Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[Melchior_1]

Oh my. I’m sorry, ByzCath, that you have to put up with us stupid folk. Clearly our intellects are so deficient and unequal to yours that we can’t even understand things that are so blatantly self-evident and obvious that there is no need to even ask a question about them.

– EcceAgnusDei, one of the dumb trads who asks stupid questions on the traditional Catholicism subforum.

You may want to step back and understand his frustration a bit; there are posters on here who look upon the customs and traditions of his order and deem them to be unacceptable, despite being practiced for centuries. Whether people know or not, his family has been insulted several times over through several posts here.

That and the tone of the opinion expressed is no different than the rhetoric that people applaud in this section. Some on one hand want harsh language used to describe all manner or people and actions, yet when someone is harsh in return the result is the post you just gave.

Also, a minor point, his name is Brother David (it’s in his signature).

So then the Church does not teach such a thing and it is possible that a person in attendance at one form of mass can potentially receive greater graces than another person attending another form of mass?

This is a great question. I know for me, I’m in a better disposition at the Ordinary Form than I am at the Extraordinary Form (and inner disposition may effect graces received). Yet others are the other way around.

 

[JReducation]

Someone on CAF was claiming last week that the Church teaches that the new mass and the old mass are equally efficacious channels of grace.

I asked for a magisterial document upholding this “doctrine” of the Church.

I am still waiting.

Article 1 of SP:
**
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.**

If it’s the same Lex Orandi and they are simply two usages of the one Roman rite, why would one be more efficacious than the other?

That would raise questions about the other rites in the Latin Church. Is the Roman Rite more efficacious than the Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Ambrosian or Mozarabic Rites in the Latin Church?

Is the EF more efficacious than the Franciscan, Benedictine and Cistercian forms. We have have our own forms of the 1962 mass. We also have our own forms of the Missal of Paul VI.

We can take this to the height of the ridiculous. There are at least five rites in the Eastern Churches with 22 forms. There is even one form that does not have the words of institution and it’s quite valid.

Is the efficiency in the form or in the sacrament?

Grace is not fuel that one pours into a tank. The definition of grace is “a share in the Divine Life.” The divine life is never more and never less. It is what it is. It’s static, because God is unchanging. You can’t get more grace on the East side than on the West side. Do you see what I mean? You can’t get more of the Divine Life here, than you can get there. You either get a share in the divine life or you don’t. That’s why it’s called sanctifying grace. Because we are sanctified by sharing in God’s life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[jam070406]

Article 1 of SP:
**
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi**’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

If it’s the same Lex Orandi and they are simply two usages of the one Roman rite, why would one be more efficacious than the other?

That would raise questions about the other rites in the Latin Church. Is the Roman Rite more efficacious than the Dominican, Carmelite, Carthusian, Ambrosian or Mozarabic Rites in the Latin Church?

Is the EF more efficacious than the Franciscan, Benedictine and Cistercian forms. We have have our own forms of the 1962 mass. We also have our own forms of the Missal of Paul VI.

We can take this to the height of the ridiculous. There are at least five rites in the Eastern Churches with 22 forms. There is even one form that does not have the words of institution and it’s quite valid.

Is the efficiency in the form or in the sacrament?

Grace is not fuel that one pours into a tank. The definition of grace is “a share in the Divine Life.” The divine life is never more and never less. It is what it is. It’s static, because God is unchanging. You can’t get more grace on the East side than on the West side. Do you see what I mean? You can’t get more of the Divine Life here, than you can get there. You either get a share in the divine life or you don’t. That’s why it’s called sanctifying grace. Because we are sanctified by sharing in God’s life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

It’s interesting that it says the two will not lead to division, which is almost an admission that is has. The liberals were banking on the EF dying and going away. When it didn’t, thanks in large part to the SSPX who, rightly or wrongly kept it alive, Rome had to react. With the current and previous Pope generously letting the EF have life again. Probably to great opposition from those close.
Poor Pope Benedict has been stuck in the middle of an ugly mess. And that text is him trying to deal with it in a prudent manner.

 

[JReducation]

It’s interesting that it says the two will not lead to division, which is almost an admission that is has. The liberals were banking on the EF dying and going away. When it didn’t, thanks in large part to the SSPX who, rightly or wrongly kept it alive, Rome had to react. With the current and previous Pope generously letting the EF have life again. Probably to great opposition from those close.
Poor Pope Benedict has been stuck in the middle of an ugly mess. And that text is him trying to deal with it in a prudent manner.

