New to TLM and facing a dilemma

[KathleenMary]

COTT, kneeling, was the norm for hundreds of years, then CITH was introduced, without Vatican consultation. Why? How is CITH an improvement?

Communion was previously consecrated carefully by a priest, taking great care with his hands, and then in distributing it. How are EMHCs and CITH now an improvement? Why are they there at all? It’s not like distributing Communion is back-breaking work, even to hundreds of people.

I notice that the altar rail speeds up distribution as well. We’re all lined up. One leaves, another kneels down, mouth open when the priest draws near.

I think it’s pride. We’re the clever generation. We’re well read. We know what Cyril of Jerusalem did 1600 years ago, let’s stick that in. While dumping what what done by our grandfathers and great-grandfathers for generations.

There is nothing wrong with having your opinions about what you personally think is a better way, but when you make statements as if those methods where “the only” way, as if communion in the hand was something nobody had ever thought of our done before it’s disingenuous. Your portrayal of EMHC’s is that of some careless irreverent slug, creating quite the contrast between your two descriptions, which I realize was intentional, but it’s also misleading. And based on something disingenuous, you then justify second guessing the Pope.

The EMHC’s in our church for instance are trained to do the job they do. There is no evidence of excessive pride or irreverence. If there was, I would be the first to complain. It looks like you are accusing the Pope himself of being prideful. There is nothing traditional about arrogance and thinking you know better than Peter’s successor.

It seems you think that anything the Pope adds as an option needs to be an “improvement” and he owes you an explanation of how it is one, when perhaps it’s simply an option. Of course there were reasons for it, some explained, as in the size of the congregation, extraordinary time to distribute communion, health issues of the priest, etc.

I would agree that no priest who is in good health should sit back and let EMHC’s do the distributing. I’ve never seen that, and I don’t think we’re talking about that.

I personally hold as much reverence for the Body of Christ, whether on my tongue or in my hand. It’s His body no matter which way one prefers to receive Him. I recollect many years ago when I received on the tongue and the precious host actually fell to the floor. I was mortified in many ways obviously. Although many clearly have a preference for receiving on the tongue, I do not, but that’s not the issue. These are matters of preference, and not nearly valid excuses to dismiss the Pope.

 

[KathleenMary]

Cardinal = Prince of the Church, in case you didn’t know.

In ecclesiastical terms “offer” means “celebrate” - such as if you pay a stipend and have the Priest “offer” Mass for you intention.

Yes, I did know that the Cardinals are the Princes. But thank you for pointing that out in the event that anyone who is not Catholic may be wondering about that. The word “offer” has more than one meaning obviously and needs to be taken in context, but you are very good with definitions generally speaking.

Now then, while experimenting with vocabulary instruction and catechesis, you entirely neglected the comment you were responding to, so I’ll repeat it:

As I said before: **“Actually, neither the Pope, nor “one of his Princes” actually said that he wants the EF celebrated in all parishes. That’s twisting the truth.” **

The relevant point you are missing here is that the “article” you sited as “proof” that the Pope said this, does not prove it at all. Review it again carefully if you question it. You provided what you thought was proof, making a claim that a Cardinal (the Pope’s Prince) said it in lieu of the Pope, but neither is true.

But you shouldn’t attempt to call into question the integrity of Cardinal Castrillon who was routinely in contact with the Pope as part of his duties and as such knows the mind of the Pope more so than you or I.

Incidentally, I believe your accusation of my challenging the good Cardinal’s “integrity” is what we call a “straw man”, and beneath any good Catholic in an honest discussion. He simply didn’t quote the Pope’s statement from the “Summorum Pontificum” exactly as the Pope had stated it, or the reporter misquoted the Cardinal.

No problem there, here are the Pope’s actual words again.

In “Summorum Pontificum”:
“Tridentine Masses should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it.” He also said any priest could freely celebrate the Mass. He did not require all parishes to establish a Tridentine Mass schedule, but said that where “a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists” the priest should “willingly accede” to their request to make the Mass available."

Notice, in particular, the words “made available”. You may want to get out your dictionary again. And also the phrase “where groups of the faithful desire it” which in context needs to be preserved lest we parse the Pope’s sentence and lose the meaning. He also says “willingly accede” - To accede is “to agree to” something, so as you see the parishioners would be requesting this mass. It wouldn’t be automatically introduced into all parishes.

Nobody said there was a mandate for it to be celebrated everywhere- not yet anyway.

Well actually somebody, “Contra Mundum”, did say that and you supported the claim with your link to the news article. This was the exact statement, posted on (Jul 24): "The pope himself wants it celebrated in all parishes! (His words.)"

