries.

PRAYERS AND CANONS

Some of you love the Roman Canon. There is nothing wrong with it. The fact that the Eucharistic prayers can or cannot be used by a Protestant minister does not make it anathema. The Eucharistic prayer of the Roman Missal does what it sets out to do, to transubstantiate the bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. It doesn’t matter that it can be said by a third grader. What matters is that when it is prayed by a priest, it effects the sacrament of the Eucharist. You must be careful to mention that it does do what it is supposed to do, otherwise you make it sound as an invalid prayer. That would be misrepresentation.

Many of us belong to parishes run by religious orders. On some days the prayers and the readings are different, even the Eucharistic prayer is different. Some religious orders have their own Sacramentary and lectionaries, as well as liturgical calendar. You must also keep this in mind. And when you teach about the TLM you must remind people that if they attend a parish run by an Exempt Order of Pontifical Right, not to be afraid of different words, readings or prayers. Because these communities are exempt from following the Roman calendar on certain occasions.

If you do not mention this, people are going to walk into a Benedictine parish and be shocked to see the priest wearing white and singing the Gloria and Alleluia during Lent, not knowing that his Order is celebrating a Benedictine solemnity. This surprise happened to me once. If you do not know which order celebrates what solemnity and when, that’s ok. But you must be very clear in your explanations that there are variations that are very legitimate, otherwise people will believe that any variation is wrong.

Remember that the priest does not grant absolution in the TLM any more than in the NO. The absolution comes through the indulgence. To say that the priest absolves a the beginning of the TLM mass is incorrect sacramental theology. That is misrepresentation.

Keep it clear and keep it charitable toward those who, for many centuries, have held many of the practices adopted by the NO and Vatican II.

JR

Excellent post as always. What I have quoted below is exactly what I am talking about.

EFFICACIOUS

To say that one is more efficacious than the other is theologically incorrect. A valid liturgy is always efficacious.

**To say that the symbols and the rituals are more efficacious in bringing out the sensibilities and reverence of those who participate is very different than the efficaciousness of the liturgy itself. ** The symbols and the rituals are not essential, but they are helpful.

The Eucharist will be the Eucharist with or without all of the symbols of the TLM and the sacrament will be efficacious, because the sacrifice will be offered and complete.

If those who love the TLM want to use the term efficacious, you must make sure that you are clear that you are referring to the ritual, not the sacrament

I am speaking of the rituals and symbols in the TLM that bring out the sensibilities and reverence of the faithful
I have several friends that had left the Church. They went on a trip to Spain and Portugal. There they witnessed the daily Masses that are held in the ancient cathedrals and monasteries.
It had a profound effect on their lives. The beautiful adorned altars and statues, the High Mass with incense and Gregorian chant, the beautiful vestments, the Holy EucharisticProcessions. They returned home as born again Catholics.
What changed their lives? The externals.
The TLM and externals go hand in hand. This is why the stripped down altars of so many Churches disturbs me. People need the mystery, ritual and symbols and I don’t believe that you should have to go to the Traditional Mass to experience them

 

[JReducation]

Excellent post as always. What I have quoted below is exactly what I am talking about.

I am speaking of the rituals and symbols in the TLM that bring out the sensibilities and reverence of the faithful

The TLM and externals go hand in hand. This is why the stripped down altars of so many Churches disturbs me. People need the mystery, ritual and symbols and I don’t believe that you should have to go to the Traditional Mass to experience them

I will agree with you that our senses play an important part in our spiritual life. There is no doubt about that. The great religious psychologist, William James, goes into this in great detail in his work, as does M. Scott Peck, though M. Scott Peck gets a little strange, his point is good, so did Thomas Merton. St. Francis also used symbols and rituals in his tradition. St. Teresa of Avila wrote that at some point the Christian must grow out of infancy and not need them, but that they are helpful for those in the infancy stage of faith, which is probably the case with most Christians.

I know nothing about your parish, so I can’t speak to that. I can speak to my experience. I was brought into the Church and later into theology and philosophy by the Capuchin-Franciscan Brothers. I got so close to them that I spent time with them in the mission field. That’s a story for another thread.

However, even though they use the NO, their liturgies are beautiful. They are very rich in symbols and the music is beautiful. Our Sunday masses are packed. Only three of our Brothers are priests, the other four are not. But we have two masses on Sat and five on Sun, because that’s how many people they attract. Our youth mass is standing room only.

