C
ConstantineTG
Guest
While you’re at it, implement the Spirit of Vatican II as well
- Status
H
h1478971
Guest
contact your bishop see what he says. Ask him for help for setting up a TLM.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
.”
J
JReducation
Guest
With all due respect to you as well, you may be seeing conspiracy where none is intended. We must always approach our bishops with an open mind and with a clear understanding that we are dealing with human beings who have many things on their plate. While our needs and desires may seem imperative to us, to the bishop of a diocese it may not be the case. I can give one simple example. In the territory of our archdiocese, where I am stationed, we had 31,000 abortions last year. To this bishop and this archdiocese, Respect Life Ministry is urgent. Do you see what I’m trying to say here? Perspectives may not be the same. We have to allow for this. It’s part of fraternal dialogue.
As to the law, the principles of canon law are very similar to those of civil law. Both are based on ethics and logic. Yes, when there is a conflict or a shortage of resources, it is up to the person who is asking for the extraordinary to demonstrate that it is necessary and beneficial to the largest number of people possible
If you enter the dialogue with your bishop believing that he is contriving and ploting against you, you have entered it in a state of sin. You have judged and sentenced the man. Even if he fails to give you the desired response, to suggest such a thing, without proof, is a sin. We may not judge other people that way. Please, for the sake of charity, keep an open mind when discussiong this desire with your pastor and bishop. Remember, he has many petitions for his attention and his resources.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
The real one this time.While you’re at it, implement the Spirit of Vatican II as well
In the light of tradition, of course.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I am glad for your sake, but in fact my recollection is quite similar to that of poster 1234:
“…at my advanced age, recall clearly how it was performed most of the time I attended mass: very fast; inaudible; unable to be followed even if you knew Latin, which I did; perfunctory, priests smoking outside before mass. Uninvolved congregations, saying the rosary, leaving immediately after communion, few responses, as they couldn’t follow the rapid mumbling.”
I don’t know where he was, or where you were, but I was in Chicago.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Pheme,
and not as in some 17th century quietist way so far as the laity were concerned.
Pax, Jerry Parker
**You wrote: ** You do realize that while that may have been your experience, many of us never were allowed to open our mouths in church before the OF came into existence. I attended Mass in many parishes before Vat. II but never experienced a dialog Mass in any of them.
You have a good point there, Pheme. There were parishes, perhaps whole dioceses, which did not keep pace with the change within the Traditional Latin Mass (T.L.M.) to the “dialogue Mass” (Missa recitata). I was lucky in my pre-Novus Ordo experience in the Los Angeles Archdiocese (under wise old Cdl. MacIntyre) always to have gone to the Mass where the more participative style of the T.L.M. had been implemented. Even in Naples, once, I assisted at Mass at a working class parish where the parishoners very heartily participated in the Missa recitata. That made the T.L.M. an even more wonderful experience than the overly chancel-dominated Mass that still stuck on elsewhere. I certainly hope that where the T.L.M. is celebrated nowadays that it is done according to the principles of the old liturgical renewal movement (of the latter part of the 19th century to the 1950s), and not as in some 17th century quietist way so far as the laity were concerned.Pax, Jerry Parker
R
revert_jen
Guest
I’m pretty sure that I never said or suggested that it did. More to the point might be if (as I suspect is also the case) it does not lock the Mass into the predominant vernacular of the area. But I’m not actually sure how even that would really be relevant.
Right. So the faithful have the right to the OF Mass in the prevailing vernacular, or presumably in the official language of the Western Rite: Latin, either of which could be defined as customary. That’s pretty much what I said, although for the sake of simplicity I had been ignoring the possibility of the OF in Latin.
BTW, are you saying that, contrary to what I have seen in other threads, all Catholics have a right to receive the Eucharist from an Ordinary Minister of the Eucharist? Someone made the point earlier, and it seems relevant here, since we are discussing the usage of “Extraordinary.”
