J
JimG
Guest
Yes, pretty much, except for the 7am. I didn’t mention that there are also Saturday vigil Masses at 5pm and 7pm.
- Status
G
Gorgias
Guest
So, when the priest addresses Jesus, he’s addressing Jesus as present in the congregation? C’mon, man… tell that to the marines.
That’s not what I said. (Maybe that’s how you took it, but that’s not what I said.) All I said is that, when someone proposes something that existed in the pre-Vatican-II days, often the wail goes up “I don’t want to go back to those days!”
O
otjm
Guest
Only in your dreams. You seem not to be aware of the impact world wide of Mass in the language of the people. In fact, in some areas of the world, Latin was one more sign of colonization and the multitude of issues that went with it.Wait till the generation who remembers the “old days” are gone; at that point, this particular sensitivity (and resistance to reversion) will be gone, too. Maybe the generations who follow us will “sing a new church into being” …and do it in Latin. Maybe not. Who knows…
That is not to suggest that as part of our heritage, the use of some Latin is appropriate. but the pipe dream that world wide we are going back to Latin would be hilarious if it were not so sad a statement. The Church endured centuries of the Mass and sacraments being clericalized. Given that even fewer people are conversant in Latin than there were in the 1950’s - and then it was almost entirely centered on clergy and a smattering of scholars, I would vote for hilarious over sadness.
I would invite you (and I suspect OraLabora would join me) in discovering the document(s) which set this forth. Please elucidate.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Doesn’t make a difference to me, one way or the other. You seem more worked up about it than I am.
Yep. No emotional investment there. You really are proving my point, brother: the very mention of Latin makes you cry out “clericalism!” and “the people are being oppressed!”
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
And I object to your use of the word “many”. Even after Ppe Benedict opened up the EF, the results were that very few people either by parish or by diocese wanted - and to this day want - the EF. I have a parish within about a 15 minute drive that has 11 Masses on a weekend; 4 are in Spanish; one in Vietnamese, 5 in English and one in Latin. Yes, that happens to be at 6:45 in the morning on Sunday, and there are about a 100 or less who attend. The rest of the Masses vary between 80%+ attending in terms of seating(with the exception of the Vietnamese, which is around 250), to at least one which is literally standing room only. The “presumption” that the EF would even double in size to maybe 200 has no historical evidence to support it whatsoever. It is a courtesy to the very small minority of the parish who wish to have the EF.
there are parishes in the US which are all EF, and parishes which may have one or more EF Masses - many during the week rather than on Sunday. Why? Well a look at the ststistics is a bit telling; fewer than 3% of all parishes in the US have any EF Mass, including the all EF parishes.
So let’s be honest in our language: Some (not many) people wanted to retain the EF.
My mother, born in 1917 in a rural community went to daily Mass after she retired. One day I asked her what she thought of Vatican 2 (note: Vatican 2, not the Mass) and her immediate response was “Oh! The Mass in English!” and she was the source of my siblings and I having missals in the 1950s and 1960s prior to the introduction of the vernacular. And the vast majority of people I grew up knowing - meaning those my age and older, were overjoyed with the use of the vernacular.
Dismantling of the Church? Please, spare us.
And as to the “Experience of being Catholic”, I am old enough to remember that the majority (as in, more than 50%) of those attending Mass prior to the vernacular did not have missals; they said their rosaries and read their devotional pamphlets.
Yes, that was quite the “experience of being Catholic”. I kind of think that was not what Christ intended when He confected the first Eucharist at the Passover, nor what the Church intended as it spread throughout the then known world and used the vernacular of the people.
O
otjm
Guest
Oh, you are so funny! 
No, I don’t get “worked up” over the EF; I fully support it where there are a sufficient number of people (as per Pope Benedict) and a priest available. Right now my dioceses has more parishes than they have priests, so that is a factor.
As to the use of the term “clericalization”, the facts are that experiencing the Mass as a prayer started slipping away about the time that Latin fell out of common usage, and that was multiple centuries ago. The Mass took on juridical aspects for the priest, an issue that most people did not know, a point that has been brought out by liturgical scholars but till has not filtered down to the laity.
There is a reason that, after the liturgical research that was started by Pope Pius X, and definitely encouraged by Pope Pius XII resulted in an astounding 99.814% of the bishops attending Vatican 2 voting in favor of the changes to the Mass - the hope had been that 67% would approve of moving forward with changes.
I don’t get worked up over the chin wagging that goes on about the Mass; I just get tired of the abuse of language that floats around. It is near impossible to have an intelligent conversation about matters when those who favor the EF use such hyperbole.
And a point often missed in the conversation is that the average individual in the pew - be they in their 80’s or their 20’s - knows precious little about the difference in rubrics between the two forms. Visually ad orientem vs. ad populum are about the only keys they would see/understand.