One of the things that I’ve noticed when I attend mass at a parish run by one of the Orders is that they manage to bring the charism of their Order into the spirit of the liturgy and that often helps.

For example, in our parish, our people are edified by the humility of the Pastor. The superior of the community is a Lay Brother. Naturally, the pastor is subordinate to him. To see our Pastor refer to him as Father and ask for his blessing at the beginning of mass is a beautiful gesture that people find moving. At the same time, the humility of the Superior when the Brother priest hands him communion and see him bow to his subordinate is a beautiful gesture that is refreshing. Because it shows us the unity of the Church and the diversity of gifts and roles, without conflict.

Being in Ft. Lauderdale, we have very hot summers. At this time of year the Brothers do not wear the traditional habit. They wear very simple street clothes. They actually look like they purchased them at Goodwill or some such place. When we see them throw a choir robe over their very poor clothing to celebrate mass, we are reminded of the poverty of Christ on the cross.

They do not use Gregorian chant, because St. Francis prohibited the singing of the liturgy, including the Liturgy of the Hours. His rule says that it must be recited so that all of the Brothers can participate. The rule can only be changed by the Pope. What they have done is to gather many musical pieces and hymns from old to new which are very biblical. They engage the faithful in singing. They even have practices before mass with the people.

One of the things that people seem to like is the fact that they always focus their sermons on God’s love and God’s mercy and they bring many of Francis’ interpretations of the scriptures. As you know, who doesn’t love Francis of Assisi.

One of the things that’s in their rule is that they are to be little brothers to everyone. So what they do in the liturgy is to bring as many of the people in the congregation as they can around the altar with them as a sign of their brotherhood with the Church and with the Crucified Christ. Since the Church is packed they select the elderly one week, youth another week, people with disabilities, immigrants and so forth. They don’t do this every week, because it would be too chaotic, but they do this often, especially when they celebrate Franciscan holy days.

They use as much colour, incense and candles as their rule allows, because of the spirit of poverty that they must observe. However, they explain this to the people.

Of course, St. Francis created the first Christmas crib and the first Stations of the Cross, so they are very big on the veneration of the cross and the infant at the appropriate times of the year.

The tabernacle is to the right of the sanctuary, but it’s really a shrine. It’s beautifully done and visble from any point in the church. They use St. Francis’ prayer, “We adore you oh Christ and we bless you, here and in all your churches throughout the world, because by your holy cross you have redeemed the world.”

Being a Pontifical Order, they are bound to pray the Liturgy of the Hours. They pray the Morning Office just before the first mass , Evening Office after the last mass in the evening and the faithful are invited to join them. They have even taught the faithful to pray the Office. They have helped the faithful see the connection between the Eucharist and the Liturgy of the Hours.

All of this is done within the NO. As far as I know, they are not going to use the TLM. I believe someone told me that their superior general had said no to that idea, because it would create a division among the Brothers. I’m not sure if my resource is accurate, so don’t take this to the bank. Usually they leave this to the Provincial Superior or the local superior.

The point that I’m trying to make is that you are right about the helpfulness of symbol, ritual and the senses. However, that is not something that only the TLM can provide. It should be part of every liturgical celebration, regardless of the form.

JR

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Every time I have been in Europe, I have always been in awe of the beauty and grandeur of the churches and cathedrals. These were built in a time of yesteryear and took hundreds of years for some of them to be completed. I know the feeling, because of the beauty around you. But, that beauty is to focus you on the Eucharistic sacrifice which you are attending. That same Eucharistic sacrifice is the one we experience in the Novus Ordo (which we celebrated there in those surroundings) as well as here in our much more simple churches. Likewise with the Latin mass. I have heard people say, we should celebrate mass under the trees at one extreme, to the opposite in these magnificent basilicas. . In fact, one of the most memorable and moving masses I have ever attended was in the jungles of Central America, outdoors, with the indigenous Indians in their native dress. Regardless where we celebrate, the efficacy is always infinite. This is the one thing I wish people would hold in their hearts. i do not worry about your preference, you should not worry about mine.
Deacon Ed B