I should have made it clear that when I said that using lower attendance as an excuse for completely disallowing the EF wasn’t good enough, I was really just meaning that it wasn’t morally good enough. I didn’t particularly mean that it wasn’t legally good enough. I tend to feel that it would in fact violate the intention of SP, but as I don’t allow “the spirit of Vatican II” as something that has any real meaning, I cannot logically call upon “the spirit of Summorum Pontificum,” and I don’t. I personally am not claiming that Bishops do not have the authority to do this, just that it is wrong for them to do it. And of course, really any time a Bishop finds himself in a position where the faithful have requested the EF and he can’t “arrange for such celebration to take place, the matter should be referred to the Pontifical Commission ‘Ecclesia Dei.’” Ideally, I think, it would be the Bishop himself who would do this, but it is not specified.
I don’t have a problem with either form either, and regularly attend each. I belong to a parish that has a weekly EF Mass and also celebrates the OF with extreme reference and attention to the rubrics.
Well, you were OK until the last paragraph.I do have a problem with any group, that is demanding and refuses to sit down and work out a solution that is good for the greater number of people. That’s not the attitude of people who are called to holiness. People called to holiness have take fraternal cooperation very seriously. Do you see what I’m trying to say? I’m not sure if I’m saying this well and charitably or making a bigger mess of it.
There was no suggestion that the OP, or in fact anyone much that wished to attend the EF, was refusing “to sit down and work out a solution that is good for the greater number of people.” It’s a little uncharitable to imply that they are unwilling to do so, or to further imply that they are not listening to the call to holiness and fail to understand fraternal cooperation. (You probably didn’t mean to imply that at all, but if you look back, I think you’ll see how it could come off that way.) It’s not related to me because my parish started having the EF Mass before I even understood what that would entail (in fact before SP), and we have a wonderful bishop (in many ways, not just in relation to the EF!) here that would not try to prevent the EF from being celebrated, as long as the priest is qualified. I would just like to see others have the same opportunity I have.
It still sounds a little like you are returning to the idea that anyone wanting a Mass that is not the OF in the prevailing vernacular has to prove that it will get as big an attendance as it would if that particular Mass were the OF in the prevailing vernacular. There is no functional difference between the following two statements, whether they are said by a Bishop, or by anyone else:
The EF of the mass cannot be celebrated.
or
The EF of the mass cannot be celebrated unless it will have as many people at it as an OF Mass.
As for serving the greatest number of people, I believe the Holy Father has said that the more common celebration of the EF would help the whole Church by helping to increase reverence at all Masses, so, if you look at it that way, the greater number of people are always served by introducting the EF into an area (I’ll arbitratily call it a 50-mile radius or thereabouts) where it is not currently celebrated.
–Jen
(I can’t write fraternally, and I refuse to write sororily because the word sounds silly, but I do mean the post above in a spirit of siblinghood.
)
J
JReducation
Guest
Now THAT cracked me up. Thanks, I needed a good laugh today. It’s been a rough day.(I can’t write fraternally, and I refuse to write sororily because the word sounds silly, but I do mean the post above in a spirit of siblinghood.
I DO believe that you’re not trying to be oppositional. There are some points on which we agree and others, where I’m not sure if we disagree or we’re not using the same language, so allow me to go there.
When you apply the methodology of doing law, there is a big difference between saying that a priest may not celebrate the EF and saying that to do so at this time would cause undue hardship for a parish. In the second, you are avoiding the undue hardship, not the EF. THERE is the difference. A bishop has a duty to protect his parishes from undue hardship.
One may ague that it is spiritually beneficial to celebrate the EF and so forth. But that’s a judgment call. Each of us would make a different call, were we in the bishop’s chair. There would be as many conclusions as candidates for the episcopal chair. That’s why we settle for the conclusion of the bishop.
As for the group comment that I made, I was not speaking about the OP. As far as I’m concerned, I gave the original poster as many ideas as I could come up with. I have not more. I was speaking globally. When groups refuse to sit down and dialogue and problem solve with a fraternal spirit, then I bow out. I don’t do the tug-of-war. Either sit down over a cup of tea and biscuits or leave. I was the superior of a community that served a parish. I was not the pastor. One of the other brothers was the pastor, but I was his superior. When parishioners came with complaints about the pastor my initial response was to say, “Sit down, have a cup of tea and a biscuit. Tell me what’s bothering you.” Once I had a self-made committee that did not want to sit down and talk. They slapped me with a letter and a bunch of signatures. I slapped back with another letter, “I am the canonically elected superior of this community until such and such a date. At that time, you can accept my nomination for the office.” They did not like that response. What I’m saying here is that all of us must learn to respect boundaries and to talk to each other. I meant no disrespect. I apologize if it sounded rude.
