Latin mass questions

[hoop0826]

…Although I enjoy both forms of mass equally, I’m surprised some of these things didn’t make their way to the ordinary mass. Would enjoy learning what you all can say on these things. Thanks!

Does the personal enjoyment of the one assisting at Mass significant?

 

[JustaServant]

Does the personal enjoyment of the one assisting at Mass significant?

Having been on both sides of the Tiber I struggled with this myself.
I guess it comes down to how do you define enjoyment? The happy, clappy, worship of the mega-churches burns out quickly. And the older I got the more I desired worship that was more…adult.
There is a satisfaction one gets in Catholic worship, whether OF or EF that, I guess for lack of a better word, could be defined as “enjoyment”. But I am leary of that word because it better describes evangelical “rock concert” style worship.
There is a sense in which we should enjoy worshipping God as He intended. Not in the entertainment sense, but in the sense of the joy it truly brings.
I mean, we’re not supposed to miserable are we?

 

[ProVobis]

There is a satisfaction one gets in Catholic worship, whether OF or EF that, I guess for lack of a better word, could be defined as “enjoyment”.

As we say through the servers in the EF, “Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.” Each Mass should bring us that joy.

 

[Rich_C]

Having been on both sides of the Tiber I struggled with this myself.
I guess it comes down to how do you define enjoyment? The happy, clappy, worship of the mega-churches burns out quickly. And the older I got the more I desired worship that was more…adult.
There is a satisfaction one gets in Catholic worship, whether OF or EF that, I guess for lack of a better word, could be defined as “enjoyment”. But I am leary of that word because it better describes evangelical “rock concert” style worship.
There is a sense in which we should enjoy worshipping God as He intended. Not in the entertainment sense, but in the sense of the joy it truly brings.
I mean, we’re not supposed to miserable are we?

Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “consolation.”

I often find a great deal of consolation when assisting at a reverent Mass.

 

[hoop0826]

Perhaps the word you’re looking for is “consolation.”

I often find a great deal of consolation when assisting at a reverent Mass.

I can with a good concience at the Traditional Latin Mass say that I gave God the best that I know of in the Liturgy of the Holy Mass. The music in Gregorian Chant is the best I know of, the prayers in Latin are theologically the best I know of. Same with the attitude of reverence, silence, and focus on the Sacrifice.

Which raises another question - does the Mass need to incorporated the best that man has to offer God?

 

[otjm]

To have the faithful permitted to receive both, separately, AFTER they have already been rejoined within the priest, is somewhat of a confusing of the symbolism, thus, why EF parishes do not give both.

That is incorrect; it is not done in the EF, not because of some confusion of symbolism; it is done because they follow the rubrics which were in place at that time, which come essentially from the Council of Trent. The Church, when it extended reception under both species, acknowledged that the issue at the time of Trent was 500 years ago. The Church, in extending reception under both species, did not make it mandatory but rather permissible, and encouraged it as a greater fullness of the sign of the Eucharist as instituted by Christ.

Comments about people thinking that both are required are anecdotal and presume from a limited experience to a larger reality. Presumptions are just that.

 

[otjm]

Receiving in the hand was not permitted by Vatican II. There were documents forbidding it issued even after V2, but people were doing it without permission. It was eventually allowed because it became impractical to stop the disobedience.

One cannot disobey a law that does not exist.

Since somewhere in the 1500’s, CITH has been allowed (on a very limited basis - the Franciscans being one group). At the time the bishops in Holland allowed it, CITH was allowed to the Franciscans; and the rest of the Church practiced COTT without there being a specific law to the matter. We may all agree the bishops should have approached Rome specifically and we can all acknowledge they did not. To put it in terms of disobedience is to make a characterization of the matter that fits in with the perspective of those who do not want CITH - at the time Canon lawyers were divided over the issue of whether or not it was permissible. And at the time, the pope was a Canon lawyer (Paul 6).

The universal norm in the Roman/Latin Church is COTT; in the US the norm is CITH and both are acceptable.

 

[Mike30]

One cannot disobey a law that does not exist.

Since somewhere in the 1500’s, CITH has been allowed (on a very limited basis - the Franciscans being one group). At the time the bishops in Holland allowed it, CITH was allowed to the Franciscans; and the rest of the Church practiced COTT without there being a specific law to the matter. We may all agree the bishops should have approached Rome specifically and we can all acknowledge they did not. To put it in terms of disobedience is to make a characterization of the matter that fits in with the perspective of those who do not want CITH - at the time Canon lawyers were divided over the issue of whether or not it was permissible. And at the time, the pope was a Canon lawyer (Paul 6).

