OF and EF: What's good about them? [edited]

[curlycool89]

Others like how do communion, are indeed due to looseness in the rubrics, or at least, people interpreting them very, very loosely, such as the regular use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

I would like to hear your amazing solution as to how the people are to receive under both species (which is encouraged if I remember right) when most parishes have 1 priest.

This has now become a carousel: around and around we go. Well, around and around you go. I’ve had enough rides. End of the line. No more tickets. BiBi …

Do I really need to go over how a debate works. Fine:

1. You claimed that there was rampant abuse because of the rubrics.
2. I asked you to point out an example. This is because you made the claim, therefore the onus is on you to substantiate it. Otherwise it is just words.

 

[OraLabora]

I would like to hear your amazing solution as to how the people are to receive under both species (which is encouraged if I remember right) when most parishes have 1 priest.

Receiving under both species doesn’t happen often around here.

That said, my wife’s Anglican parish manages it very nicely thank you very much, with one minister and an altar server. It takes a wee bit longer, but the ushers manage the process very well, sending up one row at a time. You get a bit longer to pray either before or after communion depending on where you sit, which isn’t such a bad thing.

The problem is not that there’s only one priest in Catholic parishes.

It’s that there’s one priest and we insist on the Mass not taking one minute longer than one hour flat.

 

[malphono]

Do I really need to go over how a debate works. Fine:

1. You claimed that there was rampant abuse because of the rubrics.
2. I asked you to point out an example. This is because you made the claim, therefore the onus is on you to substantiate it. Otherwise it is just words.

Oh that condescending tone has go to go. You are not my teacher nor my superior. And please do not ever presume otherwise.

Anyway, I am off the carousel, but just for your information, I made no such claim. Find the words “rampant abuse” in my posts in this thread. Good.luck. As I said in my last post, I need not, and will not, go further.

 

[curlycool89]

Receiving under both species doesn’t happen often around here.

That said, my wife’s Anglican parish manages it very nicely thank you very much, with one minister and an altar server. It takes a wee bit longer, but the ushers manage the process very well, sending up one row at a time. You get a bit longer to pray either before or after communion depending on where you sit, which isn’t such a bad thing.

The problem is not that there’s only one priest in Catholic parishes.

It’s that there’s one priest and we insist on the Mass not taking one minute longer than one hour flat.

An alter server is still a layperson (on the other hand the Anglican minister is also probably a layman, but that’s a different discussion), which would make him an extraordinary minister of communion (if Anglican’s have such a concept). So I’m getting that you’re objecting to the use of many EMHC as opposed to the concept.

malphono:

Oh that condescending tone has go to go. You are not my teacher nor my superior. And please do not ever presume otherwise.

Anyway, I am off the carousel, but just for your information, I made no such claim. Find the words “rampant abuse” in my posts in this thread. Good.luck. As I said in my last post, I need go no further.

I exaggerated a little. And I was just speaking as to how logical discussion goes (ie if you make a claim you have to back it up with evidence/an example). Just throwing out a statement and then getting upset when people challenge it doesn’t lead anywhere.

 

[Ghirardelli]

Some of what you mention (bells, incense) I think should be mandatory for the main Sunday Mass in a parish.

Should incense be mandatory for the EF Low Mass as well? Why should the EF have the option and the OF not have the same option?

Others like how do communion, are indeed due to looseness in the rubrics, or at least, people interpreting them very, very loosely, such as the regular use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.

That simply not true. The rubrics are clear in how to use EMsHC. Some chose to ignore the rubrics but it’s not due to the design of the rubrics.

 

[Ghirardelli]

Whoa! It might be a good idea to knock off the ad hominem arguments. It’s become tiring. Evidently you’re not familiar with the use of “IMO” but that’s not my problem. I need defend nothing further.

In the end, I care less what you either do or think. I’m out of this discussion. Not worth the typing.