You see, a “mandate” is “An authoritative command or instruction.” or “that which is made mandatory, as by law; decree or require:” The poster even went so far as to claim that those were the Pope’s specific words. "(His words.)"

In any event, as you can see, the Pope didn’t say, he “wants the EF celebrated in all parishes”, which was the original claim.

When “Frosty” questioned the source of that statement you interjected, supporting the claim by providing a news article that didn’t support the statement’s validity at all. It really was that simple.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

Yes, I did know that the Cardinals are the Princes. But thank you for pointing that out in the event that anyone who is not Catholic may be wondering about that. The word “offer” has more than one meaning obviously and needs to be taken in context, but you are very good with definitions generally speaking.

Now then, while experimenting with vocabulary instruction and catechesis, you entirely neglected the comment you were responding to, so I’ll repeat it:

As I said before: **“Actually, neither the Pope, nor “one of his Princes” actually said that he wants the EF celebrated in all parishes. That’s twisting the truth.” **

The relevant point you are missing here is that the “article” you sited as “proof” that the Pope said this, does not prove it at all. Review it again carefully if you question it. You provided what you thought was proof, making a claim that a Cardinal (the Pope’s Prince) said it in lieu of the Pope, but neither is true.

Incidentally, I believe your accusation of my challenging the good Cardinal’s “integrity” is what we call a “straw man”, and beneath any good Catholic in an honest discussion. He simply didn’t quote the Pope’s statement from the “Summorum Pontificum” exactly as the Pope had stated it, or the reporter misquoted the Cardinal.

No problem there, here are the Pope’s actual words again.

In “Summorum Pontificum”:
“Tridentine Masses should be made available in every parish where groups of the faithful desire it.” He also said any priest could freely celebrate the Mass. He did not require all parishes to establish a Tridentine Mass schedule, but said that where “a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists” the priest should “willingly accede” to their request to make the Mass available."

Notice, in particular, the words “made available”. You may want to get out your dictionary again. And also the phrase “where groups of the faithful desire it” which in context needs to be preserved lest we parse the Pope’s sentence and lose the meaning. He also says “willingly accede” - To accede is “to agree to” something, so as you see the parishioners would be requesting this mass. It wouldn’t be automatically introduced into all parishes.

Well actually somebody, “Contra Mundum”, did say that and you supported the claim with your link to the news article. This was the exact statement, posted on (Jul 24): "The pope himself wants it celebrated in all parishes! (His words.)"

You see, a “mandate” is “An authoritative command or instruction.” or “that which is made mandatory, as by law; decree or require:” The poster even went so far as to claim that those were the Pope’s specific words. "(His words.)"

In any event, as you can see, the Pope didn’t say, he “wants the EF celebrated in all parishes”, which was the original claim.

When “Frosty” questioned the source of that statement you interjected, supporting the claim by providing a news article that didn’t support the statement’s validity at all. It really was that simple.

I provided a source where the info came from with the note that it was not that Pope who said it but a Cardinal. Take it or leave it. If you want to dismiss it on the grounds that you don’t think it likely then fine - just say so. You’re wandering off into la-la-land and making remarks about things that nobody questioned.

 

[Layman]

CITH, EMHCs, the priest versus-populum, unvested lay lectors, vernacular responses, folksy hymns, a band to the front all increase emphasis on the participants. It’s not surprising, then, if people behave casually in church, if they are being cued that the rite is about them and more of a performance, directed towards them, from the sanctuary.

The Mass, as I understand it, is a propitiary re-enactment of the Sacrifice Of Calvary. To paraphrase what a poster said on this forum, imagine the behaviour that occurs in many Catholic churches nowadays, at the foot of the Cross on Calvary.

The TLM gets the emphasis right. Most Novus Ordo masses these days don’t, with the priest (plus EMHCs and band) and the congregation facing each other. You can make the case that the trend is to create a sense more of a communal meal, which is what I understand is what Luther wanted to do.

CITH and EMHCs also help decrease belief in the Real Presence, if the Host can be doled out like bread. The feelings or intent of the EMHC don’t matter. Their hands are not consecrated. Neither are those of the lay person receiving. They may not even be particularly clean. If previously a priest had to be very careful how he held his hands and purified the vessels and a paten was used to catch any crumbs but now Mrs. GoodLady can dole out Communion with no such precautions, what’s changed?

Are we holier, now, or is the Host less so, or were our forefathers wrong in how they did it?

It’s our loss, in the end, if we continue down this road of making the Mass a more ‘people-friendly’ affair.