New to TLM and facing a dilemma

[Auntie_M]

Neither said this in the manner you’re implying and you do quite an injustice in maligning these Bishops with your falsehoods.

I beg your pardon, dear, this is NOT a falsehood. Do you not read the SSPX newsletter,
(the older ones, of course). They know they have made some really bad statements so they don’t make these in the newer versions. Go to the archives. You’ll find this is not a falsehood.

The “holocoust denier” Bishop Williamson, has been all over all Catholic news. Where have you been.

Maligning??? implying??? True statements are not maligning or implying. Fact is Fact

If you want a good Latin mass, go to ones by the FSSP. They are in communion with Rome. There are no questions about the FSSP. Better stick with them.

 

[ML561]

I
The TLM has recently been introduced in several Omaha parishes. Some celebrate it every Sunday. It is a great blessing. We are also using more Latin hymns and prayers in conjunction with the New Mass and Evening Prayers. This has enriched my faith considerably.

I have served as a lector at Mass on occasion, and although I have never actually distributed Communion, was trained as an EME.

For those who are troubled by lay people distributing Communion, I have this question. Even in a largely Catholic community such as Omaha, there are still not enough priests to distribute Communion to all those who are in the hospital, nursing homes, or homebound. Therefore we have a great number of lay people who spend many hours a week taking Communion to those who are unable to come to church. (Most of them are women.) Some hold jobs as pastoral ministers at a church or in a hospital. Without them, many people would go without receiving the Eucharist. I was very grateful that during a week-long stay in the hospital, a lay person brought me daily Communion. I certainly was not going to worry about whose hands I received it at–I was grateful that I could receive at all!
Grace and Peace be with you all.

 

[Layman]

Well, I recall reading, I think, that long ago people received Communion about once a year. If that is so, a priest or deacon could make his way around the parish more often than that to the shut-ins and the ill. Might make people appreciate it more, also, generally, in the congregation. If the Host is something you get from a laywoman into your hand, you’re clueing people into not taking it seriously. Hence the casual behaviour people complain about at Mass.

In Ireland, we had the penal times. I’d guess people didn’t receive too often then (Catholicism being banned). I’m sure pious people still went to Heaven.

The benefit of receiving regularly must be weighed against the deficit of helping to negate the idea of The Real Presence, and that of promoting the idea that the EMHC has a dignity like the priest, which she does not.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

I
For those who are troubled by lay people distributing Communion, I have this question. Even in a largely Catholic community such as Omaha, there are still not enough priests to distribute Communion to all those who are in the hospital, nursing homes, or homebound. Therefore we have a great number of lay people who spend many hours a week taking Communion to those who are unable to come to church. (Most of them are women.) Some hold jobs as pastoral ministers at a church or in a hospital. Without them, many people would go without receiving the Eucharist. I was very grateful that during a week-long stay in the hospital, a lay person brought me daily Communion. I certainly was not going to worry about whose hands I received it at–I was grateful that I could receive at all!
Grace and Peace be with you all.

Good point. This a perfect example of a good use of EMHC. But the point made often in this thread is that EMHC are used during Mass when there is no need for them, solely for the purpose of having people feel involved. That is what many of us are against and have a problem with.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

At this point I just want to suggest Ratzinger’s “Spirit of the Liturgy” (1999) as a very interesting and informative read on the topic. It will explain his attitude toward liturgy and shed light on decisions he’s made regarding TLM.
The book is a gem and I’m sure it will contribute to increase in reverence and appreciation of the Mass in all, both TLM and NO fans.

 

[TMC]

Well, I recall reading, I think, that long ago people received Communion about once a year. If that is so, a priest or deacon could make his way around the parish more often than that to the shut-ins and the ill. Might make people appreciate it more, also, generally, in the congregation. If the Host is something you get from a laywoman into your hand, you’re clueing people into not taking it seriously. Hence the casual behaviour people complain about at Mass.

In Ireland, we had the penal times. I’d guess people didn’t receive too often then (Catholicism being banned). I’m sure pious people still went to Heaven.

The benefit of receiving regularly must be weighed against the deficit of helping to negate the idea of The Real Presence, and that of promoting the idea that the EMHC has a dignity like the priest, which she does not.

I have never understood how EMHC’s negate the idea of the Real Presence. I am much more concerned that so many believe, wrongly, that some persons have a greater share of God’s dignity than others. Priests and lay people have the same measure of dignity. Priests serve God in a different role, but they are not more worthy of touching the Eucharist than the unordained.

 

[Layman]

A priest is consecrated and has the Apostolic Succession. A laywoman does not.