I’ll begin by saying that we have to give the people in the curia a little more credit than we do. I don’t know why people in Traditionalists circles often assume that the curia resists every attempt that the pope makes in favor of the Traditionalists. The truth is that Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI have had the good fortune of being very well liked by the curia. The men and women in the curia have rallied around these two popes in some very tough situations.

Having said that, I always read that statement as wishful thinking on the part of the Holy Father. From the point of view of doctrine, there is no division between the EF and the OF anymore than there is between the Benedictine form with all of its smells, chants, and bells and the Franciscan form with its very monotonous plainchant, classical hymns instead of Gregorian chant, and no smells. It is the mass and will never be more or less.

On the human side of the equation, it is a divisive issue, not because it should be. It is divisive because we’re more enamored of form than we are of sanctity. We’re willing to lie, cheat, insult, attack, disobey, fight and do whatever it takes to get our way. I mean both sides. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[curlycool89]

Article 1 of SP:
**
Art 1. The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the ‘Lex orandi**’ (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same ‘Lex orandi,’ and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. These two expressions of the Church’s Lex orandi will in no any way lead to a division in the Church’s ‘Lex credendi’ (Law of belief). They are, in fact two usages of the one Roman rite.

If it’s the same Lex Orandi and they are simply two usages of the one Roman rite, why would one be more efficacious than the other?

I think that’s the answer everyone has been looking for all along. Now we have it in an authoritative document from Rome.

The OF is the Mass and the EF is the Mass and the Mass is the Mass. As some of us have said all along, they are equal because they are both the Mass. This shouldn’t receive anymore dispute, since people tend to treat SP as gospel around here.

 

[jam070406]

I think that’s the answer everyone has been looking for all along. Now we have it in an authoritative document from Rome.

The OF is the Mass and the EF is the Mass and the Mass is the Mass. As some of us have said all along, they are equal because they are both the Mass. This shouldn’t receive anymore dispute, since people tend to treat SP as gospel around here.

Super. Now the Church can get to work on the way the OF was intended. With Ad Orientum, receiving on the tongue, Latin in pride of place and Sacred music. Like the VII documents say and the Pope wishes.

 

[curlycool89]

Super. Now the Church can get to work on the way the OF was intended. With Ad Orientum, receiving on the tongue, Latin in pride of place and Sacred music. Like the VII documents say and the Pope wishes.

And yet the Church still allows for Versus populum, CITH, and Masses in the vernacular. It doesn’t really matter what your opinion is because the Church allows for it.

The music could be better, but I don’t want to get into a discussion on what counts as “sacred music”, because that’s a landmine.

 

[choliks]

The music could be better, but I don’t want to get into a discussion on what counts as “sacred music”, because that’s a landmine.

I imagined it to be a trap door filled with spikes and spears.

 

[jam070406]

And yet the Church still allows for Versus populum, CITH, and Masses in the vernacular. It doesn’t really matter what your opinion is because the Church allows for it.

The music could be better, but I don’t want to get into a discussion on what counts as “sacred music”, because that’s a landmine.

I don’t care. It is MY OPINION that it was a giant mistake. And there will always be division as long as the two co-exist as they do today. That is fact.

 

[choliks]

I don’t care. It is MY OPINION that it was a giant mistake. And there will always be division as long as the two co-exist as they do today. That is fact.

No disrespect meant… which one is it? opinion or fact?

 

[jam070406]

And yet the Church still allows for Versus populum, CITH, and Masses in the vernacular. It doesn’t really matter what your opinion is because the Church allows for it.

The music could be better, but I don’t want to get into a discussion on what counts as “sacred music”, because that’s a landmine.

Btw, yeah…I know all too well that the Church allows it. Because it goes on at about 99% of the Parishes in my diocese.

I also get this every Sunday before Mass “please stand and greet those around you by name”

 

[jam070406]

No disrespect meant… which one is it? opinion or fact?

Opinion = allowing those things to creep in was a mistake
Fact = there will always be division among those that prefer one form over the other (especially as the OF is celebrated today)

 

[JReducation]

Super. Now the Church can get to work on the way the OF was intended. With Ad Orientum, receiving on the tongue, Latin in pride of place and Sacred music. Like the VII documents say and the Pope wishes.