The universal norm in the Roman/Latin Church is COTT; in the US the norm is CITH and both are acceptable.

While I knew that receiving while standing was the norm in the United States, I was completely unaware that it is the norm to receive in the hand as well. Could you please point me to a source that actually states that receiving in the hand is the norm in the United States?

 

[floresco]

One cannot disobey a law that does not exist.

Since somewhere in the 1500’s, CITH has been allowed (on a very limited basis - the Franciscans being one group). At the time the bishops in Holland allowed it, CITH was allowed to the Franciscans; and the rest of the Church practiced COTT without there being a specific law to the matter. We may all agree the bishops should have approached Rome specifically and we can all acknowledge they did not. To put it in terms of disobedience is to make a characterization of the matter that fits in with the perspective of those who do not want CITH - at the time Canon lawyers were divided over the issue of whether or not it was permissible. And at the time, the pope was a Canon lawyer (Paul 6).

There was a clear principle that applied to the question expressed in Mediator Dei and this principle was not followed. 58. It follows from this that ** the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.[50] **Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship.[51] Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself.

These principles were incorporated in Canon Law. The pope at the time was on the side of those who understood that Canon Law did not allow anyone to introduce CITH without being authorized by the pope. While it may be good to avoid the word “disobedience” because it has implications about internal disposition, there is no question that some people introduced CITH without authority and this was wrong.

The universal norm in the Roman/Latin Church is COTT; in the US the norm is CITH and both are acceptable.

Yes, this is the current situation.

 

[Sirach2]

These principles were incorporated in Canon Law. The pope at the time was on the side of those who understood that Canon Law did not allow anyone to introduce CITH without being authorized by the pope. While it may be good to avoid the word “disobedience” because it has implications about internal disposition, there is no question that some people introduced CITH without authority and this was wrong.

Which brings us back to the permission mentioned earlier in this thread, which was given by Pope Paul VI, and is recorded in AAS. I recall that you interpreted his permission as simply a form letter, but Canon Law deems entries into AAS as Universal ecclesiastical laws. Why are you still arguing this point?

Can. 8 §1. Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary,** Acta Apostolicae Sedis,** unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period (vacatio).

 

[10thCrusader]

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.

 

[Sirach2]

Floresco:

The pope at the time was on the side of those who understood that Canon Law did not allow anyone to introduce CITH without being authorized by the pope. While it may be good to avoid the word “disobedience” because it has implications about internal disposition, there is no question that some people introduced CITH without authority and this was wrong.

In the document you quoted, whether Mediator Dei or Canon Law, there was no specific mention whatsoever about CITH. You are extrapolating a private interpretation that simply was not the context of this document. Canon Law today doesn’t even mention CITH, though it has many citations regarding the Eucharist.

Let’s look at #57 immediately before the one you cited:

1. The Church has further used her right of control over liturgical observance to protect the purity of divine worship against abuse from dangerous and imprudent innovations introduced by private individuals and particular churches. Thus it came about - during the 16th century, when usages and customs of this sort had become increasingly prevalent and exaggerated, and when private initiative in matters liturgical threatened to compromise the integrity of faith and devotion, to the great advantage of heretics and further spread of their errors - that in the year 1588, Our predecessor Sixtus V of immortal memory established the Sacred Congregation of Rites, charged with the defense of the legitimate rites of the Church and with the prohibition of any spurious innovation.

The Holy Father is speaking about innovations by private parties around the time of the Reformation - not Bishops, who exercised authority as successors of Peter to initiate CITH, and in fact, asked later for corroboration from Paul VI. As Otjm said, one cannot be accused of disobedience when there is no law.

Back to your #58. It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. [50]

This is another extrapolation of meaning, for CITH is not a new “rite.” Unfortunately, we do not have that version of Canon Law at our disposal to decipher the meaning of footnote 50, which refers to reader to Canon 1257. All of our Popes’ writings must be understood as the Church understands them in the context of the times they were written, not as we interpret them in our armchairs with a scant reading that is used to prop up our own POV.

Your argument still seems centered on the idea that Bishops who began the practice were irregular and did not obey Mediator Dei’s objectives.
Here’s an interesting current Canon Law (1983): Can. 227: In matters of opinion, moreover, they [lay faithful] **are to avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church. **

 

[MarkThompson]

The asterisk appears to refer to a name to be filled in when used. Basically, it opens “Most Reverend _________” . This is just what we would expect in a form letter.