You are fleeing this discussion because you cannot substantiate the claims you made. Someone asked you for a concrete example of where the current rubrics for the OF Mass caused abuses to be executed. You couldn’t provide one.

 

[malphono]

You are fleeing this discussion because you cannot substantiate the claims you made. Someone asked you for a concrete example of where the current rubrics for the OF Mass caused abuses to be executed. You couldn’t provide one.

You and your cohort are apparently obsessed with the word “abuse” which I never used. Is it any wonder I’m bowing out?

 

[ProVobis]

The rubrics for the OF specify more readings from a greater selection than the EF.

Could you give me the exact verbiage for this “rubric”?

Only you are suggesting there is a “problem” with the EF.

No, you implied it by implying the weight and quality of the readings in the OF are superior.

 

[OraLabora]

An alter server is still a layperson (on the other hand the Anglican minister is also probably a layman, but that’s a different discussion), which would make him an extraordinary minister of communion (if Anglican’s have such a concept). So I’m getting that you’re objecting to the use of many EMHC as opposed to the concept.

I know that canonically there’s no difference, but to my mind there’s a huge difference between an acolyte (a minor order) or layperson assisting the priest with the second species at his side, compared with EMHCs scattered throughout the church distributing communion. And where are the deacons when we need them? Why not reform the rubrics to state that communion in the second species should only be when a deacon or other priest is present to assist with distribution? There’s nothing wrong with reception in only one species, it was in fact the only way until the OF came about.

Should incense be mandatory for the EF Low Mass as well? Why should the EF have the option and the OF not have the same option?

I wasn’t addressing the EF. Given that there’s no EF Mass available within reasonable driving distance to me, and given that the last time I attended a Mass according to the 1962 Missal was when I was a child, I don’t feel qualified to comment intelligently on what the EF should or shouldn’t have.

That simply not true. The rubrics are clear in how to use EMsHC. Some chose to ignore the rubrics but it’s not due to the design of the rubrics.

I did say “Others like how do communion, are indeed due to looseness in the rubrics, or at least, people interpreting them very, very loosely, such as the regular use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.”. One such looseness is whether to receive standing, or kneeling, or on the tongue or in the hand, or in one or both species. For EMHC, the rubrics are clear, people’s interpretations are indeed very loose:

“162. The priest may be assisted in the distribution of Communion by other priests who happen to be present. If such priests are not present and there is a very large number of communicants, the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose.[97] In case of necessity, the priest may depute suitable faithful for this single occasion.[98]” (General Instructions for the Roman Missal).

I suspect that “large number” is rather loosely interpreted, given that I see EMHCs used whether the Mass is attended by a dozen or so people, or by hundreds. And again as above the rubrics could be improved to specify circumstances for communion in both species (i.e. when there are sufficient ordinary ministers of Holy Communion on hand to assist).

In any case my basic point is that there’s nothing fundamentally wrong or un-sacred about the OF Mass. It’s the execution that leaves a lot to be desired in far too many cases, and I’ve heard of abuses in the EF form too when it was the OF (before the reform of the Missal).

 

[OraLabora]

Are you aware of what I was talking about? The rubrics for the OF specify more readings from a greater selection than the EF. That fact is not open to debate.

Minor quibble but the rubrics say nothing about the selection and quantity of readings in the OF, other than to say that the approved lectionary is to be used.

The reform of the lectionary is what has resulted in changes to the selection and quantity of readings.

