Poll #2: Should the current readings and sign of peace be added to the EF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SenorSalsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SenorSalsa

Guest
I was shortly amazed at the high percentage of people who want to add the Prayers before and after Mass, before I realized, I am on a Traditional forum, many of the voters probably attend a Mass with those anyways

so to give away the point of this poll, I want to explore if the enriching is really seen as being “mutual”

by the way i picked these two options because they were mentioned in the other, feel free to choose other as well
 
Absolutely not; it would be a disgusting attempt to undermine whatever’s left of the church’s tradition. To impose something like this on people universally opposed to it who have already been abused and insulted for years would be an apalling act.

If anything like this is done, you can be sure that reconciliation with the SSPX will never happen.
 
Dauphin said:
If anything like this is done, you can be sure that reconciliation with the SSPX will never happen.
Click to expand...
and to that, I would say oh well. I care more about having a Mass as would please God than having a Mass as would please a couple of bishops

I add as a side not, as I could see it being used against me, when I say “should”, I more or less mean, would you be objected to. Of course it “should” be added if the Holy Spirit says so, and not if He doesn’t, but in a world where we have opinions, is it something you would like to see, if it be God’s will
 
SenorSalsa said:
and to that, I would say oh well. I care more about having a Mass as would please God than having a Mass as would please a couple of bishops

I add as a side not, as I could see it being used against me, when I say “should”, I more or less mean, would you be objected to. Of course it “should” be added if the Holy Spirit says so, and not if He doesn’t, but in a world where we have opinions, is it something you would like to see, if it be God’s will
Click to expand...
The SSPX has over one million members. It would seem very uncharitable not to care about their fate.
 
Dauphin said:
The SSPX has over one million members. It would seem very uncharitable not to care about their fate.
Click to expand...
I care about their fate, certainly. But I care about God’s Church as a whole more. And if He wants something done, I will do it, regardless or how many of the members are against it
 
I vote “other”. I don’t think there is anything inorganic about an update to the cycle of readings. I think that could be a good thing and if done, I would like to see it “match up” more closely with the OF cycle. There is something to be said about everyone hearing the same Gospel on Sunday regardless of which form they attend.

The EF already has the sign of peace. If you are talking about the shared sign of peace, then “NO”. We don’t even do that at our OF Masses.
 
Of these two suggestions, exchanging the sign of peace is, for me, the most objectionable.
From “The Latin Mass” magazine consider this:
The Construction of the New Mass
Some Funny Things Happened
Near the Roman Forum: Part II
by Romano Tommasi - Summer 2002
"…The second “restored” rite is that of the Sign of Peace. The instructions for the New Roman Missal say: “Before they share in the same bread, the faithful implore peace and unity for the Church and for the whole human family and offer some sign of their love for each other.”13 This is a ritual which has a tripartite significance: (1) The faithful exchange a sign (2) for peace and unity in the Church and the human family (3) indicating love for one-another. Yet what is the reality in every Catholic Church in the world? (1) The faithful and non-Catholics always exchange the Sign of Peace within the new Mass. No document has forbidden, or even suggested, that this is erroneous. (2) The current sign is therefore one of greeting and welcoming, but does not imply in the least a spiritual peace between persons present. (3) If you consider love the same as being friendly, the third objective is attained. There is not any evidence that the peace offered is considered by the faithful as an agape. Hence there is no reticence in offering it to those in mortal sin, nor will an official document be found to order, or even suggest, that the state of grace is necessary for the exchange of agape/love/charity.

I make these observations because supposedly the “sign of peace” is a “restored” rite from the “Tradition of the Fathers.” It must be said that the rite exists in all the liturgies of Christendom.14 The Apostolic Tradition, The Constitutions of the Twelve Apostles, Ordines Romani and countless Fathers bear unanimous witness to this practice. Its significance, however, is in the expression of communion. The exchange of peace could be given only by orthodox Catholics in good standing in the patristic Church. In fact, there were several different ranks within the Church itself. First were the pagans outside the Church. Not being baptized, they could not share in Christ’s peace. They could not even be admitted into the Church during the sacred mysteries (as in the Roman Missal of Pius V’s dismissal of the catechumens at the Creed, they would be forced to exit with the catechumens), so that they could not receive the peace.

Secondly, the unbaptized catechumens were unable to exchange a “holy kiss” of peace in the Holy Spirit until the Easter vigil.15 In fact, they could not even pray with baptized Christians until they themselves were baptized.16

Next were the heretics and schismatics. Although baptized, they were denied Communion and the Sign of Christ’s peace since they were cut off from the bosom of the Church. They too would not be allowed to witness the sacred mysteries.

Yet the list of personae non gratis does not stop there! Those having committed mortal sin were relegated to a closed–off place in the back of the church, or even outside of the building, and so too were always denied the Sign of Peace.17 In the Roman Rite, only after the completion of formal canonical Penance during Lent could they receive absolution on Holy Thursday in order to once again take their place with the congregation and so exchange the bond of communion and love which they had lost through the commission of mortal sin.18

This noble reality of communion and love is expressed in the new Roman Missal, but it is adulterated since its application does not take into account the historical context of the Sign of Peace. Nor has there been implemented a proper way to restore the ritual while retaining its rich significance. …"
I attend a O.F. Mass and cannot partake in this confusion while Jesus is on the alter.
 
