Only priest ordained for Archdiocese of New York this year - his 1st. Mass is EF Mass

[Mrs_Sally]

Common sense is the least of its problems, Brother JR

It seems to me that there would be a point reached where the externals would override whatever objective reality is up on the altar. I’m sure we call all come up with ridiculous extremes, way beyond a clown Mass, where Our Lord is present on the altar but EVERYTHING else is wrong, heretical, blasphemous. Would we still receive grace that hypothetical situation? The one that comes to mind is a satanic black mass, with a validly Consecrated Host. But I’m sure there are other places our imagination can go to see if the principle holds that as long as Our Lord is present, there is grace to be received.

• PAX

There is no point to such an exercise. It seems that the question - which is way off topic of a newly ordained priest - has been answered satisfactorily.

Both forms of the Mass offer the same amount of grace. The difference comes in us falled humans. We each, because of our own makeup, state of our soul, simple preferences, etc, receive varying amounts of this grace. Some may receive more at an EF, some more at an OF, some days we may all receive very little no matter which Mass we attend.

 

[TrueLight]

Is how to celebrate the EF mass commonly taught in seminaries, or did he learn it on his own outside of the seminary?

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Is how to celebrate the EF mass commonly taught in seminaries, or did he learn it on his own outside of the seminary?

We have a seminarian in our diocese who is being ordained on June 2 (please pray for him!). I asked him a few months back about his training on the EF in the seminary. He said they were required to learn it. I imagine, though, that it varies from seminary to seminary. His was somewhere near Chicago, I believe.

• PAX

 

[malphono]

Is how to celebrate the EF mass commonly taught in seminaries, or did he learn it on his own outside of the seminary?

Seminary training in the Usus Antiquior seems to vary widely. I’d be very surprised if it were formally taught at Dunwoodie.

 

[curlycool89]

Therefore, your conclusion is that graces come from both the OF and the EF. No one has disputed that. The question is whether or not greater graces (or however we want to qualify it) come from one form or the other. The fact that graces come from the Mass does not answer whether or not greater or lesser graces come from a particular form of the Mass. To use my lettuce analogy again (and yes, TimothyH, Our Lord is not lettuce), I can say that nutrition comes from lettuce, that iceberg and romaine are both lettuce, and therefore both iceberg and romaine give nutrition. However, that argument doesn’t tell me at all which lettuce gives more nutrition. That’s the question at hand. Your argument fails to address it.

No, you need to read it again.

Graces come to us through the Mass, let’s call that a class of liturgical actions. “Mass” has certain properties, including graces that flow through the Mass, the fact that there it is a unbloody sacrifice and that the Eucharist is confected in each Mass.

“EF” and “OF” are sub-classes of the class “Mass” and therefore inherit the properties of the class “Mass”. EF and OF do not have inherent graces associated with them except as sub-classes of Mass. Therefore, the graces from each the EF and OF come from “Mass”, not inherent from themselves, and because there is no additions or subtractions the only conclusion is that they are the same because they both gives the graces of “Mass”.

“Divine Liturgy” and “Dominican Rite” and “Ambrosian Rite” similarly are also sub-classes of “Mass” (maybe “Eucharistic Liturgy” is a better term to be more acceptable to our Eastern brethren). The differences between all these different Eucharistic Liturgies then is in externals, not what is gained.

The question has not been begged because I’ve started off with Mass, and then said OF and EF are types of this Mass (therefore OF is Mass and EF is Mass). Those are my definitions, as understood by Church teachings. Since their inherent graces come from “Mass”, that is where the conclusion comes from. They are equal by virtue of both being Masses, and any conclusions fall out of that (graces are the same, the Eucharist is the same)

You are the one who is saying that OF and EF are inherently different (as opposed to externally different) without any justification. As Br. JR has pointed out, that is false when it comes to how much grace each form inherently contains, but you can personally receive more or less (but that has nothing to do with how much is available).

I just realized that I think far too much like a computer programer. Ah well, computers do good logic.

 

[wasserfall]

That’s half my fault then.

I have no issue with the idea that a certain person may receive more from the EF than he OF, so long as we’re not making that as a general statement for all people. If someone receives more at the EF, then by all means attend that, that’s why it’s being made more available with less strings. Just as long as we’re acknowledging that there are certain people who receive more at an OF Mass and that they should have their needs met too.