A completely new and different lectionary with fewer readings could come out tomorrow morning without needing to change one jot or tittle in the rubrics.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Your opinion seems to be driving you…I have yet to see you substantiate anything…I offered the differences in the format, yet you ignore that. I can tell now what your problem is with the EF…it is most definitely Catholic in every way possible…one can not go to a TLM without knowing for a fact they are at a Catholic Mass…and I guess that bothers you. However, I have heard from Catholics, so even on this forum that have been to OF Masses and had to ask if they were at a Catholic Mass and not a Lutheran or Anglican service…my point is, the TLM is uniquely and most certainly Catholic in every aspect of it…the OF, in its truest form, if the rubrics is followed is as well…only problem is that the Rubrics is hardly ever followed and the options are abused and there certainly a lot of abuses and innovations that are put into it…and sometimes it is hard to tell if one is at a CAtholic Mass or not…The TLM doesn’t allow any of that and you will never see it at a TLM. Just by examination of the format between both Masses, it is clear that the TLM is richer in regards to prayers and reverence and respect…The TLM actually respects the Sanctuary and divides it from the parishioners with the Altar Rail…the prayers at the foot of the altar and everything that takes place is authentically Catholic and shows the utmost respect and reverence for The Sacred Mysteries that are about to take place…and you never see clowns, or devils, or women up there “concelebrating” with the priest…Like I have stated before, the OF is just as valid, but it is most definitely lacking in some areas compared to the TLM

No you did not. You presented part of the EF Mass which is most certainly DIFFERENT than the OF Mass. DIFFERENT but not “richer.”

You may personally perceive it as being “richer” (which is just fine) but you don’t express it as such. Instead of saying something like “in my opinion the EF is richer” you offer your personal opinion as if it’s objectively true. As something you have proven with facts and you have not.

 

[malphono]

The trappists at Oka (and now no longer there) have tossed Latin overboard completely, alas, except for the Salve Regina at Compline. The Cistercians at Rougement do everything in the vernacular except the Salve Regina, but they use simplified Gregorian tones.

The Cistercians seem to be a mixed bag. The abbey of Mariawald (OCSO) has reverted to the traditional Cistercian usage, including the traditional Missal. According to their own website, the O. Cist at Spring Bank use the Cistercian OF, but have reverted to exclusively ad orientem celebration.

 

[Ghirardelli]

Your opinion seems to be driving you…I have yet to see you substantiate anything…

I didn’t make the claim. You did. The burden of proof is on you…

 

[curlycool89]

the OF, in its truest form, if the rubrics is followed is as well…only problem is that the Rubrics is hardly ever followed and the options are abused and there certainly a lot of abuses and innovations that are put into it…and sometimes it is hard to tell if one is at a CAtholic Mass or not

2 questions.

Number 1, can you provide us with some evidence or study or something that says that the Rubrics is “hardly ever followed”, or is that just you opinion? Or is it based on anecdotal evidence? It’s a very simple question, but nobody seems willing to answer it.

I have yet to see someone actually cite something, but just continue to use vague reasons. I can even tell you why. I’ve debated and discussed enough myself to know all the tricks you use to make your point. One of them is if you don’t have any evidence to back up your claim you throw out vague all-encompassing phrases that support you position and hope that people aren’t smart enough to pick up on the fact that you have no evidence. Another one is you drop out as soon as this is pointed out and complain about how unfairly you’re being treated in order to try and get people’s sympathy, because if you get people’s sympathy, they don’t question you. It’s a cheap psychological ploy.

Of course the other thing is who has to prove. The rule is pretty simple: whoever makes a accusatory statement has to prove it. And by that I mean you can’t prove a negative. If someone says something like “this and this is happening in the OF and it’s bad”, then you have to prove that. You can’t say “prove me wrong” because it’s impossible to prove that it does not happen in every single mass every single time. You force the other person to give up so you can “win”. It’s a cheap debate skill that doesn’t require you to do any work, but you get to claim the “win”.

Usually human behaviour is hard to predict, but when it comes to debating or discussing people are actually quite predictable. Not what they’re going to say, but their strategies.

Number 2, how by any definition can options be abused? It doesn’t even make grammatical sense to say “abuse of options”. By definition, if there is an option then you are allowed to choose that option. Or do you just not like that options that are being chosen?