Slow down. The GIRM does not say that the mass must be celebrated Ad Orientem. It says that the mass may be celebrated Ad Populum. That’s first.

Latin is given pride of place, but it does not mean exclusive use of. It means that Latin is the official language of liturgy, not the only language.

Sacred music does not mean only Gregorian Chant. There are many communities in the world that never used Gregorian Chant. There is polyphony and there is also plainchant.

The pope never said that he wishes anything. If you read what he said in Light of the World he does not say that he wishes this to be the norm. He says that he wishes to highlight the sacredness of the Eucharist. Had he wanted this to be the norm, he can write a law and not leave it up to the bishops to decide. But the law allows the bishops to decide, law that the pope himself has approved.

We must be very careful of not imposing our wishes, preferences and desires onto the will of the Pontif, because he does something we like. The pope also prayed with people of other faiths at Assisi.

If you tell me that every action of the pope expresses a desire of his that we do the same, then you have to accept that we must also pray as he did at Assisi.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[choliks]

Opinion = allowing those things to creep in was a mistake
Fact = there will always be division among those that prefer one form over the other (especially as the OF is celebrated today)

I agree with the first one.

But I think the division will only remain a fact if we keep on denigrating each other. If those who prefer the EF see those who prefer the OF equally, and vice versa, then maybe there won’t be any divisions. Therefore, I think it’s not the preference that causes the division, but pride.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I agree with the first one.

But I think the division will only remain a fact if we keep on denigrating each other. If those who prefer the EF see those who prefer the OF equally, and vice versa, then maybe there won’t be any divisions. Therefore, I think it’s not the preference that causes the division, but pride.

Division will always be present in one form or another because of our fallen nature.

 

[choliks]

Division will always be present in one form or another because of our fallen nature.

Agreed, Bro. David.

P.S.: You really have a knack for making things concise.

 

[wasserfall]

I think that’s the answer everyone has been looking for all along. Now we have it in an authoritative document from Rome.

The OF is the Mass and the EF is the Mass and the Mass is the Mass. As some of us have said all along, they are equal because they are both the Mass. This shouldn’t receive anymore dispute, since people tend to treat SP as gospel around here.

Actually, Brother JR’s post, though certainly well intentioned, was entirely beside the point.

Let me give a specific example: Imagine we contrast the western mass, in which beer and bratwurst is sold and consumed during mass in a beer garden with mass at St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN. Both are celebrated (at least nominally, in the first case) according to the modern roman missal.

Is it the case that one of these masses is a more efficacious channel of grace than the other?

Can I receive greater graces by attending mass at St. Agnes than I can if I go to the beer garden mass?

If not, then has the magisterium of the Church formally taught that I can not receive greater graces at St. Agnes than at the beer garden?

 

[JReducation]

Actually, Brother JR’s post, though certainly well intentioned, was entirely beside the point.

Why is it that everything I say you feel so free to readily dismiss?

Let me give a specific example: Imagine we contrast the western mass, in which beer and bratwurst is sold and consumed during mass in a beer garden with mass at St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN. Both are celebrated (at least nominally, in the first case) according to the modern roman missal.

Is it the case that one of these masses is a more efficacious channel of grace than the other?

Can I receive greater graces by attending mass at St. Agnes than I can if I go to the beer garden mass?

If not, then has the magisterium of the Church formally taught that I can not receive greater graces at St. Agnes than at the beer garden?

The issue in this example is the environment, not the mass. The grace of the mass is exactly the same, because it’s the same mass. The environment is totally inappropriate. Christ is not handcuffed by environments. The heading of this report is totally wrong. No mass can be sacrilegious. Celebrating the mass in the middle of such a situation is a sacrilege. The heading of the report is deliberately misleading to fit someone’s agenda.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[figs]

reading this post, I just can’t help thinking of Luke 10: 38-42.

“… thou art careful and art troubled about many things, But one thing is necessary”

 

[clem456]

I also get this every Sunday before Mass “please stand and greet those around you by name”

How blessed you are to have an opportunity to acknowledge your brothers and sisters in Christ. Communion. My parish does this too, right before Mass begins.