I believe the argument being made from the traditionalist side (TrueLight mentioned a sermon on the subject from an FSSP priest)…

Oh here… while writing, I stopped to see if I could find the sermon, and I did. So, having erased my post, here is Fr. Chad Ripperger. (PDF):

u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit%20of%20the%20Mass%20(Fr.%20Ripperger,%20F.S.S.P.).pdf

 

[TrueLight]

I believe the argument being made from the traditionalist side (TrueLight mentioned a sermon on the subject from an FSSP priest)…

Oh here… while writing, I stopped to see if I could find the sermon, and I did. So, having erased my post, here is Fr. Chad Ripperger. (PDF):

u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit%20of%20the%20Mass%20(Fr.%20Ripperger,%20F.S.S.P.).pdf

Wasserfall, thank you so much for finding this. It used to be on his site, but it was removed and he said it was in Latin Mass magazine, but I couldn’t find a copy.

Page 28 onwards give his viewpoint succinctly.

 

[Melchior_1]

We need water to live. Either in liquid or solid form, water needs to be consumed. Either way, it’s still water.

Mass is, in a spiritual sense, water. The Form of the Mass doesn’t matter so much as the fact you’re receiving and taking in the water so you can remain hydrated.

Different Form, same matter. Doesn’t seem like a hard concept, IMHO.

 

[Megan7]

I believe the argument being made from the traditionalist side (TrueLight mentioned a sermon on the subject from an FSSP priest)…

Oh here… while writing, I stopped to see if I could find the sermon, and I did. So, having erased my post, here is Fr. Chad Ripperger. (PDF):

u.arizona.edu/~aversa/modernism/Merit%20of%20the%20Mass%20(Fr.%20Ripperger,%20F.S.S.P.).pdf

Thanks for the link!

PAX

 

[ProVobis]

“EF” and “OF” are sub-classes of the class “Mass” and therefore inherit the properties of the class “Mass”. EF and OF do not have inherent graces associated with them except as sub-classes of Mass. Therefore, the graces from each the EF and OF come from “Mass”, not inherent from themselves, and because there is no additions or subtractions the only conclusion is that they are the same because they both gives the graces of “Mass”.

What’s this, the theology of object-oriented programming?

 

[TrueLight]

What’s this, the theology of object-oriented programming?

It must be. Curly, are you trying to prove a point that you wholeheartedly believe in or are you trying to wow us?

 

[TimothyH]

(and yes, I have taken classes on formal logic. I have a degree in philosophy and I teach rhetoric).

I was wondering. You are very good at it and it infuriates me at times.

If I have ever posted anything to offend you, I apologize. I hope you can forgive me.

-Tim-

 

[curlycool89]

What’s this, the theology of object-oriented programming?

It must be. Curly, are you trying to prove a point that you wholeheartedly believe in or are you trying to wow us?

Trying to prove a point. But apparently programming logic is forbidden since the post has been deleted. Seems to happen once in a while (I think EcceAgnusDei had one of his deleted in this thread too. Irony of ironies, I believe it was in response to me. So I guess we’re even then )

Fine, apparently the mods want us to shut up on this point. I think Br. JR already proved it, so there’s not much point in fighting.

 

[TS_Aquinas]

The reform was necessary, because as we said, there is internal and external efficciousness or in modern theological language objective and subjective benefits. Objectively, the benefits of grace are available to all in the same degree, because Christ does not give himself in doses.

Subjectively, what the person takes with him is going to vary. It is not Christ giving himself in doses, it’s the individual drawing in doses, each according to the measure of actual grace that he has available to him.

It is false to assume that everyone who celebrated the mass before the reform drew the same benefit from it. For this reason, Ascetical and Mystical Theologians cannot lend support to those who say that the mass of the ages was the mass that made the great saints of the past. This is just not true. We get this from the saints themselves and from the historical facts in their lives.

But JR, is your observation being put into practice? This is not a debate about a superior form or such as we agree that liturgy in any form, spoken with complete reverence and education, is equal. But has the OF, in the average parish, bettered people’s certainty of graces received and/or bettered they’re understanding of Mass? Basically, did it do what sacrosanctum concilium intended?

I’m sorry. I don’t understand the question. Can you help me here? Thanks.

What I underlined previously, was great care employed?

