Latin mass questions

[ProVobis]

Are there some parts of the Church which cannot change, no matter what the moment in time? Are there others that do change? Grow and die out seasonally? Is the Tridentine Mass capable of being unchanged until the end of Time?

The 1962 Missal is virtually frozen, but that doesn’t mean the Tridentine Mass is. It can be more “modernized” or in fact, it may revert back to the 1945 Missal (with its Holy Week restored) or even the 1920 or 1570 Missal, although the chances of this happening are very slim.

 

[otjm]

The 1962 Missal is virtually frozen, but that doesn’t mean the Tridentine Mass is. It can be more “modernized” or in fact, it may revert back to the 1945 Missal (with its Holy Week restored) or even the 1920 or 1570 Missal, although the chances of this happening are very slim.

The 1962 Missal is frozen until Rome decides to thaw it out. Benedict 16 made some suggestions to possible changes. What the likelihood is of those changes being incorporated in, say, the next 5 years if probably between slim and none, but the issue has already been broached. And if anything is done, then we will most likely have the 20XX Missal, with the 1962 Missal having been abrogated.

 

[hoop0826]

The 1962 Missal is frozen until Rome decides to thaw it out. Benedict 16 made some suggestions to possible changes. What the likelihood is of those changes being incorporated in, say, the next 5 years if probably between slim and none, but the issue has already been broached. And if anything is done, then we will most likely have the 20XX Missal, with the 1962 Missal having been abrogated.

So does the Latin Rite live under the two dynamic forms? Are they both the means to the same end?

 

[otjm]

So does the Latin Rite live under the two dynamic forms? Are they both the means to the same end?

According to Pope Benedict, yes; two forms (not rites) of the Same Mass, both with the end of worship of God and our salvation.

And yes, they are dynamic to the extent that there can be changes; the EF through history has had changes made to it (albeit slowly and over a much longer time), and there is nothing cast in stone over the OF. Pope Benedict said as much about possible changes to the EF; I just would not anticipate any changes any time soon.

 

[hoop0826]

According to Pope Benedict, yes; two forms (not rites) of the Same Mass, both with the end of worship of God and our salvation.

And yes, they are dynamic to the extent that there can be changes; the EF through history has had changes made to it (albeit slowly and over a much longer time), and there is nothing cast in stone over the OF. Pope Benedict said as much about possible changes to the EF; I just would not anticipate any changes any time soon.

What then would differentiate between having forms of a single rite, and having different rites altogether? Since the EF and OF are the same rite, would they also have to develop, grow, and change together?

 

[ProVobis]

What then would differentiate between having forms of a single rite, and having different rites altogether? Since the EF and OF are the same rite, would they also have to develop, grow, and change together?

This is more of a philosophical question. Do you consider adding more options, vernaculars, translations, a matter of development and growth? If so both forms are very open to changes, as well as all current vernaculars and cultures (English Mass, Polish Mass, etc.). Will they change together? Probably no more so than changing the translation of “pro multis” in the consecration.

 

[otjm]

What then would differentiate between having forms of a single rite, and having different rites altogether? Since the EF and OF are the same rite, would they also have to develop, grow, and change together?

Pope Benedict in so many words said that both could “learn” or grow from the other. That does not necessarily imply that the two would eventually meld into one, but that is not outside the realm of possibility, though perhaps extremely slight.

It is clear that the bishops in union with the Pope (Paul 6) intended that at least some vernacular be introduced; and it is also clear that Rome would like to have the OF with some Latin used. for as long as we have had the OF, Rome has seen fit not to require Latin at certain places in the OF, however, and that is certainly within their power.

Likewise, the EF as it is currently may not see changes to it in terms of introducing vernacular language in part because Benedict 16 was rather pointed in that he was assuring everyone its use for the reason that it was strongly desired by some in the form in which it currently exists. Only time will tell how widely it spreads. And by time, we are probably talking in decades.

