Pope Benedicts wishes for communicants

[Slaney]

I wish it had never been changed from what it was in my childhood, kneeling, Altar rails etc:
It was much more reverent I’d say, & much more respectful when everyone didn’t have access around the Altar like market day…

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think the distinction trying to be made, that one form of the Mass carries more grace than another, could be seen as true if we shift our preception.

The amount (if one could quantify it some how) of grace in the Mass is the same no matter the form, that is a fact.

The amount of grace received by an individual at a form if the Mass may differ due to that individual not because of the form.

That is to say thatsome individuals choose (sometimes unconcisously sometimes concisously) to close themselves off to the grace available at a form of the Mass tbat the do not like.

There is no “less” or “more” grace, you just choose not to accept it.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

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.

This exact statement could be applied to the Traditional Latin Mass over the past 40 years, which hopefully will explain the frustrations of people who are attached to the traditional liturgy and practices.

I do, however, apologize for my response. It would have been more Christ-like to simply turn my other cheek to the insult and I failed to do that. I’m sorry, Brother David.

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

This exact statement could be applied to the Traditional Latin Mass over the past 40 years, which hopefully will explain the frustrations of people who are attached to the traditional liturgy and practices.

It can also be applied to the religious who lost their traditions in-between Vatican I and Vatican II, and got their traditions back thanks to Vatican II. So every time someone slams Vatican II, they’re effectively saying “your totally valid charisms and traditions don’t matter to us”, despite religious waiting a lot more than forty years to get back to where they were supposed to be.

Even this thread, where some have said “receiving on the tongue is the only way to go!”, they’re saying that the action of receiving on the hand, an act done by some groups for centuries, is wrong.

 

[curlycool89]

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

Well, it might be relative to ones opinion. Maybe for some you are trapped in a room and can’t leave until you can play “Gather Us In” on the acoustic guitar, and for others you can’t leave until you master “Faith of our Fathers” (or some other suitable Latin hymn) on an old fashion pipe organ (the one you get is of course the one you hate the most).

Or everyone is locked in a room and forced to listen to LMFAO until you go insane.

I think the distinction trying to be made, that one form of the Mass carries more grace than another, could be seen as true if we shift our preception.

The amount (if one could quantify it some how) of grace in the Mass is the same no matter the form, that is a fact.

The amount of grace received by an individual at a form if the Mass may differ due to that individual not because of the form.

That is to say thatsome individuals choose (sometimes unconcisously sometimes concisously) to close themselves off to the grace available at a form of the Mass tbat the do not like.

There is no “less” or “more” grace, you just choose not to accept it.

Now that’s a good insight. Grace always builds upon nature, and grace only affects us if we cooperate with it. If you don’t like one form of the Mass, then you will be going in uncooperative to the graces from that Mass, so you will subjectively get less grace, but only because you did not want to receive the full graces that are objectively available at that Mass.

 

[TempleServant]

I would put it more simply.

We’ve seen a lot of funny stuff at Masses in the past 40 years. You can make excuse after excuse. But to comes down to this: this is not the way to make an offering to a god.

After a bit of research, informed minds go to a TLM if they can find one. Cuts out a lot of doubt, distraction and upset.

Banging on about obedience doesn’t change the fact that 90% of the things that upset traditionalists are mere fashion: they needn’t be done. But they are done. The proper question is not: “Are they legal?” but "Should they be done, and why?"

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I would put it more simply.

We’ve seen a lot of funny stuff at Masses in the past 40 years. You can make excuse after excuse. But to comes down to this: this is not the way to make an offering to a god.

After a bit of research, informed minds go to a TLM if they can find one. Cuts out a lot of doubt, distraction and upset.

Banging on about obedience doesn’t change the fact that 90% of the things that upset traditionalists are mere fashion: they needn’t be done. But they are done. The proper question is not: “Are they legal?” but "Should they be done, and why?"

You’ve said what I’ve been trying to say very well. Thank you.

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

I would put it more simply.

We’ve seen a lot of funny stuff at Masses in the past 40 years. You can make excuse after excuse. But to comes down to this: this is not the way to make an offering to a god.

After a bit of research, informed minds go to a TLM if they can find one. Cuts out a lot of doubt, distraction and upset.

Banging on about obedience doesn’t change the fact that 90% of the things that upset traditionalists are mere fashion: they needn’t be done. But they are done. The proper question is not: “Are they legal?” but "Should they be done, and why?"

Actually, I have found while being on CAF that several practices traditionalists rail about are legit options, or options which have been practice din other areas of the Church for a very long time.

And to say/think that the EF is 100% abuse free is a fallacy, just as it’s a fallacy to think there was zero abuses pre-1962.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Actually, I have found while being on CAF that several practices traditionalists rail about are legit options, or options which have been practice din other areas of the Church for a very long time.

And to say/think that the EF is 100% abuse free is a fallacy, just as it’s a fallacy to think there was zero abuses pre-1962.

Round and round we go, again and again. It’s the trad merry-go-round!

We like to rehash everything over and over.

Wheee!

• PAX

 

[Melchior_1]

Round and round we go, again and again. It’s the trad merry-go-round!

We like to rehash everything over and over.

Wheee!

• PAX

 

[TrueLight]

Round and round we go, again and again. It’s the trad merry-go-round!