Actually, it’s not that the vernacular is counterproductie. It’s that English is what it is. Spanish, French, Italian and other Romance languages are vernacular as well, but the translations work. Even in German, it works. It just does not work for English. English is a very different language since it’s a hybrid of several languages. The rules are many with exceptions to every one.

Probably would be better to use the Anglican approved liturgy then the OF in English for an English speaking culture, but that’s a separate conversation. While on this, do you know of there is a Sarum liturgy in English, or is it all in Latin?

 

[curlycool89]

But JR, is your observation being put into practice? This is not a debate about a superior form or such as we agree that liturgy in any form, spoken with complete reverence and education, is equal. But has the OF, in the average parish, bettered people’s certainty of graces received and/or bettered they’re understanding of Mass? Basically, did it do what sacrosanctum concilium intended?

Does a bad implementation mean that the intention was wrong, or that we just need to improve our overall implementation?

Just a side note, this is being very consequentialist again.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Does a bad implementation mean that the intention was wrong, or that we just need to improve our overall implementation?

Just a side note, this is being very consequentialist again.

Eh, for many people, the implementation is quite in line with the intention, or at least the intention as they were given it by people they trusted.

I will bet you that over 90% of Catholic laypeople who really favor bad liturgy and ugly amphitheater-type church-in-the-round ring-around-the-rosies architecture do so because, “Well, back in the day, this is what Father/Sister told [us] was the future! of the Church.”

So maybe on some broad Papacy-level intention for Vatican II there was (and is) a lot of hope for a positive outcome–and I have no reason to think otherwise–but for the little guys on the ground, the laypeople and simple parish priests of the 1960s to the late 1980s, the intention, at least as they perceive(d) it, is quite different.

Thankfully, the intention seems to have turned quite a bit around on the local level in recent years, even if this change in direction is still only semi-official and a minority one. But, at least from my humble Southern perspective, we still have a lot of Catholics who still revel and get giddy over what I call the Vatican II Fantasyland. And the problem is that they truly believe it! They truly believe all that psychobabble baloney because, well, it was consistently shoved down their throats for 30 or more years. It’s not like they have no reason to believe what they believe; they have every reason.

If someone force feeds you into believing something that is intellectually easy and instantly gratifying to believe–“The Council said The Council said The Council said The Council said The Council said”–well, most people would believe it. And I maintain that Vatican II Fantasyland is intellectually easy and instantly gratifying fluff, a bit like a religious version of junk food. People were conditioned to believe that the “old Church” was dead and that the “nu Church” replaced it sometime around 1965 or so. And they ran with it.

So for all intents and purposes, it seems that on the local level, the implementation is quite in line with what was very commonly perceived to be the intent of the Council. So I think we can say that the “intent of the Council” has absolutely not been actualized in implementation. But I think we can say also that the “intent of the Council” as most people perceived it, their reason for perceiving it that way notwithstanding, has, in fact, been actualized in implementation.

And just for the silly disclaimer, because someone will claim my post is offensive to Vatican II: yes, Vatican II is valid and no, I’m not insulting the Council, or bishops, or the pope, or priests, etc., etc.

I frankly think John XXIII would be horrified and utterly shocked if he could come see our Church militant today.

 

[curlycool89]

So for all intents and purposes, it seems that on the local level, the implementation is quite in line with what was very commonly perceived to be the intent of the Council. So I think we can say that the “intent of the Council” has absolutely not been actualized in implementation. But I think we can say also that the “intent of the Council” as most people perceived it, their reason for perceiving it that way notwithstanding, has, in fact, been actualized in implementation.

Yes, but having a bad perception of the intent does not mean that the original intention was not good in the first place.

Balls were definitely dropped, all of the place in fact. Nobody’s denying that part. But we don’t operate the Church based on falsificationism, just because the actions were wrong doesn’t mean that we can’t use the original intent in moving forward into new actions. We don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

That seems to be the argument I see made here: the experiment failed, so lets just scrap the whole thing and go back to how things were before (which was of course all rainbows and puppy dogs). The Copernican system failed for the first couple hundred years too (there are several points in history where you would be totally justified in scrapping the whole theory wholesale), but eventually proved to be right.

The point of that side-track was that we can persist. I have hope for a brighter future, why doesn’t anyone else?

 

[TS_Aquinas]

Does a bad implementation mean that the intention was wrong, or that we just need to improve our overall implementation?