And frankly I think it on the order of a fools errand if anyone actually thinks that ad orientem is going to have a scintilla of impact on the issue of catechesis (which actually was where this thread started). That is not “getting worked up”. That is putting emotions aside and looking at facts, something that too often is overlooked in conversations which are emotionally driven.
Part of my history I usually leave unsaid: I wanted to start seminary in 1960; the pastor told my mother it would happen over his dead body (and I often wonder what was not said). So I started seminary in my first year in college in 1964 - and subsequently determined that priesthood was not my calling, a decision that had absolutely nothing to do with the EF/OF issues. As an altar boy I served as an altar server, and in Solemn High Masses went from candle bearer to altar server to thurifer to Master of Ceremonies. From that background and the use of a missal when I was old enough to use one, I have an appreciation for the EF.
So no, I am not “worked up”, nor am I crying out “clericalism”, nor did I say anything about people being oppressed. You did not hear my laughter when I said “only in your dreams”. It amused me.
No, I don’t get “worked up” over the EF; I fully support it where there are a sufficient number of people (as per Pope Benedict) and a priest available. Right now my dioceses has more parishes than they have priests, so that is a factor.
As to the use of the term “clericalization”, the facts are that experiencing the Mass as a prayer started slipping away about the time that Latin fell out of common usage, and that was multiple centuries ago. The Mass took on juridical aspects for the priest, an issue that most people did not know, a point that has been brought out by liturgical scholars but till has not filtered down to the laity.
There is a reason that, after the liturgical research that was started by Pope Pius X, and definitely encouraged by Pope Pius XII resulted in an astounding 99.814% of the bishops attending Vatican 2 voting in favor of the changes to the Mass - the hope had been that 67% would approve of moving forward with changes.
I don’t get worked up over the chin wagging that goes on about the Mass; I just get tired of the abuse of language that floats around. It is near impossible to have an intelligent conversation about matters when those who favor the EF use such hyperbole.
And a point often missed in the conversation is that the average individual in the pew - be they in their 80’s or their 20’s - knows precious little about the difference in rubrics between the two forms. Visually ad orientem vs. ad populum are about the only keys they would see/understand.
And frankly I think it on the order of a fools errand if anyone actually thinks that ad orientem is going to have a scintilla of impact on the issue of catechesis (which actually was where this thread started). That is not “getting worked up”. That is putting emotions aside and looking at facts, something that too often is overlooked in conversations which are emotionally driven.
Part of my history I usually leave unsaid: I wanted to start seminary in 1960; the pastor told my mother it would happen over his dead body (and I often wonder what was not said). So I started seminary in my first year in college in 1964 - and subsequently determined that priesthood was not my calling, a decision that had absolutely nothing to do with the EF/OF issues. As an altar boy I served as an altar server, and in Solemn High Masses went from candle bearer to altar server to thurifer to Master of Ceremonies. From that background and the use of a missal when I was old enough to use one, I have an appreciation for the EF.
So no, I am not “worked up”, nor am I crying out “clericalism”, nor did I say anything about people being oppressed. You did not hear my laughter when I said “only in your dreams”. It amused me.
P
ProVobis
Guest
As were Protestants 400+ years earlier.
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Considering 70+% of Catholics attended Mass at the time, that was the only way to fit in their needs.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
You mean fulfill their obligation.
No one that I have ever spoke to had any “spiritual need” filled by Masses like that.
Filling a need and being able to fulfill an obligation are two entirely different things and in this case, I will always take quality over quantity.
No one that I have ever spoke to had any “spiritual need” filled by Masses like that.
Filling a need and being able to fulfill an obligation are two entirely different things and in this case, I will always take quality over quantity.
Last edited:
C
CRV
Guest
It is my understanding in the first picture that the priest is facing “Liturgical East” and in the second picture he is facing the people. It is from the East that the Lord will return and so we look towards His coming/turned towards the Lord. It isn’t so much that Jesus is in the Tabernacle (if on the High Altar) or facing the crucifix, or that from the consecration onwards Jesus is present on the Altar before the priest - it is about facing Liturgical East. And yes, in times past if the land allowed it, Churches were built with the Altar facing East, so with the EF still in use then, we were all facing East from whence the Lord will come again. But as some land situations did not permit this, then some were built facing other compass points - which is why it is Liturgical East we face.
The books I linked to in my previous post delves into all this.
In the document quoted it does say - “91. The main altar should preferably be freestanding, to permit walking around it and celebration facing the people. Its location in the place of worship should be truly central so that the attention of the whole congregation naturally focuses there.” To permit. Not must.
Links on Ad Orientem:-
Fr George Rutler on Ad Orientem
Ad orientem – by whose authority? by Fr Finelli
The Flame Re-Ignites: Ad Orientem Fr Hugh 27 May, 2016
CONGREGATIO DE CULTU DIVINO ET DISCIPLINA SACRAMENTORUM Prot. No 2086/00/L
Letter on the position of the priest during the Eucharistic Liturgy
What does GIRM 299 really say? Fr Z 2006
GIRM 299 and the old, uncorrected translation Fr Z 2011
The Polish translation of GIRM 299 on the position of the altar Fr Z 2016
(I have to log off for awhile due to commitments).