 

[Ghirardelli]

…I’ve debated and discussed enough myself to know all the tricks you use to make your point. One of them is if you don’t have any evidence to back up your claim you throw out vague all-encompassing phrases that support you position and hope that people aren’t smart enough to pick up on the fact that you have no evidence. Another one is you drop out as soon as this is pointed out and complain about how unfairly you’re being treated in order to try and get people’s sympathy, because if you get people’s sympathy, they don’t question you. It’s a cheap psychological ploy…

Precisely. I guess I let it get the better of me someones because I get bothered that someone would think they could get that sorta stuff past me. It’s easy to see a mile away yet they continue to bring it.

Sometimes I would truly like to understand the backgrounds of some of the people that post responses to my postings.

 

[michaeldaniels]

I’m sorry…I didn’t know you were the author of the GIRM…look you are arrogant and wrong and I am going to call you on it…this is 10 common abuses…From the Catholic Answers website: (more detailed explanation on these can be found on the link below)…maybe you want to email Karl Keating and bash him for no reason since HIS website…the same site you are posting on published this.

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9901fea1.asp

1. Disregarding the prescribed text of the Order of Mass. This particular abuse is perhaps the most widespread. You might think that the mere existence of a prescribed, official Order of Mass would be enough to show priests that they’re not to change or improvise, but it isn’t. It’s not uncommon to find lectors eliminating male references to God in the Scripture readings… On occasion you even find priests winging it during the Eucharistic Prayer.

Deviations from the Order are illicit, and when done intentionally they’re a grave offense both against the Church and the faithful who have a right to an authentic liturgy (Inaestimabile Donum, CSDW, April 3, 1980).

1. Interrupting the Mass. The priest has no more right to interrupt the Mass from the sanctuary than you have to interrupt it from the pews…
2. Omitting the penitential rite. … a priest can never omit the penitential rite altogether…
3. Replacing or omitting the homily. A priest may omit the homily only on weekdays that are not holy days. On Sundays and holy days he must give a homily (Sacrosanctum Concilium; CIC 767)… Nobody who is not a priest, deacon, or bishop can give the homily at Mass; nobody who is not ordained can give a “talk” or “reflection” in place of the homily (CIC 766–768).
4. Dictating posture. …Many churches are being built now without kneelers to discourage you from kneeling at all. …In this country you are still required to kneel during the Consecration, from after the end of the Sanctus until the Great Amen, even if there aren’t any kneelers (GIRM 21; Appendix to the General Instruction 21).
5. Dictating the manner of reception of the Eucharist. Vatican II never mentioned receiving the host in hand. But when some countries introduced the practice illicitly Pope Paul VI surveyed the world’s bishops to see if it should be allowed where it already existed. Rather than suddenly suppressing reception in the hand, the pope granted an indult intended to let the practice continue for a time in those areas where it already existed. Oddly enough, the bishops of the United States—where the practice did not exist—asked permission of the Holy See to introduce it here. Even more amazingly, they got it. Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II disapproves of the practice. …Absolutely no priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse to administer the Eucharist on the tongue. …By the way, as to Eucharistic ministers, it’s important to note that they’re not supposed to help distribute the Sacrament routinely; only if there’s an unusually large number of people at Mass or if they’re sent to distribute extraordinarily outside of Mass, as to the sick. They are not supposed to assist at all when a priest is in attendance. Their office has nothing whatever to do with increased participation by the laity.
6. Ignoring rules for reception of the Eucharist.
7. Holding hands during the Our Father. This is oddly widespread in the United States but it’s an illicit addition to the liturgy.
8. Performing liturgical dance. Introducing dance into the liturgy in the United States would be to add “one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements” leading to "an atmosphere of profanity, which would easily suggest to those present worldly places and profane situations.
9. Closing the holy water fonts at some seasons. This is another innovation … It’s not found anywhere in liturgical law, which is reason enough to suppose it to be forbidden.
   CHECK MATE

Precisely. I guess I let it get the better of me someones because I get bothered that someone would think they could get that sorta stuff past me. It’s easy to see a mile away yet they continue to bring it.