Just a side note, this is being very consequentialist again.

No one here is questioning intent; we’re speaking of very holy men who we all hold in high regards. I agree with YoungTrad, John XXIII and Paul VI are most likely horrified what has happened to their good intentions. But, you hit the nail on the head, “bad implementation.” Great care was not executed, it was a radical change and caused harm. Was that the intent of the Novus Ordo, the Bishops and the Holy Father? Absolutely not, but the Church has never done such a thing so fast and radical before. It took 1,600 years for a single Canon within our Rite to develop and the change it went through was so minute. It took a mere ten years to develop four others. That doesn’t strike anyone a bit odd since the spirit of the Church is usually a slow movement in response to or in development of things?

Has anyone even considered or spoke to (I have) pre-Novus Ordo Catholics? For all their life they experienced the Tridentine Mass then in one summer that was thrown out immediately in a lot of parishes and were forced to practice the Novus Ordo by absolute means. No choice in EF or OF like today in some parishes, they were forced. Why is that never discussed? Odd how the Traditional renewal is meant with opposition yet no one lifted a finger when the Novus Ordo was force feed to laymen overnight. Not the marks of gradual great care that the sacrosanctum concilium wished.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes, but having a bad perception of the intent does not mean that the original intention was not good in the first place.

Balls were definitely dropped, all of the place in fact. Nobody’s denying that part. But we don’t operate the Church based on falsificationism, just because the actions were wrong doesn’t mean that we can’t use the original intent in moving forward into new actions. We don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.

That seems to be the argument I see made here: the experiment failed, so lets just scrap the whole thing and go back to how things were before (which was of course all rainbows and puppy dogs). The Copernican system failed for the first couple hundred years too (there are several points in history where you would be totally justified in scrapping the whole theory wholesale), but eventually proved to be right.

The point of that side-track was that we can persist. I have hope for a brighter future, why doesn’t anyone else?

Agreeagreeagreeagreeagree.

However, we must certainly and absolutely have a substantially, and I might say, radically different way of doing this than we have for the past 50 years. I’m not saying we’ve done nothing right, as that seems to be a bit of an overstatement, but we’ve done a lot of wrong, a lot of it. As to whether we should throw the baby out with the bathwater, I think we ought to at least give another, more correct try in implementing Vatican II. However, =D, I made an assumption there.

Do you know what it is?

I assumed that we know what a “correct” implementation of Vatican II is. But really, I have no idea what that looks like.

That’s why we’ve been having this major fuss over “reform of the reform/hermeneutic of continuity” for a few years, essentially a fuss over what the “correct interpretation” of Vatican II is. That’s also why we’ve been having this fuss over what exactly it means to accept Vatican II on these forums and elsewhere. We can’t get to the correct interpretation phase if we don’t even know what it means to correctly accept Vatican II.

I want to correctly accept Vatican II, but I don’t know how. I can read Canon __ of Trent or whatever dogma-defining Council and say, “I accept,” or, “I do not accept.” I can’t do that with Vatican II because, while being very beautiful language, beauty doesn’t make gears turn on a local level.

We must have it like this:

1. What it precisely means to interpret Vatican II correctly.
2. What it technically means to accept Vatican II in both a broad and very deep way. This naturally will have to come precisely from the letter and not that post-Council “Spirit” baloney.
3. What exactly a “correct” implementation means.

 

[ProVobis]

Probably would be better to use the Anglican approved liturgy then the OF in English for an English speaking culture, but that’s a separate conversation. While on this, do you know of there is a Sarum liturgy in English, or is it all in Latin?

I’ve brought up this issue before as well. Br JR is right; things just can’t be translated into English preserving their original nuances; they also have the potential of distorting the theology. Even a simple “Dominus vobiscum” gets botched up because a subjunctive gets introduced and the Anglican translation is just too ingrained for anyone to change it to make it consistent with other translations. In Polish, for example, it’s “Pans z wami” meaning “Lord IS with you.” The subjunctive “Lord be with you” would be “Niech Pan będzie z wami” but it isn’t. And this is just one example. The very words of consecration become ambiguous in the English and have led to more Protestant beliefs. And there’s no way around the fact that many Latin demonstrative pronouns get translated to the same English “this.” The words “love” and “worship” (like in Mary) in the English means too many things as well. And so on.