We like to rehash everything over and over.

Wheee!

• PAX

Ha ha. You two are funny.

 

[clem456]

There should be some humor going on in the Church but it’s not in this area. Unfortunately rigidity and exclusiveness and fundamental errors about the basic nature of grace are not funny, it’s frustrating for pastors and RCIA staff and liturgy directors and catechists, who are trying to cooperate in the salvation of souls.

 

[TempleServant]

Actually, I have found while being on CAF that several practices traditionalists rail about are legit options, or options which have been practice din other areas of the Church for a very long time.

Certainly. You used the word legit. As in legitimate. As in legal. Which is my point. But should these things be done now, in the West, in a diocesan, Roman Catholic Church. You can legally do quite a lot. But should you?

Imagine Christ on the cross. Then insert X novelty or Y archeologism into the scene. Then recall what they replaced. Is it better?

It’s very nice people are defending the legal rights of the Church. But lay people in casual clothes are still strumming guitars while others hand out the sacred species in St. Margarets.

 

[TrueLight]

There should be some humor going on in the Church but it’s not in this area. Unfortunately rigidity and exclusiveness and fundamental errors about the basic nature of grace are not funny, it’s frustrating for pastors and RCIA staff and liturgy directors and catechists, who are trying to cooperate in the salvation of souls.

I am not laughing at fundamental errors about the “basic nature of grace”.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

I am not laughing at fundamental errors about the “basic nature of grace”.

I’m now laughing that we were called to task about something we weren’t laughing about

 

[Melchior_1]

But lay people in casual clothes

You mean to say business casual isn’t acceptable at Masses? Is there a dress code?

are still strumming guitars

Has happened in the religious for some time, it’s not a coincidence that Steubinville conferences are run by Franciscans. Plus it’s a stringed instrument, so I guess you take issue with the Violin too.

while others hand out the sacred species

Is your concern that only a priest can hand out Christ, or that EMHC are used too often?

I dunno, seems to me there’s a lot more pressing issues than the above.

Further, we have people who often say “lookit this, it says this why does these other things happen! THIS is how things should be!” But now you’re telling me the externals outweigh the written law?

 

[TempleServant]

That’s another theme: “The exception being touted as the rule”.

I reply, I post this:
youtube.com/results?search_query=mass+IX

That’s what we want.

If a Catholic don’t get that that (Gregorian Chant) is better than “On Eagle’s Wings”, then there is no point in arguing further. Again, the legal argument is used:* “It is legal, so that’s enough justification for it to be done anywhere, at any time, in any place”.*

The other argument is relativism: “Guitar music can be just as reverent as chant”. So too could a mouth organ. May those who say such, suffer such, for years.

The changes made to our rites would be laughable, if I weren’t Catholic.You believe your god is in that little gold box or in that piece of bread, and you start letting lay people handle it? Smart move. Not.

 

[Rich_C]

There should be some humor going on in the Church but it’s not in this area. Unfortunately rigidity and exclusiveness and fundamental errors about the basic nature of grace are not funny, it’s frustrating for pastors and RCIA staff and liturgy directors and catechists, who are trying to cooperate in the salvation of souls.

Then I propose laughing about something entirely different: temperettes!
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[clem456]

This isn’t a two-way street that can be labeled as an argument between liberal and traditional or whatever. It’s one group of Catholics impugning the worship practices of other Catholics at valid Masses. No one is returning that favor here by running down the Latin Mass or EF or whatever. Catholics having to defend the Mass from other Catholics. It’s absurd.

Some of you would have a brain meltdown if you followed me to the hospital/nursing home this Sunday to do EMHC visits. I have given communion in the hand, on the tongue, between the tubes with the applesauce running down the chin, to all sorts of people. Drug addicts going to prison on Monday morning, people who can’t speak or respond all they can do is open their mouth and take a tiny piece of host (yes we break the host for these people), people taking their very last communion on this earth who ask me questions about divorce and mortal sin…people who I have no idea when they last went to confession, but they are Catholics who asked for communion. There is no decorum, no privacy, no signs of reverence like you would see at Mass, but there is reverence and respect. Does a 90 year old woman who has forgotten her name and where she is receive the same grace you do at your High Mass? I wouldn’t want to put myself in the driver’s seat for that judgement, I’ll leave that to someone else.

 

[Melchior_1]

If a Catholic don’t get that that (Gregorian Chant) is better than “On Eagle’s Wings”, then there is no point in arguing further. Again, the legal argument is used:* “It is legal, so that’s enough justification for it to be done anywhere, at any time, in any place”.*

Valid Catholic tradition - Francis banned Gregorian chant. Although you’ll consider this “an exception” I’m sure, it’s still a valid Catholic tradition.

The other argument is relativism: “Guitar music can be just as reverent as chant”. So too could a mouth organ. May those who say such, suffer such, for years.

Looks like those pesky Franciscans have been suffering for 800 some odd years. And why exactly is a guitar, or any other stringed instrument, inherently worse than chant?

The changes made to our rites would be laughable, if I weren’t Catholic.You believe your god is in that little gold box or in that piece of bread, and you start letting lay people handle it? Smart move. Not.

I guess that means Brother JR, Brother David, and other non-ordained religious can’t deliver the Eucharist to shut-ins, right?