As far as the language goes, there is another way of looking at this. The faithfull have the right to mass, period. Once you can provide that, then comes the next question. If you have someone who speaks the language of a large community of immigrants, is it right to deny them the mass in their language? That’s really a very circumstancial answer. I won’t say that there is an absolute moral answer to that question. The right answer will depend on many factors. We were in the mission in Ecuador. While there, we had many Catholics from the USA and Canada who did not speak Spanish. Our brothers spoke English. Why not celebrate a mass in English? It is not an extraordinary thing for our brothers to celebrate mass in English. They had done it in the USA. The superior ordered one of the brother priests to celebrate a mass in English on Sundays. That’s how the “ordinary” plays itself out.
Moving on . . . Catholics do have the right to receive Holy Communion from a deacon, presbyter or bishop. No pastor should demand that you move to the line with the EMHC if you’re not comfortable with that. The ordained minister must remain at his post and distribute Holy Communion until he runs out of hosts or communicants. I have never seen anyone demand that you receive from an EMHC. My guess is that it may have happened, because we do have some “interesting” pastors. But that does not mean that this is the general practice. Generally, pastors do not bully people into receiving from an EMHC at a mass. At the bedside is a different story and we won’t get into those rules. We could be here until next year.
I hope that I have made more sense. I’m trying hard to explain things as well as I can. I have to add a disclaimer here. Although I have an STD, it is in Mystical Theology, not Ministry. My academic knowledge of Ministry is very minimal. I have a the same four-year M.Div. that every seminarian gets and I have never been a pastor, which is where most people get the rest of their education – hands-on-learning. I have dealt much more in the matters pertaining to the soul, conversion, asceticism, and the spiritual journey. I do apologize for my lack of knowledge in this area.
Siblingly your,
Br. JR, OSF
R
revert_jen
Guest
I hope tomorrow is easier! (and sororily really is a silly-sounding word)I think we do have some differences, but mainly I believe they are matters of degree, not of kind.
Certainly that is all true. It is possible however, if one would prefer not to have the EF at all, to claim that in every case it would cause undue hardship. While not indefensible on technical grounds (in these days of too few priestly vocations), I believe that it would be wrong to do so.
Understandable, but I believe that some people really have experienced some unpleasant and possibly unfair situations in trying to get the EF, so in charity, it might be good to let them say their piece in frustration, and then see if the whole dialogue thing will work out. (Umm, I meant their frustration rather than yours, but I suppose that would work both ways.)
I heartly agree with the following clarifications:
- I may have ice in my tea, as it is August and over 90F/32C. (I prefer iced tea all year round, but can see the benefit of hot tea in colder months.)
- You either mean biscuits in the British sense, or else I can put some real butter on mine, rather than margarine.
I understand, and frankly I think self-made committees are frequently a bad idea. They gather together the sort of people who actually like to be on committees, while in prudence such people should be kept strictly separate, lest unnecessary minutes should ensue.
Re: language, I don’t think we really disagree about anything there.
I have seen people on this forum say that it is wrong to, for example, go to the back of the line that is going to the priest, if you are sitting in a section that is being served by an EMHC. I have seen people claim that it is somehow belittling the Eucharist if you care from whom you receive it. I have also seen at least one poster who said he was refused communion by the priest because the priest felt he should be receiving from the EMHC. It does happen. One of the reasons I have seen people give for liking the extraordinary form, is that it is the only way they get to receive from an ordinary minister. I refuse to feel guilty for preferring to receive from an ordinary minister if I can do so without making a fuss, just as I don’t expect someone who prefers the OF to feel guilty for that preference. But I think it would be good for everyone if the EMHCs were just as extraordinary as the EF, meaning for preference both fewer of the former and more of the latter.
I didn’t mean anything about reception outside of Mass, as that is an issue that frankly I know nothing about.
I think we’re clear.
I’ll keep that in mind in case in future I ever notice a lack of knowledge. But currently I have nothing to which I can apply the apology.