 

[hoop0826]

Wouldn’t the EF have to be in some very significant ways unchangeable, or else it would cease to be what it is? How can a Mass that past generations have used continue to be if it is changed? If it is changed, then wouldn’t it be a Mass that only the current generation and after could use, and never the past generations?

 

[ProVobis]

Wouldn’t the EF have to be in some very significant ways unchangeable, or else it would cease to be what it is? How can a Mass that past generations have used continue to be if it is changed? If it is changed, then wouldn’t it be a Mass that only the current generation and after could use, and never the past generations?

In substance, it won’t change.

I’ve heard some “rumors” that saints may be added to the old calendar and perhaps some new prefaces. The question I would have is whether this (or any other change) will force me to buy a new handmissal or not.

 

[otjm]

Wouldn’t the EF have to be in some very significant ways unchangeable, or else it would cease to be what it is? How can a Mass that past generations have used continue to be if it is changed? If it is changed, then wouldn’t it be a Mass that only the current generation and after could use, and never the past generations?

It was changed in past generations; but nowhere along the line as much as the OF changed from the EF. I am not sure that answers your questions; but each time it has changed, the Mass with those changes became the (then) current form; there were not two forms as we have today.

Radical changes are hardly likely for any time in the near future (and as to how one defines “near” may depend on a lot of things). Near could be ten years; it could be 50… or it could be more.

 

[moon1234]

Nobody wants CITH to be forbidden.

I DO! Receiving on the tongue is forbidden in the EF as stated in UE. So it is Forbidden in one form and allowed in another. Communion on the tongue is the NORM for both forms. Any deviation from the NORM is an exception and NOT the norm, even though it is pushed as the norm in some locations.

I have been an alter server and my boys are servers. I have seen with my own EYES the particles of hosts that fall on the paton that we use even during communion on the tongue. It is amazing to me to think that people just dismiss that it is FACT that particles of our Lord fall on the floor and are walked on when people receive communion in the hand.

Communion in the HAND was started by protestants in protest against the real presence in communion. It is shocking and strange to think that what was once an abuse and a protest against the Real Presence is now advocated as the norm.

 

[moon1234]

While communion in hand is allowed in the EF Mass, to return the question of the OP: In the specific case of the EF Mass, communion on the tongue, and kneeling is the only acceptable norm. The only exception to kneeling are those of advanced age, frail in constitution, or otherwise physically impaired from kneeling. But even in that case, communion on the tongue is still the only norm.

We have a very elderly man in our parish who can hardly walk, except with a cane or assistance, and he insists on kneeling on the hard marble at the altar rail every Sunday. Usually some younger gentleman has to assist him in getting up again, but nobody minds. He respect his stubborn devotion.

Ecclesia Dei even weighed in on this before UE was issued. They stated:

In reference to your letter of 15. June, this papal commission would like to point out that the celebration of Holy Mass in the extraordinary form envisages the reception of Holy Communion while kneeling, as the Holy Host is laid directly on the tongue of the communicant. There is no provision for the distribution of Holy Communion on the hand in this form of the Holy Mass.

This was formally clarified later that communion in the hand is NOT allowed at EF Masses. If it is done, it is an abuse. One of the reasons, I personally believe, why young people are attracted to the EF is that there are RULES and they are usually followed to the letter.

Priests at our EF parish routinely deny people CITH at EF Masses. It is usually just a simple, please open your mouth and the people get it. The altar servers also do their job by placing the paton under the persons mouth or over their hands. It doesn’t take people long to figure it out. We get the occasional dissenter, but it is dealt with discretely and well.

 

[otjm]

Communion in the HAND was started by protestants in protest against the real presence in communion. It is shocking and strange to think that what was once an abuse and a protest against the Real Presence is now advocated as the norm.

Communion in the hand was not started by Protestants, and I don’t know where you came up with such a statement. As far as abuse, it has a long history from the time of the apostles; to call it an abuse is to call a lot of well-known saints abusers of the Eucharist.

