OF Mass advocates - please help

[Bearontherun]

Is Your Mass Valid? Liturgical Abuse

Thanks for the info, Marty.

It makes me a bit sad to realize that the masses I grew up with broke some of these rules. I never would have imagined it at the time.

 

[promethius]

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

I’m afraid I have to object to the website you posted because it is in error on several points:

1. The people attempting to illicitly participate on concelebration by holding their hands or mumbling the words of consecration does NOT invalidate a mass. If this was a case, any errant congregant could invalidate any mass by their own will at any time. It is a gravely illicit practice, but not enough to invalidate the mass. This includes people coming up to the altar and holding hands during the consecration: illicit, but not invalidating.
2. The site states that a priest must “intend to do as the church does, that being the intent to make Jesus physically present…” This is incorrect, as the church does NOT add that additional caveat. The priest must only intend to do what the church does. Whether or not he believes the Church makes Jesus physically present is irrelevant, as long as he intends to do what the church does (in other words, if he thinks the church fosters community in a meal, and intends to do what the church does in that regard, then the Eucharist will be valid whether or not he believes in the Real Presence).
3. The age old claim that Extraordinary Ministers should not be seen at every mass, or that there is such a thing as “too many” by some imagined arbitrary standard. The standard is that the priest, deacon, or alcolyte is absent, impeded, or aged and/or the number of people present lends itself to congestion unless EMHCs are used. This means that based on those conditions EMHCs may be used at ANY mass and in ANY appropriate number (for example, if a bishop were to say mass for 10,000 people one would expect a large number of EMHCs). The amusing thing to me is that those who complain most about the common use of “extraordinary ministers” often attend the “extraordinary form” of the mass without fail…
4. Not kneeling during the consecration might not be a product of disrespect, so much as it is a product of poor catechesis and ignorance. Whoever wrote this page would be well served to read the Catechism’s instruction on rash judgement…
5. It says to “charitably” approach your priest, documents in hand (so far so good!) and then to tell him you REQUIRE such and such be followed. Anyone with any sort of head for negotiation, communications, or psychology will tell you that such an attempt is bound to fail, and fail miserably. One should approach and discuss with the priest why something is being done to determine if they are correct or not, and seek to increase the understanding of the priest if he is operating under a misconception. I’m not a priest, but if anyone other than my chain of command were to show up at my desk and tell me that they required something of me, I’d promptly tell them where they could go (bad places!)

 

[Sirach2]

Hello Steve,

Here is an older thread in the L&S forum that gives many lovely responses to this same question. You may want to explore some of the answers therein, for I suspect you may not have a good participation here, due to the wording of your OP.

What do you love about the OF mass?

 

[SenorPaulito]

• The priest now facing the congregation, and if/how that strengthens your understanding of the role of the priest
• No Holy Communion kneelers and the widespread utilization of CITH, and if/how CITH strengthens your reverence of the True Presence
• The widespread custom of holding hands during the Lord’s prayer, and how doing so (if you do) helps you connect with the intent of this part of Mass
• The absence of Gregorian chant, and/or the more abundant selections with booming organ melodies, clap-along selections, and the emphasis on singing along as a group (does this music help you pray?)
• The occasional “lay speaker” who addresses the congregation (with the subjects of stewardship promotion, charity work, diocesan appeal) after a short “homily” from the priest, and how this timing for a lay talk seems appropriate to you, or serves a purpose in the flow of the liturgy
• The removal of the tabernacle from the sanctuary
• The inclination of parishioners to remain in the pews and socialize right after Mass

Absolutely none of this has to do with the OF/EF Mass differences.

 

[SenorPaulito]

I’m afraid I have to object to the website you posted because it is in error on several points:

1. The people attempting to illicitly participate on concelebration by holding their hands or mumbling the words of consecration does NOT invalidate a mass. If this was a case, any errant congregant could invalidate any mass by their own will at any time. It is a gravely illicit practice, but not enough to invalidate the mass. This includes people coming up to the altar and holding hands during the consecration: illicit, but not invalidating.

“…The people attempting to illicitly participate on concelebration by holding their hands…”

Are you serious? “Gravely illicit?” Really?

 

[promethius]

“…The people attempting to illicitly participate on concelebration by holding their hands…”

Are you serious? “Gravely illicit?” Really?

Yes, we laity are forbidden from attempting to concelebrate the Eucharist. However, if I stand in the front pew, hold my hand up like the priest, and say the words of consecration along with him, while I have done an illicit action, I have not invalidated the consecration of the Eucharist.

Also, I did not capitolize “Gravely Illicit” because I did not mean it as a singular, or as a single term. Rather I meant the adjective grave to describe the term illicit as a matter of personal language. I would appreciate that if you’re going to put quotes around something as though I said it, that you not change the form of what I said so that people will not misinterpret to believe that I asserted the church uses such a term officially here.