No, the asterisk refers to the footnote at the bottom of the page, which says:

• Hanc Epistulam g. [sic] Congregatio pro Cultu Divino sua cuiusque lingua exaratam Indultum petentibus misit.
  quid est, anglice,
• The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship sent this letter, in the respective language of each, to those seeking a written indult.
  It is, thus, not a “form letter” to be filled in later, but an example, in just one language, of what had already been sent in various.

N.B., I assume that the “g.” in the footnote is an OCR error for “S.”

 

[Sirach2]

No, the asterisk refers to the footnote at the bottom of the page, which says:

• Hanc Epistulam g. [sic] Congregatio pro Cultu Divino sua cuiusque lingua exaratam Indultum petentibus misit.
  quid est, anglice,
• The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship sent this letter, in the respective language of each, to those seeking a written indult.
  It is, thus, not a “form letter” to be filled in later, but an example, in just one language, of what had already been sent in various.

:thankyou: Thanks, Mark. I see it now, it’s even bolded. It pays to read the asterisks, but I never thought to do that in this case. I guess that settles it unequivocally.

 

[10thCrusader]

An interesting development is in the Papal Masses of Pope Francis, apparently, only communion on the tongue is allowed as shown in the video link below:

youtube.com/watch?v=TQEzm5bleGE

Also, it looks like only those assisting the wheelchair-bound were permitted to stand. Everyone else knelt to receive communion.

It looks like His Holiness is carrying on with the policies of Benedict XVI in this matter.

 

[maryjk]

An interesting development is in the Papal Masses of Pope Francis, apparently, only communion on the tongue is allowed as shown in the video link below:

youtube.com/watch?v=TQEzm5bleGE

**Also, it looks like only those assisting the wheelchair-bound were permitted to stand. Everyone else knelt to receive communion.
**
It looks like His Holiness is carrying on with the policies of Benedict XVI in this matter.

I wonder if it is that no one else is “permitted” to stand or that no one else needed to stand. I have to assume that the Pope understands that there are people that can’t or would at least have difficulty kneeling even though they aren’t in a wheel chair.

 

[Sirach2]

I wonder if it is that no one else is “permitted” to stand or that no one else needed to stand. I have to assume that the Pope understands that there are people that can’t or would at least have difficulty kneeling even though they aren’t in a wheel chair.

The video is propaganda, Maryjk. Many of us have seen Pope Francis’s masses - the **whole **mass - and he only distributes to a handful of clergy who assist him at mass. It is by intinction, and then he goes to his chair. In public liturgies in the square, the people were all standing, and received both CITH and COTT. The M/C has no doubt taken care to follow Pope Benedict’s protocol for masses in the Cathedral, but it is not known that this is the Pope’s specific desire. Time will tell.

Although I shudder to post anything from this website, it does show him, as Cardinal, distributing communion in the hand.

 

[floresco]

No, the asterisk refers to the footnote at the bottom of the page, which says:

• Hanc Epistulam g. [sic] Congregatio pro Cultu Divino sua cuiusque lingua exaratam Indultum petentibus misit.
  quid est, anglice,
• The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship sent this letter, in the respective language of each, to those seeking a written indult.
  It is, thus, not a “form letter” to be filled in later, but an example, in just one language, of what had already been sent in various.

N.B., I assume that the “g.” in the footnote is an OCR error for “S.”

Thank you very much, Mark. I do not have access to the AAS and was relying on a partial quote that appeared in somebody’s post. It is much clearer with the footnote.

 

[floresco]

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. [50]

This is another extrapolation of meaning, for CITH is not a new “rite.” Unfortunately, we do not have that version of Canon Law at our disposal to decipher the meaning of footnote 50, which refers to reader to Canon 1257. All of our Popes’ writings must be understood as the Church understands them in the context of the times they were written, not as we interpret them in our armchairs with a scant reading that is used to prop up our own POV.

No, CITH is not a new rite. It is a “practice touching the worship of God”. This means that the Sovereign Pontiff alone had the right to recognize and establish it.

 

[Sirach2]

No, CITH is not a new rite. It is a “practice touching the worship of God”. This means that the Sovereign Pontiff alone had the right to recognize and establish it.

If you are saying that the Bishop has no right to regulate worship in his diocese, then I will disagree with you. Not every discipline is solely the responsibility of the Pope - that’s why we have bishops who work in union with the Pope. This point is moot, anyway, since we have now established that Paul VI did in fact give permission to those bishops to use CITH, as per the clarification re official entry into the AAS.

For example, Bishops are able to dispense certain holy days in their diocese, whereas other bishops do not give dispensation. It is their perogative, and each decision does not need to be ratified by the Pope.