It continued on until about 1000 AD give or take some years; and according to Bro. JR, the Franciscans were allowed Communion in the hand from some time in the 1500’s forward.

No one has to receive in the hand; but to act as if this is a sacrilegious is to posit that the Church allows a sacrilegious act and promotes a lessening of respect for the Eucharist. Is that where you really want to go?

 

[moon1234]

In substance, it won’t change.

I’ve heard some “rumors” that saints may be added to the old calendar and perhaps some new prefaces. The question I would have is whether this (or any other change) will force me to buy a new handmissal or not.

The “rumors” were from Pope Benedict. He envisioned adding some of the modern saints to the EF calendar. I don’t think this is a problem at all as the calendar was revised MANY times thru the centuries.

Wholesale tinkering with the EF did not start until the 1950’s. Bugnini started tinkering with the EF during Holy Week back in the 1950’s. The revised Holy Week of 1955 was the most radical and huge change to the EF in almost 500 years. Many of the changes did not make a lot of sense. Rorate did a really nice comparison of the pre and post '55 reforms a few years ago. What we have today in the 1962 Missal (the EF) is radically different for Holy Week than what came before.

These changes, in my opinion, were to get people acclimated to the even bigger changes that would come after the council. The idea was to return to the more ancient practices, get more people to attend Holy Week services, etc. I think it had the opposite effect. Many of the changes during Holy Week in the post '55 missal were abandoned in the Novus Ordo in favor of the pre '55. A good example is the number of readings.

To start tinkering with the EF now, other than with the calendar, would cause MANY of those attached to the traditional liturgy to leave for the SSPX, etc. It would cause upheaval in the traditional orders attached to Rome (ICRSS, FSSP, etc.).

As to needing a new hand missal? Maybe, if you wanted the propers for the saint of the day. You can still use a missal from 100 years ago for the EF and the Mass will be virtually the same (with the exception for Holy Week). You might be missing a few saints or they moved to different days, etc.

 

[moon1234]

Communion in the hand was not started by Protestants, and I don’t know where you came up with such a statement. As far as abuse, it has a long history from the time of the apostles; to call it an abuse is to call a lot of well-known saints abusers of the Eucharist.

It continued on until about 1000 AD give or take some years; and according to Bro. JR, the Franciscans were allowed Communion in the hand from some time in the 1500’s forward.

No one has to receive in the hand; but to act as if this is a sacrilegious is to posit that the Church allows a sacrilegious act and promotes a lessening of respect for the Eucharist. Is that where you really want to go?

Read AA1025 the life and times of an anti-apostle. It chronicles how a Soviet Union agent was ordained a Catholic priest with the express intention of destroying the Church from within. He details how he did it and how thousands of his comrades did the same around the world.

To think that there are NOT those inside the Church who work to destroy her is foolish. This has been the case ALL throughout history.

Communion in the hand was “started” as a common practice by Cranmer in 1552 as a direct, public assault on the teaching of the Real Presence in communion. Here is what Canmer had to say “Christ is not received with the mouth but with the heart and entereth by faith.” This was preceded and continued by the Lutherns and others since as a protest against the real presence.

While the Catholic Church may have had some exceptions to allow communion in the hand for certain clerics and others who UNDERSTOOD what the real presence is/was, those were CLERICS/Religious and not laity. As Church doctrine developed (we assume inspired by the Holy Spirit), communion in the hand was abolished as a norm so that there was a true respect for the true presence.

The idea that “modern” man is more enlightened and knows better is just “modernist” thinking. It comes from pride and arrogance. We want to bring God to our level.

The idea that laity can touch that which previously only consecrated hands touched is a large change in not only respect, but in the perceived role of a Priest.

 

[otjm]

Read AA1025 the life and times of an anti-apostle. It chronicles how a Soviet Union agent was ordained a Catholic priest with the express intention of destroying the Church from within. He details how he did it and how thousands of his comrades did the same around the world.

