Pope to make universal indult for the Old Mass

[bear06]

Podo2005:

Did the Lord miss a point when he offered both species? No, and neither did the church , we have both the body and blood at mass now, learn to accept this.

Podo2005

I’ve tried to refrain from answering but at this point I’ve got to say that you are missing a very important part of doctrine. The Body and Blood of Our Lord is contained in the Host. We’ve always received the Body and Blood, pre and post Vatican II. Our Church did not make a mistake in not having the chalice. It simply wasn’t necessary. At this point in Our Church, the Magisterium has decided to allow the cup to make the miracle more evident to us (I’m sure someone can quote the actual language the Church used). The Church has even said that it is not necessary. I don’t think you’ll find one teaching on the Eucharist that said the pre-Vatican II Church was wrong for not using the chalice in the past and there is no mandate that we must have the chalice.

 

[palmas85]

bear06:

Yikes. I clarified that I didn’t have to hear it for it to be enough for me. I just don’t want to miss it and unfortunately for me, in my state of life, if it’s not audible I would miss it completely quite often. I’m just guessing you have no children yet. When I am at a Tridentine with two under two, I often don’t get to count the bells or see the elevation (from the child muffling vestibule while trying to keep those two under wraps. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have demon children. My eldest 4 are perfect in Mass but the last two, well, that’s just the nature of the beast. I have attended TLM’s in the past and found myself completely missing the Consecration because of no site or sound. At the “Novus Ordo” in English or Latin I can at the very least hear it and know when it is happening. Life may not always be like this for me but I’m still relatively young so I have no end in site yet. Once again, I thank God everyday for a Mass that allows me to not miss the Consecration in my distracted life which is the vocation to which God called me. I’m not saying that one Mass is better than another for everyone. I am saying that the “Novus Ordo” Mass is better for ME and it’s not because I have a problem with the inaubidble Consecration of the TLM. That’s perfectly fine for those who don’t have the distractions. I’ve been out in the vestible with several other mothers of loud toddlers and I can tell you that there are more people totally missing the Consecration than me! I completely agree with you about the childlike wonder but, if I’ve explained it well enough you’ll see why the audible Consecration is best for me.

I actually have three adult children, 28, 26 and 25 as well as five grandchildren, all girls ,

just joking on the eek. They are beautiful children and I love them dearly.

I do well recall hearing Mass when all three of my children were small, and as you can probably tell by the ages, they were all small together. Sometimes I wonder how my wife and I survived. We traveled a lot in those days, and most of the Masses we attended were Novus Ordo, most were good, some bad. Some in south Texas, well lets just say

No joke on that one. They were some terrible days believe me, terrible. Times that tried your soul.

As for the inaudible consecration, I have always been able to hear the bells ringing and know that the mystery has taken place, and that Christ is once again with us.

 

[palmas85]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Dear Heart, I receive by intinction.

Why are you telling me that I won’t get sick. Are you presuming who I am?

I think intinction is the best way to receive under both species and should be more readily available.

Just a personal opinion.

 

[bear06]

As for the inaudible consecration, I have always been able to hear the bells ringing and know that the mystery has taken place, and that Christ is once again with us.

Not me! If the bells aren’t wearing a mike, they don’t transmit to the vestibule.

 

[Podo2005]

bear06:

I’ve tried to refrain from answering but at this point I’ve got to say that you are missing a very important part of doctrine. The Body and Blood of Our Lord is contained in the Host. We’ve always received the Body and Blood, pre and post Vatican II. Our Church did not make a mistake in not having the chalice. It simply wasn’t necessary. At this point in Our Church, the Magisterium has decided to allow the cup to make the miracle more evident to us (I’m sure someone can quote the actual language the Church used). The Church has even said that it is not necessary. I don’t think you’ll find one teaching on the Eucharist that said the pre-Vatican II Church was wrong for not using the chalice in the past and there is no mandate that we must have the chalice.

You’re right in a sense that each part contains the full Body, Blood and Divinity of Christ. But Christ offered us both His Body and Blood at The Last supper in the presence of both bread and wine.

I still think you should recieve both though because it symbolizes the complete last supper, the complete sacrifice, the complete eucharist etc…

Podo2005

 

[bear06]

Podo2005:

You’re right in a sense that each part contains the full Body, Blood and Divinity of Christ. But Christ offered us both His Body and Blood at The Last supper in the presence of both bread and wine.