If previously:

• The Host was only distributed by a priest,
• to a layman, kneeling on the tongue,
• with an altar boy holding a paten underneath to catch any crumbs,
• and he, the priest, had to be very careful how he held his hands,
• and how he purified the vessels,

… whereas now Mrs. Goodlady can stand beside the priest and hand it out like bread, to standing laymen, into their unconsecrated and unpurified hands …

• … either the Host as become less holy in the past forty years,
• or we laymen have become more so,
• or those pre-Vat. II guys were wrong. For hundreds of years.

The symbolism is very stark. Treat the Host like it was just bread and the priest as just another worshipper or ‘first among equals’ and I think you have a ‘service’ that’s quite Protestant, and one that need not be taken as seriously as before.

Why not?

Because those officiating don’t appear to be doing so.

And then people wonder why people chat in Mass or wear casual clothes or take the host to show their friends.

You can’t have it both ways: The reverence common in the old TLM and the novelties of the O.F./N.O. The latter work against the former.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

I beg your pardon, dear, this is NOT a falsehood. Do you not read the SSPX newsletter,
(the older ones, of course). They know they have made some really bad statements so they don’t make these in the newer versions. Go to the archives. You’ll find this is not a falsehood.

The “holocoust denier” Bishop Williamson, has been all over all Catholic news. Where have you been.

Maligning??? implying??? True statements are not maligning or implying. Fact is Fact

If you want a good Latin mass, go to ones by the FSSP. They are in communion with Rome. There are no questions about the FSSP. Better stick with them.

First off, you’re continuing to refer to Bishop Williamson as a “holocaust denier” shows the extent you’re willing to perpetuate the falshoods of the media. He never denied the holocaust - he called into question the numbers but never denied the holocaust happened so you need to get your facts straight.

Second, you’re implying that Bishop Williamson made some comments which totally reject schooling for women which is false. He once again reiterated in an online video (google Stephen Heiner’s blog) that such education is useful for a woman who is of age to attend college and has not made a decision regarding her vocation. He stated that most women are called to be mothers - you don’t need a bachelor’s in Maternity to be one.

Thirdly, I do attend Mass at a FSSP location - which is totally irrelevant to any of this.

 

[Bluegoat]

So bizarre - I’ve found my degree in classical philosophy to be very useful as a mother. Not to mention that it was during that time that I became a Christian, and it has informed almost everything about what I live and believe.

But perhaps his own education didn’t inform much, so he can’t imagine that.

 

[Layman]

“Bishop has unusual, non-religious views”.

That would only be a headline news in a politically-correct world. I sometimes think I’m in something like “The Matrix”; a false, hysterical version of reality where ‘feeeeelings’ are the priority and reason a poor second.

 

[Hyacinth_II]

A priest is consecrated and has the Apostolic Succession. A laywoman does not.

If previously:

• The Host was only distributed by a priest,
• to a layman, kneeling on the tongue,
• with an altar boy holding a paten underneath to catch any crumbs,
• and he, the priest, had to be very careful how he held his hands,
• and how he purified the vessels,

… whereas now Mrs. Goodlady can stand beside the priest and hand it out like bread, to standing laymen, into their unconsecrated and unpurified hands …

• … either the Host as become less holy in the past forty years,
• or we laymen have become more so,
• or those pre-Vat. II guys were wrong. For hundreds of years.

The symbolism is very stark. Treat the Host like it was just bread and the priest as just another worshipper or ‘first among equals’ and I think you have a ‘service’ that’s quite Protestant, and one that need not be taken as seriously as before.

Why not?

Because those officiating don’t appear to be doing so.

And then people wonder why people chat in Mass or wear casual clothes or take the host to show their friends.

You can’t have it both ways: The reverence common in the old TLM and the novelties of the O.F./N.O. The latter work against the former.

Thank you, you say it so well.

 

[RosaryCrusader]

So bizarre - I’ve found my degree in classical philosophy to be very useful as a mother. Not to mention that it was during that time that I became a Christian, and it has informed almost everything about what I live and believe.

But perhaps his own education didn’t inform much, so he can’t imagine that.

Good for you. Did you get your degree before becoming a mother? If so you did things exactly as Bishop WIlliamson recommends and in the proper order and you’re to be commended.

 

[Bluegoat]

Good for you. Did you get your degree before becoming a mother? If so you did things exactly as Bishop WIlliamson recommends and in the proper order and you’re to be commended.

Not if I knew/planned on being a mother or wife - he rather implies it isn’t a good idea for such a person.

 

[Layman]

To Hyacinth:

You’re welcome.

 

[Hyacinth_II]

To Hyacinth:

You’re welcome.

Everyone should read the link you have in your signature… yes, I have searched all over the Vatican II documents for the information about why the NO Mass was created and could not find ANY information in Vatican II docs about it OR that it was to be done. I only read that TRADITION was to be kept. I am adding your link to my signature also… thank you so much for this information.

 

[KathleenMary]

A priest is consecrated and has the Apostolic Succession. A laywoman does not.

If previously:

• The Host was only distributed by a priest,
• to a layman, kneeling on the tongue,
• with an altar boy holding a paten underneath to catch any crumbs,
• and he, the priest, had to be very careful how he held his hands,
• and how he purified the vessels,

… whereas now Mrs. Goodlady can stand beside the priest and hand it out like bread, to standing laymen, into their unconsecrated and unpurified hands …

• … either the Host as become less holy in the past forty years,
• or we laymen have become more so,
• or those pre-Vat. II guys were wrong. For hundreds of years.

The symbolism is very stark. Treat the Host like it was just bread and the priest as just another worshipper or ‘first among equals’ and I think you have a ‘service’ that’s quite Protestant, and one that need not be taken as seriously as before.

Why not?

Because those officiating don’t appear to be doing so.

And then people wonder why people chat in Mass or wear casual clothes or take the host to show their friends.

You can’t have it both ways: The reverence common in the old TLM and the novelties of the O.F./N.O. The latter work against the former.

With all respect, exaggeration and misinformation isn’t very helpful. When you suggest that “previously” communion was only dispersed on the tongue, and only by a priest to an always kneeling layman, it makes the first part of your comparison misleading, when historically the practice of receiving communion in the hand was common, and not only were lay people allowed to touch it, but to bring it into their home to distribute it, without benefit of a priest’s presence.

In writings of St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Basil the Great, the Synod of Trullo, St. John Damascus, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, communion by hand in the early Church was not only common, in fact, it was a recommended manner of reception in many places. Unless you would claim that these Fathers and Doctors (and all but Tertullian are saints) were thus “sacrilegious” or promoting a “lessening of respect for the Eucharist” I don’t think your misleading comparison can stand up historically.

And then secondly when you portray the EMHC as some inept lay person, distributing the host as if it were nothing more than bread, with little or no reverence or, I assume, training, into the hands of the even more wretched and unworthy recipient, it is also misleading.

I have spend a few hours reading through the discussions, and links, on this thread. Some Catholics are very understanding of each other’s perspective and appreciate the incredibly vital place of The Pope as Peter’s successor, while others think that their own preferences somehow hold more importance.

The least I would have expected from one Catholic to another in these discussions is some honest dialogue, not exaggeration and baiting. And then, the none too mature, high fives, as if some points were scored. This is about caring and coming together, not who can be the most deceitful about the facts to win arguments.

 

[KathleenMary]

catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000305.shtml

The Pope didn’t say it “himself” - you’ll just have to take the word of one of his Princes.

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 title of the Article you site says:
“Pope wants traditional Masses in every parish, says Vatican cardinal”

The Vatican Cardinal actually said:
“The Pope wants the traditional Latin Mass offered in every Catholic parish in the world,” a Vatican cardinal has said."

And finally, the Pope’s actual words 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."

Clearly the Pope values the TLM and wants it offered where there is a love for it and parishioners request it, but there was no mandate that it had to be celebrated at every parish.

As with any news article, you can’t just rely on words of a reporter, who we know may exaggerate or slant a story to their liking.

 

[Layman]

In writings of St. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Basil the Great, the Synod of Trullo, St. John Damascus, and the Catholic Encyclopedia, communion by hand in the early Church was not only common, in fact, it was a recommended manner of reception in many places. Unless you would claim that these Fathers and Doctors (and all but Tertullian are saints) were thus “sacrilegious” or promoting a “lessening of respect for the Eucharist” I don’t think your misleading comparison can stand up historically.

And then secondly when you portray the EMHC as some inept lay person, distributing the host as if it were nothing more than bread, with little or no reverence or, I assume, training, into the hands of the even more wretched and unworthy recipient, it is also misleading.

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.

 

[pickguard1]

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 did a little experiment at Mass this past Sunday (FSSP EF Mass). We have a seating capacity of about 250 or so, with maybe 20% kids under the age of reason who don’t receive communion. We usually have two priests to distribute Communion (although sometimes we have only one if the other priests are away for some reason.) Anyway, from the "Ecce Agnus Dei…to the priest saying the Communion Prayer - for those who don’t know about the EF communion takes place during this time, as well as the purification of the vessels by the priest - the total time between was 10 minutes. 10 minutes! Definitely not a burdensome amount of time. Of course, also remember that the words the priest says at an EF during communion are “May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto eternal life.” (In Latin, of course), not just “The Body of Christ.”

 

[RosaryCrusader]

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.

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

The Vatican Cardinal actually said:
“The Pope wants the traditional Latin Mass offered in every Catholic parish in the world,” a Vatican cardinal has said."

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

Clearly the Pope values the TLM and wants it offered where there is a love for it and parishioners request it, but there was no mandate that it had to be celebrated at every parish.

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