Yours in siblingitude,
–Jen
J
JReducation
Guest
It is never an easy day in pro-life ministry. However, some days are more sad than others. I had a 15-year old pregnant girl and a 16-year old father who wanted an abortion, because they are terrified. I had a woman with three previous abortions who is shattered a the realization of the crime. Finally, I had a mother who was told to abort because her child has not arms or legs. These situations make EMHC seem like small potatoes.
Not only do I agree, but am enjoying the discussion, because you do this very well. You place your issues on the table without pointing fingers or casting doubt over the sincerity of others and their positions.
We are all sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Therefore, it is always possible to hind behind any excuse. But it is not morally justifiable. I would defend any pastor who wants to keep his parish from undue hardship. I would also slam any brother under me who hides behind a technicality to avoid charity because of his preferences. That is not my definition of obedience and my brothers know this.
I know people have had bad experiences. I have often felt the pain of the tender Traditionalist who just wants his/her Tridentine mass. For this person, I have nothing but great affection and a genuine desire to help them. For the “in your face” individual I have little time.
I believe that we have the beginning of a healthy dialogue.I think with those provisos, we could discuss the issue calmly.
I was never happier to be transferred, than when I was transferred from that house. We transfer every three years. We have only two parishes in my province. But every three-years, I pray that I not be made superior at either of those houses. Of course, I’m not allowed to say that I don’t want to go there. That would be a very serious mortal sin, because it is against the vow of obedience and charity. It causes major problems for the superior general when he has a chart of assignments and someone says, “I won’t serve.”I understand, and frankly I think self-made committees are frequently a bad idea. They gather together the sort of people who actually like to be on committees, while in prudence such people should be kept strictly separate, lest unnecessary minutes should ensue.
I fail to see how this would be wrong, unless the person is outwardly uncharitable toward the EMHC: looks, glances, comments, etc.
I respectfully disagree. Most people who are uncomfortable receiving from an EMHC are so because of their feelings. Feelings are not always within our control. They are often very spontaneous. We must never let feelings drive us to do wrong. But I cannot see the seriuosness in changing lines.
As I said, “we have some interesting pastors.”
I fail to see a reason to feel guilty.
The idea is that you use EMHC at mass if you have a large crowd and not enough ordained miinisters. We live in a parish that is very active. It has seven masses every weekend, spaced about 90 minutes apart: 8:00, 9:30, 11:00, 12:30 and 5:00, 6:30 on Sundays and 5:00 on Sat. They church sits about 800. Every seat is taken at every mass. This means about 500 cars in the parking lot at any given time. This is a case where you have to finish allowing enough time for one crowd to clear the parking lot and the other to come in. But this is not the case at every parish.
I’ll keep that in mind in case in future I ever notice a lack of knowledge. But currently I have nothing to which I can apply the apology.
I thank you. Your very kind.
Siblingly yours,
Br. JR, OSF
M
malphono
Guest
Thanks. I’m glad that someone understood the nuance.
And with that, I exit this thread.
C
chain
Guest
Our parish priest is very busy. We are lucky to get daily mass several times a week - we do not even have a true scheduled confession time - so the option of a Extraordinary Form mass does not existent.
Our neighboring parish however had an associate priest and had a weekly EF mass (they had a school, so perhaps they had more resources to offer this mass). He also had scheduled confession twice a week. (guess what - schedule it and people come, how unusual). Anyway, we were using that Church for daily mass and confession.
Well he got reassigned one Parrish to the east (ok 20 minutes instead of 10). Before he even was transferred he was told there would be no EF mass celebrated there. I do not know 100% why, but it is possible simply because they were not able to follow the rite there - but it sounded more like acute dislike, almost like we are not that church anymore, quite trying to go back to the dark ages.
We were offered no reasons, so sounded sour to us. Being told to suck eggs and not told why was very frustrating.
Our neighboring parish however had an associate priest and had a weekly EF mass (they had a school, so perhaps they had more resources to offer this mass). He also had scheduled confession twice a week. (guess what - schedule it and people come, how unusual). Anyway, we were using that Church for daily mass and confession.
Well he got reassigned one Parrish to the east (ok 20 minutes instead of 10). Before he even was transferred he was told there would be no EF mass celebrated there. I do not know 100% why, but it is possible simply because they were not able to follow the rite there - but it sounded more like acute dislike, almost like we are not that church anymore, quite trying to go back to the dark ages.