I still think you should recieve both though because it symbolizes the complete last supper, the complete sacrifice, the complete eucharist etc…

Podo2005

I’m sure some of you have read Shakspeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”. Everytime I get into this discussion, I think of Portia’s deal with Shylock and laugh. It seems even William Shakespeare understands you can’t separate the body and blood!

You may think that we should receive under both species but our Church doesn’t say that this is necessary. Don’t you trust the Church? By the way, have you found a document from the post-Vatican II era that says the Church was wrong not to allow the Chalice? Also, why don’t you spend some time searching for something post-VII that says we should receive under both species. It’s simply not there. All it says is that it is allowed to "so that the fullness of the sign may be made more clearly evident to the faithful ".

 

[msproule]

Podo2005:

No I mean’t alot of people on this site think that if you recieve the Blood you will get sick…

But at least an equal number of people who may not always receive the Precious Blood under the accident of wine refrain out of danger of spillage.

 

[msproule]

Podo2005:

My bad again I meant CURRENT church teachings(after vatican II)

Current Church Teaching is a conglomeration, the Deposit of Faith, comprised of the knowledge obtained through revelation, through the Apostles, solidified through the Councils (ALL of them, not just the most recent one) as well as through other means. The point is, current Church Teaching is not simply that which has been taught “after Vatican II”. Vatican II did not address all aspects of our Faith, so the entirety of Church Teaching is not contained therein.

 

[mosher]

thistle:

You are clearly one of the elitists in the West and probably have never attended a Mass in a third world country (where most Catholics are). I’m British but happen to live in the Philippines. There are NO missals in any of the churches here. You have no idea how poor (in financial terms) the people are and the Church is in a country like this, which incidentally has more Catholics than USA. People are struggling hard just to feed their families (about 50% of the people live below the poverty line) but their faith is strong so the least you could do for them is to have a good Christian attitude (stop being condescending and arrogant) and let them have a Mass they can fully understand.

I remember at one point when I was in the seminary I was discussing with a priest thsi very question about the use of latin in the liturgy. He also made the argument that the people would not be able to understand the mass. My retort was simple and remains the same.

Poll any number of catholics leaving a mass and ask them if they understood it. You will be suprised that even today when mass is in the native language of the people a majority still have no idea about what is going on at mass. It is sad but it is true. The mass could be celebrated in any language and the comperhension level seems to be about the same.

 

[totustuusmaria]

thistle:

Thanks. May I ask if the Creed, Lord’s Prayer are not vocally prayed in a Latin Mass?

The people only said the last line of the amen. The priest said the entire prayer and the people answered: Sed libera nos a malo (but deliver us from evil).

As far as the credo, it depended on it was a high or a low mass. At a low mass the priest would (generally) say the credo by himself, at a high mass the entire congregation would chant the credo together. It was the same with the gloria. The low mass is actually a very unique and induvidual spirituality; but as one lady told me: “the high mass had all the responses, and it was the highlight of the day. Nobody went to the low mass unless he was in a hurry.”

Just like in the East, it was considered easier to remember chants. Therefore the parts where the congregation participated were usually chanted. In the liturgical reforms of the 20th century before the Second Vatican Council many of the spoken responses were also said by the congregation. That being said, it was possible (and still is possible) to hear an entire low mass without ever saying a single verbal response. Oftentimes when one hears a low mass he there isn’t a homily either and the readings aren’t repeated in English. This is true for many daily masses. That isn’t the way it has to be, that’s just the way it developed.

 

[Pparisi]

I don’t know much about this topic but I’m keen to see Latin return to the Mass. My question: is there a Latin version of the Mass that we now attend every Sunday? That is, I’ve attended a Latin Mass of the pre-Vatican II sort, with the priest turned away from the congregation. While I loved hearing the Latin, I missed a few of the things that we do in the current Mass, such as exchanging gestures of peace. I gather that this can be a hot topic. My preference for a Latin Mass is that its language would be universal and, once again, wherever a Catholic travels he would be able to attend a Mass in the language in which he hears it back home. The only language that seems possible for this goal is Latin; certainly, no modern language could uncontroversially be employed.

 

[bear06]

Yes there is.

 

[Podo2005]

msproule:

But at least an equal number of people who may not always receive the Precious Blood under the accident of wine refrain out of danger of spillage.

That’s not a good enough reason though, if you look in the Bible, Jesus says that we have to recieve both… Besides there is just about the same chance of dropping the host on the ground for any reason.

Podo

 

[Therese_Martin]

Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.