Corki said:
I vote “other”. I don’t think there is anything inorganic about an update to the cycle of readings. I think that could be a good thing and if done, I would like to see it “match up” more closely with the OF cycle. There is something to be said about everyone hearing the same Gospel on Sunday regardless of which form they attend.

The EF already has the sign of peace. If you are talking about the shared sign of peace, then “NO”. We don’t even do that at our OF Masses.
Click to expand...
I also voted other and agree with Corki on both points.
 
I voted No.
SenorSalsa said:
… I care more about having a Mass as would please God …
Click to expand...
And that is exactly what we have in the Gregorian Rite. It is a totally God centered Rite. The only interaction among the flock with one another is in unity of prayer in His Name.

I understand BXVI is pondering moving the SOP to a different part of the OF Mass, but as it is right now, think about it. We pray the Lord’s Prayer, then immediately change focus to our fellow man, and then we are expected to refocus on a dime, and pray the Agnus Dei. Time after time, as the Agnus Dei is begun, some are still shaking hands, sharing a smile, whatever. At that point, the unity of prayer in His Name is broken.

Does this please God ? As we reach for someones hand and hear the Agnus Dei begin, with our thoughts on our fellow man, instead of our Heavenly Father, and then rush our offer of fellowship so we can join in praying the Agns Dei, doesn’t it become a half hearted effort of each ?

I’m not going to get in the SSPX discussion, but Dauphin is right. Don’t touch it, especially so soon after it has been deemed never abrogated. The Sign of Peace in the Gregorian Rite would be so very out of place. No No No.
 
I’d have to say certainly not right now. That would only make the division in the Church between traditionalists and progressives bigger.
 
This time I can only vote “other.”

(a) As has already been pointed out by a number of other posters, the Kiss of Peace is and has always been part of the EF, and while I do not necessarily favor doing so, I suppose there would be no harm to allow the option to expand it to the congregation. If that were done, though, IMO it would most definitely have to be within the confines of a very strict rubric regarding a fixed method for passing the Peace from the celebrant to the congregation in order to avoid the “hi hawaya” free-for-all that often takes place in the OF. For example, at missa solemnis the sub-deacon could pass it to the servers who would pass it to the ushers who would pass it to the congregation. At missa cantata, missa recitata, or missa lecta it could be passed simply to the servers who would then pass to the ushers etc. In the absence of ushers, the servers could pass it to the congregation.

(b) The Lectionary cycle and calendar really go together, and I am not partial to either in the OF. IMO, both in the EF are far superior. That’s not to say I would stand against the addition of a reading to the EF: in prior times there often were 3 or more readings, and there’s no reason that same could not be added back to the Lectionary for use in the EF.

As for the calendar, it was often “tinkered” with, which is part of the “organic development” that we’ve heard so much about in these two polls. Frankly, I never understood why the calendar was changed for the OF in the way it was in the first place. Apparently it was one of the many things that was changed simply for the sake of change, and IMO that is never a good reason to do something. Personally, I would prefer that the EF calendar were used for both.
 
Dauphin said:
The SSPX has over one million members. It would seem very uncharitable not to care about their fate.
Click to expand...
That comes to 0.8%. Not a lot but we certainly do care about them. We pray they will admit their errors, express their sorrow, repent, and submit to the Pope so they can once more be in full union with the Church.
 
I want to describe something that goes on in the OLD Dominican rite.

After the Pater (I think) The celebrating Priest kisses the altar and then kisses the deacon and then the kiss of peace proceeds to the lowest member of the congregation (Community )present.

The current sign of peace is nothing like this so NO!!

Paul
 
I voted no although I am not opposed to the new readings. I am opposed to the sign of peace particularly in the way that it is practiced in many places these days. Whatever it has evolved into these days, it is not in any way what it was intended to be.

As an aside the way it is done in the Marionite Rite is very nice and maybe could serve as a model for the Pauline as well:thumbsup:
 
m134e5 said:
I’d have to say certainly not right now. That would only make the division in the Church between traditionalists and progressives bigger.
Click to expand...
I do agree that it could bring problems, especially this soon after the “bringing back” of the EF. But eventually, the EF will change. It will not always be the missal of 1962 being used. There will be a missal of 2015 or 2020 or some such year in the future. The Mass is not a static reality, nor should it be. It should be open to organic changes. Both Forms.
 
“The Mass is not a static reality, nor should it be. It should be open to organic changes. Both Forms.”

I agree, but the key word here is organic. We must remember the axiom: Ever ancient Ever new.

Personally, I think that were it due to a movement of the Spirit, a change in the readings would be understandable, and we could deal with it. I’m certainly not suggesting it, in fact I would be advising against it, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world. But sticking in an inorganic “sign of peace” that interrupts the direction of worship would not ever be advisable in the EF, ever. so no.

just my two cents!
 
An emphatic NO! The sign of Peace is my least favorite part of Mass. I usually greet two people and then face the priest
 
JuanCarlos said:
An emphatic NO! The sign of Peace is my least favorite part of Mass. I usually greet two people and then face the priest
Click to expand...
Me too! I greet the person on either side of me and ignore the others, I just kind of fold my hands and close my eyes. The really sad part is that I’m sure that some people mark it as uncharitable. Really that’s not the intent, I JUST want to get back to the mass!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top