We were offered no reasons, so sounded sour to us. Being told to suck eggs and not told why was very frustrating.
S
Stylites
Guest
I hope you can find your preferred Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite Mass in your area soon. Rest assured that in the meantime the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church will be providing a valid and reverential Mass each Sunday if not more frequently.
O
Ockham
Guest
Unfortunately this story is all too common. Traditionally minded priests getting transferred for no apparent reason creating suspicion and distrust.
Why is your priest too busy for Confession? If people are not encouraged to Confession they are at risk of carrying mortal sin to their Judgement and probably receiving the Blessed Sacrament unworthily. What could be more important than preventing that?
R
rwoehmke
Guest
I have asked several priests who were ordained early enough to have celebrated the EF for a number of years. The standard reply that I get when asking if they would do so if requested has been,“No, why would anyone want to do that?” I don’t know where our bishop stands because neither he nor the bishop before him has said one “peep” for the record. I believe there are some parishes across the river in Minnesota that have the OF in Latin and even a few who have an EF Mass.
J
JReducation
Guest
You have to understand the rule. The priest must hear the confession of the faithful. It is preferred that there be a scedule to for confessions, because it makes things easier for everyone if it is built into the weekly schedule.
The rule being what it is, that does not mean that a priest is always available. There are times when he is unavailable through no fault of his own. If you have a parish with only one priest, it is very likely that he is going to be pulled in many directions at one time. This often happens. This does not mean that the priest is denying people confession. It means what it says, he was not around when someone wanted to go to confession.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
Ockham
Guest
I understand the rule. The member stated his parish priest is too busy for regularly scheduled Confessions and I asked what could be more important than that.
J
JReducation
Guest
We must add here that the rule is simple.
If you are in a state of sin, you may go to Holy Communion, provided that you are truly unable to go to confession, make an act of contrition and seek to go to confession as soon as it is possible. In addition, if you want to go to confession and you die without going to confession, you are absolved of your sin. The fact that you wanted to go to confession indicates that you are sorry for your sin. The fact that there was no priest available is not your fault.
We have to be very careful not to give the impression that there is no absolution without the Sacrament of Penance. That is not the teaching of the Church. The Sacrament of Penance is an act of charity on the part of Christ. It is available to Catholics and Orthodox, who should take advantage of it and are bound by Church law to do so at least once a year. That is rough summary of the teaching.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
If you are in a state of sin, you may go to Holy Communion, provided that you are truly unable to go to confession, make an act of contrition and seek to go to confession as soon as it is possible. In addition, if you want to go to confession and you die without going to confession, you are absolved of your sin. The fact that you wanted to go to confession indicates that you are sorry for your sin. The fact that there was no priest available is not your fault.
We have to be very careful not to give the impression that there is no absolution without the Sacrament of Penance. That is not the teaching of the Church. The Sacrament of Penance is an act of charity on the part of Christ. It is available to Catholics and Orthodox, who should take advantage of it and are bound by Church law to do so at least once a year. That is rough summary of the teaching.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
chain
Guest
While I think confession should have a higher importance in my parish, I understand there is a time issue. We were blessed with an extraordinary priest (iirc he went to seminary in Rome and has degrees in Cannon Law, and counseling. Unfortunately have to share his time with both the diocese and another church. He has 3 scheduled masses on Sunday in 2 parishes, and we try to pry “private” masses out of him when possible). I think he also works daily at the diocesan offices (an hr away) as a counselor and has served on the tribunal.
The issue with the EF priest is that he was transferred from a strong traditional parish to one of those that tore down it’s old church for something “better” after VII.
FWIW the priest celebrating that EF in the neighboring parish was fairly young. I am not sure where he was ordained (my diocese does not have a seminary), but they still teach Latin somewhere…
Once again to praise my priest - the first think he did when he came to my parish 20+ years ago was to restore our Church. They recreated as much of the old alter as possible (from a couple photos and a couple of broken pieces of the former one found rotting in a field). His said “our Church was not conducive to worship”, even then it took the better part of a year to get permission for the remodel. Because of his efforts, almost all of the neighboring churches that were not torn down after VII have restored their alters as well. Some are even being repainted to their former glory as well.The issue with the EF priest is that he was transferred from a strong traditional parish to one of those that tore down it’s old church for something “better” after VII.
- Status