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Every time I have been in Europe, I have always been in awe of the beauty and grandeur of the churches and cathedrals. These were built in a time of yesteryear and took hundreds of years for some of them to be completed. I know the feeling, because of the beauty around you. But, that beauty is to focus you on the Eucharistic sacrifice which you are attending. That same Eucharistic sacrifice is the one we experience in the Novus Ordo (which we celebrated there in those surroundings) as well as here in our much more simple churches. Likewise with the Latin mass. I have heard people say, we should celebrate mass under the trees at one extreme, to the opposite in these magnificent basilicas. . In fact, one of the most memorable and moving masses I have ever attended was in the jungles of Central America, outdoors, with the indigenous Indians in their native dress. Regardless where we celebrate, the efficacy is always infinite. This is the one thing I wish people would hold in their hearts. i do not worry about your preference, you should not worry about mine.
Deacon Ed B

:bowdown: :bowdown:

:bowdown2: :bowdown2:​

 

[DustinsDad]

I was going to take a step back from the board for a bit, so for now just a couple of quick notes…

The Eucharistic celebration is not about adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Actually, adoration is one of the four purposes of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (Adoration, Thanksgiving, Reparation, Petition). I’m not all that worried about the ad orientem question - it’s going to come back sooner or later (hopefuly sooner if you read the writings of Pope Benedict). This is another thing not called for by VII or even in the rubrics of the O.F. itself.

We are also looking at him holding God when he consecrates.

Which is true ad orientem or verses populum - either way. The only thing that has struck me as odd even when I was a young’n was the bows to the altar when Christ is in the tabernacle behind the priest means the priest is bowing away from Our Lord in the tabernacle, showing his backside to Our Lord. I never did like that, even way back when I was a kid and had no idea that there ever was an “ad orientem” tradition (I was born in 1969).

stmaria: There is no denying that this debate has caused a division.

JReducation: Agreed and that’s why I say that it is an unfortunate debate.

I can only say that the division itself is caused by and is the result of the differences within the one Latin Rite. And yep - this is unfortunate, but it is reality. Discussions of the differences within the two forms of the Latin Rite often turn to debate because it seems that even mentioning or discussing the differences is taboo in and of itself. Like we’re not “supposed to notice”. We sort of enter into an “Emporer with no clothes” scenerio where no one is supposed to notice the differences - look the other way and be “faithful”, or acknowledge the difference and automatically become “schismatic” or “disobediant”. Point out that such things were never called for in Vatican II and you are in trouble. Point out that one form is objectively speaking more reverant, and all heck breaks out.

This is the reality of the situation we are in, but it does not have to be this way in the long run - and it is certainly the hope and intention (as stated in the Motu Proprio and the letter to the bishops accompanying it) of Pope Benedict that we can move beyond this.

It’s a tough one for traditional minded folks, there’s a delicate way to handle discussions about the differences - and if anyone has the perfect formula, please share! We are all fallen creatures and so should all embrace Truth in charity and strive for the best for Holy Mother Church, for the body and Bride of Christ, the human side for our beneifit, and the Divine side because He deserves our best.

One point of observation is that the way we talk about such things in person with friends and family are probably alot different than the way it is handled on forums such as this. Especially as of late (and I exclude not myself) it seems charges of heresy, schism, sedevacantism and such are thrown out at the drop of a hat. The defenses go up and both sides, the “hunker down” mentality, and the battle begins. Unfortunate. Charity is called for on both sides certainly - and a certain amount of common sense.

That last point - common sense - is so very important. For just one example, when one says that - objectively speaking - receiving Our Lord on the knees and on the tounge is more reverant that standing and in the hands - it’s pretty much common sense and trying to debate this is just pointless - it boggles my mind at least that folks want to argue against this point.

The traditional minded person here isn’t (or shouldn’t be) saying that all folks receiving the Lord in the latter form are irreverant, we are just pointing out the obvious regarding the form of the posture itself.

And on the other side, folks I would hope would at least attempt to try to avoid throwing landmines in the discussion - phrases such as “priest has his back to the people” demontrates a lack of understanding and due respect of the immorial liturgical traditions of the Church - and are sure to sabatoge any productive dialogue.

Bottom line: The are differences within the two forms of the Latin Rite - and the forms themseves are not the same and therefore, are not necessarily equal in one very crucial sense. The Lord’s part is always infinite, always perfect. But our part? Not so much.

Alas, never before has stating the obvious brought so much ridicule and attack.

I could go on - but I sense I’m starting to ramble and don’t have much time. There’s about a zillion things in the last couple of pages I could address - but will refrain for the time being. That’s all for now. Gotta run.

And Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad