Novus Ordo mass still require priests to celebrate mass ad orientem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PastorBonus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
choliks said:
(can we use this term instead? I like using the proper terms.).
Click to expand...
The proper term for the Missal in question is: “Missale Romanum ex decreto Ss. Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum.”

The proper term for the older form of the Missal is: “Missale Romanum ex decreto Ss. Concilii Tridentini restitutum Summorum Pontificum cura recognitum, iuxta editionem typicam a Ioanne PP. XXIII anno MDCCCCLXII promulgatum.”

If we truly like proper terms, please refrain from referring to either of these Missals in any way other than the official names given above. Until then, I will continue to refer to the TLM and the Mass of Paul VI, as they are the most accurate, descriptive nicknames available without taking up three lines of space.

Forma extraordinaria was never given as an official term for the older form of the Missal. It is merely a legal term invented to prevent what would have otherwise been an unprecedented necessity for nearly all Catholic priests to become biritual. Pope Benedict XVI, within Summorum Pontificum, also refers to “antecedentes formis liturgicis” (i.e. “previous liturgical forms”); “petitiones ad celebrandam sanctam Missam iuxta ritum Missalis Romani anno 1962 editi” (i.e. “petitions for the celebration of the Holy Mass according to the rite of the Roman Missal issued in 1962”); " Celebratio secundum Missale B. Ioannis XXIII" (i.e. “Celebration according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII”); “In Missis iuxta Missale B. Ioannis XXIII celebratis” (i.e. “In Masses celebrated according to the Missal of Blessed John XXIII”); “celebratione iuxta formam antiquiorem ritus romani” (i.e. the “more ancient form of the Roman Rite”).

So yes, please do use correct terminology. EF is a term invented to solve a legal quandary; as such it is not the only (or even the most accurate) term to use when referring to the TLM (properly the “Missale Romanum ex decreto Ss. Concilii Tridentini restitutum Summorum Pontificum cura recognitum, iuxta editionem typicam a Ioanne PP. XXIII anno MDCCCCLXII promulgatum”). OF is a term invented to solve the same legal quandary; as such, it is not the only (or even the most accurate) term to use when referring to the Mass of Paul VI (properly the “Missale Romanum ex decreto Ss. Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli PP. VI promulgatum Ioannis Pauli PP. II cura recognitum”).
 
Sirach2, I’m not advocating disobedience. This is a discussion forum. I am discussing the argument for facing East as represented by the Pope Emeritus, a respected prelate and theologian. I fully agree with you that we owe our Church obedience, loyalty, and fidelity, in matters disciplinary as well as doctrinal. The word “novelty” (I’m assuming novità in the Italian) was Pope Paul VI’s word of choice for modern liturgical changes (see his General Audience of 26 Nov 69). Obviously he had the authority to make the changes.
 
Ad_Orientem said:
Sirach2, I’m not advocating disobedience. This is a discussion forum. I am discussing the argument for facing East as represented by the Pope Emeritus, a respected prelate and theologian. I fully agree with you that we owe our Church obedience, loyalty, and fidelity, in matters disciplinary as well as doctrinal. The word “novelty” (I’m assuming novità in the Italian) was Pope Paul VI’s word of choice for modern liturgical changes (see his General Audience of 26 Nov 69). Obviously he had the authority to make the changes.
Click to expand...
I believe I agreed that Cardinal Ratzinger was much in favor of facing east, but the fact remains that this discipline was authorized and changed, whether or not Card. Ratzinger agreed with it. Do you also agree that, when he held the office of Pope, he was able to change the discipline in accord with his belief and opinion? This did not happen, which tells me your argument in favor of his preference does not hold water.

Unless the Church makes the change back to ad orientem, we will continue to celebrate according to the permission versus populi … lawfully!
 
Does it really matter whether the altar faces east, west, north or south?

Are more souls saved as a result of altars facing east?
 
Sirach2 said:
. . . Cardinal Ratzinger . . . was able to change the discipline in accord with his belief and opinion? This did not happen, which tells me your argument in favor of his preference does not hold water.
Click to expand...
If by “his belief and opinion” you mean centuries of tradition, I anticipated this objection in my first post.
Sirach2 said:
Unless the Church makes the change back to ad orientem, we will continue to celebrate according to the permission versus populi … lawfully!
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
Ad_Orientem said:
If by “his belief and opinion” you mean centuries of tradition, I anticipated this objection in my first post.
Click to expand...
It is not an objection, A.O., it is simply something you are missing … that Catholics loyal to the Magisterium will always submit, despite what **appears to be **lacking in a hermeneutic of continuity. It is our absolute trust in everything the Church proposes, whether or not we agree. If we disagree, it is best to believe we ourselves are lacking in full understanding, and trust our finite reasoning to the Church’s understanding.
 
All I know is that I believe that the priest should be facing Jesus Christ, not me. I am not being worshiped. I don’t want to be worshiped. I want to worship Jesus Christ together with the priest.

People may say one thing or the other but it doesn’t change anything. I will always go to an ad orientem Mass when I can. I do that for Jesus.
 
Sirach2 said:
Catholics loyal to the Magisterium will always submit, despite what appears to be lacking in a hermeneutic of continuity. It is our absolute trust in everything the Church proposes, whether or not we agree. If we disagree, it is best to believe we ourselves are lacking in full understanding, and trust our finite reasoning to the Church’s understanding.
Click to expand...
Good points.
 
Francoist said:
All I know is that I believe that the priest should be facing Jesus Christ, not me. I am not being worshiped. I don’t want to be worshiped. I want to worship Jesus Christ together with the priest.

People may say one thing or the other but it doesn’t change anything. I will always go to an ad orientem Mass when I can. I do that for Jesus.
Click to expand...
He isn’t facing you. He is facing Christ on the altar.
 
Sirach2 said:
However, as Pope, he did not issue a motu proprio to change it, as was his right, so why promote something that never happened, probably never will happen, and is simply the personal preference of then Cardinal Ratzinger?

I believe that Pope Benedict, first and foremost, should be the primary example of obedience to what the Church upholds. In this regard, his insistence that he would not give the Eucharist **unless **people were kneeling before him, and on the tongue, gave an example that was the not expressing the mind of the Church, and has caused a rift among traditionalists who expected this to be changed based on his personal preference.
Click to expand...
Can you reference where BXVI insisted that people kneel before him to receive Eurcharist? I’m sorry, but this is simply a preference of style and should never be mandated one way or the other… the early Christians received in the hand… Why so much legalism?

 
Francoist said:
All I know is that I believe that the priest should be facing Jesus Christ, not me. I am not being worshiped. I don’t want to be worshiped. I want to worship Jesus Christ together with the priest.

People may say one thing or the other but it doesn’t change anything. I will always go to an ad orientem Mass when I can. I do that for Jesus.
Click to expand...
Not to make too fine a point of it, but when the priest confects the Eucharist, he is facing Jesus, whether the Mass is ad orientem or ad populum.
 
Francoist said:
All I know is that I believe that the priest should be facing Jesus Christ, not me. I am not being worshiped. I don’t want to be worshiped. I want to worship Jesus Christ together with the priest.

People may say one thing or the other but it doesn’t change anything. I will always go to an ad orientem Mass when I can. I do that for Jesus.
Click to expand...
That’s a noble idea that you are certainly entitled to practice as you prefer…

I believe that Jesus Christ is present in all of His creation… so if my eyes are open… I can see Him (in fact if my eyes are closed, I see Him and thank him for the solace I find in darkness)… strictly a personal preference… I couldn’t care less which way the priest faces and I do that for Jesus, because I don’t think He would want us spending our time on such a trivial matter.
 
godisgood77 said:
Can you reference where BXVI insisted that people kneel before him to receive Eurcharist? I’m sorry, but this is simply a preference of style and should never be mandated one way or the other… the early Christians received in the hand… Why so much legalism?

http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/Images (201-300)/269_Handt01.jpg
Click to expand...
It has been said elsewhere that as Pope, the reason he gave for Communion on the tongue was to make the point that it is (still) acceptable. Note: since I do not have the reference, my lead in…

It is clear that Benedict gave Communion on the tongue, It is also crystal clear he gave it in the hand. Those who not only prefer to receive on the tongue but want to insist that it should be the only way have a tendency for selective quoting at times.

Not that others are not subject to the same tendency!

There is nothing wrong in any way, shape or form with having a preference. What we need to be careful of is approaching Church laws governing liturgy with what approaches a Pharisical mindset, where form becomes far more important than substance. I do not in any way mean to imply that the rules should not be followed; but the explosion of critiquing that has occurred in the last couple of weeks is indicative of some significant lack of understanding of Church laws, and the Church lawgiver.

It would be far better, as another poster has pointed out, that we keep our own counsel, and presume that there may be things of which we are not aware, and further presume that there are good, valid and legitimate reasons for why things do not go the way we exactly expect.
 
otjm said:
It has been said elsewhere that as Pope, the reason he gave for Communion on the tongue was to make the point that it is (still) acceptable. Note: since I do not have the reference, my lead in…

It is clear that Benedict gave Communion on the tongue, It is also crystal clear he gave it in the hand. Those who not only prefer to receive on the tongue but want to insist that it should be the only way have a tendency for selective quoting at times.

Not that others are not subject to the same tendency!

There is nothing wrong in any way, shape or form with having a preference. What we need to be careful of is approaching Church laws governing liturgy with what approaches a Pharisical mindset, where form becomes far more important than substance. I do not in any way mean to imply that the rules should not be followed; but the explosion of critiquing that has occurred in the last couple of weeks is indicative of some significant lack of understanding of Church laws, and the Church lawgiver.

It would be far better, as another poster has pointed out, that we keep our own counsel, and presume that there may be things of which we are not aware, and further presume that there are good, valid and legitimate reasons for why things do not go the way we exactly expect.
Click to expand...
Well said… I agree.
 
otjm said:
It has been said elsewhere that as Pope, the reason he gave for Communion on the tongue was to make the point that it is (still) acceptable. Note: since I do not have the reference, my lead in…

It is clear that Benedict gave Communion on the tongue, It is also crystal clear he gave it in the hand. Those who not only prefer to receive on the tongue but want to insist that it should be the only way have a tendency for selective quoting at times.
Click to expand...
The photos submitted in the latter part of this thread do not inidcate that he gave CITH in his later pontificate, and were most likely photos that predate 2008, Feast of Corpus Christi. On this feast and thereafter, he only distributed COTH and kneeling.
VATICAN CITY, JUNE 26, 2008 (Zenit.org) .- Benedict XVI would prefer to distribute communion on the tongue and to people who are kneeling, according to the master of papal liturgical ceremonies.
http://engine.adzerk.net/i.gif?e=ey...kbVEiLCJydiI6MCwicHIiOjE2NDgyLCJzdCI6MjA0NTMs(name removed by moderator)uIjoxNDc0Nn0&s=OSwgThyPONlCILTw7dtCgNEHRxc

L’Osservatore Romano noted in an interview with Monsignor Guido Marini, published Wednesday, that the Pope distributed Communion to individuals who knelt and received the host on their tongues during his apostolic trip last week to Brindisi in Southern Italy.

When asked if this could become common practice, the monsignor replied, “I believe so.”
Click to expand...
After the installation of the kneeler at all of his papal masses, nobody was ever seen to stand before him and open their hands. If this was their wish, they did not get into his line.
 
godisgood77 said:
. the early Christians received in the hand
Click to expand...
So when did intinction start? And wasn’t something in Church history where a cloth was also involved? And wasn’t there a reason why receiving in the hand was banned?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top