P
ProVobis
Guest
A very common objection to the pre-V2 Mass was that it was over in a hurry. Yet the very first changes in 1964 were the elimination of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar and the Last Gospel as well as shorten the Communion formula. Then all the visuals such as bows, signs of Cross, etc. Then all the silent prayers, most of the Offertory, and depending on which EP selected, that too took up less time in the new Mass.
So sorry that the old Mass was too short for the people. /sarcasm
So sorry that the old Mass was too short for the people. /sarcasm
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
Abrogated, blah blah. The fact is that people were arrested for kneeling during communion. Kneeling had been required for communion for centuries, yes? Then it was forbidden. How’s this for pastoral?
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/34/index.do
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/34/index.do
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
I don’t understand the tizzy, honestly. If the focus is on the altar, it is on God. God doesn’t have a seat on the easternmost wall or something. If everyone is faced in one direction, including the priest, people can still usually hear what he’s saying because he usually has a microphone on. Not everybody in a typical church can see the priest, anyway, no matter which way he stands. So you want to pray like our grandparents did–great!! So you want to pray the way you grew up praying–great!! It isn’t as if most places cannot accomodate both, since so many parishes have more than one Mass every Sunday. Try to give Catholics what edifies them. We are a rich Church, we can do more than one thing. Holy Mother Church has provided that. No bickering over it, though. Try to put the needs of others at least on an equal footing with your own.
Last edited:
O
OraLabora
Guest
An incident that happened in 1985 blah blah. At the abbey where I go to Mass, people receive kneeling or standing, in the hand or on the tongue. I receive standing as there is no facility to help me back up. You receive communion at a gate in the cloister barrier as has been the case in monasteries for hundreds of years.
At St. Joseph’s Oratory crypt church in Montreal, at 7 am Mass, people receive kneeling at the rail either in the hand or on the tongue, or standing in the hand or on the tongue.
It’s a non-issue today.
Ask the Vatican. It regulates the liturgy. It can choose to restrict or relax as it sees fit for the conditions of the day.
At St. Joseph’s Oratory crypt church in Montreal, at 7 am Mass, people receive kneeling at the rail either in the hand or on the tongue, or standing in the hand or on the tongue.
It’s a non-issue today.
Ask the Vatican. It regulates the liturgy. It can choose to restrict or relax as it sees fit for the conditions of the day.
O
OraLabora
Guest
What would be the point? Nearly all of the churchmen responsible for that period are dead, specifically the Popes involved. Nobody is left to answer the question. One Pope (now Emeritus), still very much alive, lifted the restrictions. Shouldn’t that suffice?
P
ProVobis
Guest
You must not think much of indulgences, then?
G
Gorgias
Guest
I try…
I wonder about that, too. My best guess, though, is that the fact that it’s a change – as well as the fact that, as you say, it has visual impact – will provide an opportunity for catechesis. And, if poor catechesis is what’s gotten us into the mess we’re in right now (with respect to numbers), then anything that has the potential for catechizing the younger generations – such that this better catechesis might lead to better retention past Confirmation – really does have to be seriously considered, I think.
L
Loud-living-dogma
Guest
You know, not everyone has the opportunity to attend Mass at a monastery, where it sounds like things are quite different than at the average North American parish. I can assure you that very few Catholics have the choice of kneeling at an altar rail on any given Sunday.
Is it true that Catholics were required to kneel for communion, then after the 1960s, it was forbidden in a lot of places?
Same for communion on the tongue, being distributed by a priest?
Is it true that Catholics were required to kneel for communion, then after the 1960s, it was forbidden in a lot of places?
Same for communion on the tongue, being distributed by a priest?
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
What about indulgences?
My mother and many people I know who were raised in the 1940’-1960’s were not encouraged, but rather actively discouraged from actually reading the bible. They were told they didn’t need to. “Pray the rosary, the bible is for priests and theologians” is a sentiment that has been shared many, from all backgrounds and areas of the country.
My mother and many people I know who were raised in the 1940’-1960’s were not encouraged, but rather actively discouraged from actually reading the bible. They were told they didn’t need to. “Pray the rosary, the bible is for priests and theologians” is a sentiment that has been shared many, from all backgrounds and areas of the country.
M
Minks
Guest
@CilladeRoma
Lol! I keep reading that here, but I’d never heard either claim until I began reading on CAF. Every Catholic family I knew had a Bible and used it.
A small booklet printed in the vicinity of 1900, actually encouraged praying the rosary during Mass.
Lol! I keep reading that here, but I’d never heard either claim until I began reading on CAF. Every Catholic family I knew had a Bible and used it.
A small booklet printed in the vicinity of 1900, actually encouraged praying the rosary during Mass.
Last edited:
- Status