I don’t waste my time on conspiracy theories.

To think that there are NOT those inside the Church who work to destroy her is foolish. This has been the case ALL throughout history.

That is perhaps a bit over the top.

Communion in the hand was “started” as a common practice by Cranmer in 1552 as a direct, public assault on the teaching of the Real Presence in communion. Here is what Canmer had to say “Christ is not received with the mouth but with the heart and entereth by faith.” This was preceded and continued by the Lutherns and others since as a protest against the real presence.

Your quote does not support your statement, but presuming that it is correct that Archbishop Thomas Cranmer reinstituted CITH, so what? that does not preclude the Church from returning to a practice from the time of the apostles forward for 1000 years.

While the Catholic Church may have had some exceptions to allow communion in the hand for certain clerics and others who UNDERSTOOD what the real presence is/was, those were CLERICS/Religious and not laity. As Church doctrine developed (we assume inspired by the Holy Spirit), communion in the hand was abolished as a norm so that there was a true respect for the true presence.

The idea that “modern” man is more enlightened and knows better is just “modernist” thinking. It comes from pride and arrogance.

Whose pride and arrogance? The last four Popes, all whom have allowed it? And as to “modernist” thinking, sorry, trotting that out for anything one dose not like is simply the use of a dismissive term.

We want to bring God to our level.

I have yet to meet anyone who wants to “bring God to their level”. Sorry, I belong to a parish that has produced 5 vocations to the priesthood and permanent diaconate, one sister to an order that still thinks there is purpose in a habit, something approaching 20 years of 24/7/363 Eucharistic Adoration, and the vast majority of laity receive CITH. That statement is just poppycock.

The idea that laity can touch that which previously only consecrated hands touched is a large change in not only respect, but in the perceived role of a Priest.

Poppycock.

 

[agnes_therese]

Communion in the hand was “started” as a common practice by Cranmer in 1552 as a direct, public assault on the teaching of the Real Presence in communion. Here is what Canmer had to say “Christ is not received with the mouth but with the heart and entereth by faith.” This was preceded and continued by the Lutherns and others since as a protest against the real presence.

While the Catholic Church may have had some exceptions to allow communion in the hand for certain clerics and others who UNDERSTOOD what the real presence is/was, those were CLERICS/Religious and not laity. As Church doctrine developed (we assume inspired by the Holy Spirit), communion in the hand was abolished as a norm so that there was a true respect for the true presence.

The idea that “modern” man is more enlightened and knows better is just “modernist” thinking. It comes from pride and arrogance. We want to bring God to our level.

The idea that laity can touch that which previously only consecrated hands touched is a large change in not only respect, but in the perceived role of a Priest.

So you are saying that the Church is wrong, that the Church allows a practice that comes from “pride and arrogance.”

How sad that you think so badly of Holy Mother Church.

 

[ProVobis]

The “rumors” were from Pope Benedict. He envisioned adding some of the modern saints to the EF calendar. I don’t think this is a problem at all as the calendar was revised MANY times thru the centuries.

Wholesale tinkering with the EF did not start until the 1950’s. Bugnini started tinkering with the EF during Holy Week back in the 1950’s. The revised Holy Week of 1955 was the most radical and huge change to the EF in almost 500 years. Many of the changes did not make a lot of sense. Rorate did a really nice comparison of the pre and post '55 reforms a few years ago. What we have today in the 1962 Missal (the EF) is radically different for Holy Week than what came before.

One of the CAF poster posted these nice links which explain the changes.

adoremus.org/0210Benofy.html

adoremus.org/0310Benofy.html

 

[hoop0826]

Does the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, hold ultimate authority over the way the Mass is offered? Are all Masses, as it were, an extension from the Mass that the Pope offers?

 

[otjm]

Does the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, hold ultimate authority over the way the Mass is offered? Are all Masses, as it were, an extension from the Mass that the Pope offers?

Yes.