Sometimes I would truly like to understand the backgrounds of some of the people that post responses to my postings.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Cited…now refute…and I am not complaining about being mistreated…the point is you are wrong…I have cited just a small amount of abuses that take place in the OF, AND YOU NEVER SEE THESE ABUSES TAKE PLACE in a TLM. Regardless of the intention and wording of the Rubrics, the point remains innovations take place and it is not followed properly…don’t even get me started on stripping the Churches, removing the Altar Rail which separates the laity from the Sanctuary…The Holy of Holies…putting the Bishops Cathedra in place of prominence over the Tabernacle and relegating the Tabernacle to some obscure place in the Church…all of this stuff takes place and is apparently endorsed by the priest and bishops because they refuse to stop it, even though the reforms never called for it, much less mandated it…oh and what about how the completely remove Latin from the Liturgy entirely???

2 questions.

Number 1, can you provide us with some evidence or study or something that says that the Rubrics is “hardly ever followed”, or is that just you opinion? Or is it based on anecdotal evidence? It’s a very simple question, but nobody seems willing to answer it.

I have yet to see someone actually cite something, but just continue to use vague reasons. I can even tell you why. I’ve debated and discussed enough myself to know all the tricks you use to make your point. One of them is if you don’t have any evidence to back up your claim you throw out vague all-encompassing phrases that support you position and hope that people aren’t smart enough to pick up on the fact that you have no evidence. Another one is you drop out as soon as this is pointed out and complain about how unfairly you’re being treated in order to try and get people’s sympathy, because if you get people’s sympathy, they don’t question you. It’s a cheap psychological ploy.

Of course the other thing is who has to prove. The rule is pretty simple: whoever makes a accusatory statement has to prove it. And by that I mean you can’t prove a negative. If someone says something like “this and this is happening in the OF and it’s bad”, then you have to prove that. You can’t say “prove me wrong” because it’s impossible to prove that it does not happen in every single mass every single time. You force the other person to give up so you can “win”. It’s a cheap debate skill that doesn’t require you to do any work, but you get to claim the “win”.

Usually human behaviour is hard to predict, but when it comes to debating or discussing people are actually quite predictable. Not what they’re going to say, but their strategies.

Number 2, how by any definition can options be abused? It doesn’t even make grammatical sense to say “abuse of options”. By definition, if there is an option then you are allowed to choose that option. Or do you just not like that options that are being chosen?

 

[michaeldaniels]

It was brought to you…don’t go running and hiding…by all means, retort. I didn’t try to get it past you though…you don’t have to do that with the truth. The truth will always defend itself…I brought it to you directly and you CAN NOT refute these things…straight from Catholic Answers itself…they published it, so there must be some relevance and truth behind it if they endorsed it…unless you want to call Karl Keating a liar.

Oh yeah, my background…since you were wondering:

Born: Natchez, MS

JHS: Cathedral

H.S. Diploma: Marion Military Institute (National Honor Society, Multi-Sport Letterman, State Champion, Superior Cadet Achievement Award)

College: B.A.-The Citadel, The Military College of SC (ROTC Scholarship, Rugby Team, Semper Fi Society, National Dean’s List, CFA)

Employment History: 1. Military 2. Broker (Current)

Member of the Knights of Columbus (4th Degree)

I know my background isn’t much…probably no where as impressive as your resume, but I am proud of it…and I really don’t see where it is relevant unless you are trying to say I am not worthy to respond to you because I am second class due to my background…whatever it is, you have just been handled and have no way to retort…simply stated you are arrogant and wrong. One thing I do know is Catholicism…and one thing I am sure of, regardless of your background is that you have a limited knowledge of Catholicism, and what little knowledge you do have is clouded by your arrogance…and I also think it is cute how your puppy follows you around defending your fallacious points on this thread. Have a nice day

Precisely. I guess I let it get the better of me someones because I get bothered that someone would think they could get that sorta stuff past me. It’s easy to see a mile away yet they continue to bring it.

Sometimes I would truly like to understand the backgrounds of some of the people that post responses to my postings.