Reasons Why I Prefer the Pauline Mass

[Windmill]

No, the Church has not said that. The Church has said that the use of EMsHC must follow a true need. Sadly with the current shortage of clerics a true need often exists at many parishes – particularly at those parishes with large attendance created consolidation of multiple parishes into one.

In fact the church has indeed said this. *On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful (1997):

*To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

• extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
• association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
• the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful.”
  If they are being used every Sunday, this is habitual, and therefore, forbidden.

Your comment is deeply in error. The Church has never said to limit communion to one species so as to limit the number of EMsHC. Not ever. Not even an inference. To suggest otherwise is wrong – and in this case, rather pernicious.

I answered this based on an identical response from the Very Reverend Peter Stravinskas, editor of the Catholic Answer. My response was not pernicious as I was echoing the response of a very well-respected priest, and this is exactly what I hoped to avoid: presumption of ill-intent. After researching this point, I found that Fr. McNamara of Zenit disagreed with Fr. Stravinskas and said that it isn’t an abuse. However, I do not understand how this doesn’t lend itself to “the habitual use of EMsHC”, which is to be eliminated as per the previously cited document from Rome.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Gig 'em, Windmill.

 

[Windmill]

Gig 'em, Windmill.

Gig 'em, right back atcha.

http://cgl.delluniversity.com/images/gallery/708/GIGEM.jpg

 

[Spiller]

Spiller - I think you’ve put too much stock in what are, really, just options and idiosyncracies. The Pauline Rite, as expressed in the GIRM, would look and feel very much different if parishes around the world used the ordinary instead of the optional on every allowable point of liturgical celebration.

There really isn’t an “ordinary.” There are licit options within the Pauline Mass and I love them. Whether it be the use of incense, ad orientum orientation of the priest, sanctus bells, communion under both kinds, etc. etc. etc. I have no idea what you mean by “idiosyncracies.”

If the ordinary was chosen, you’d have:

Latin
Ad Orientam posture of the celebrant
Chant

…I wonder how you’d feel about it then?

I believe I covered that – not that such things are “ordinary.”

So, let’s not talk about the intention of the Church as concerns typical Masses in the vernacular…that itself was not the intention of the Church in the first place.

No. Let’s talk about the Pauline Mass as defined by the Church.

I totally understand feeling good about how you worship. However, just because you feel good about it doesn’t mean it makes theological sense.

The Ordinary Form of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church makes sublime “theological sense” to me.

The “sign of peace” is a severe problem in many places. I can see why you like it, bonhomie is not an evil, after all. Can you see why many do not? Personally, I’d wager $5 that it’s gone within 25 years.

As I said I’m focused on the Pauline Mass as defined by the Church.

 

[Spiller]

Reading the responses above…what is this thread doing in this forum? This is far, far from “Traditional”.

Spiller, you have to know that anyone that defends the shenannigans of EMHCs is on “the other team”.
**
I primary reason I posted it here because there are HUGE numbers of traditionally-minded Catholics who prefer the Pauline Mass in this world.**

Surely you don’t claim to be one of them?

To even infer that a traditionally-minded Catholic must prefer the EF is just plain silly.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Good thing I didn’t imply that, then, I’d hate to be silly.

I’m implying that you’re liturgically liberal.

 

[Spiller]

In fact the church has indeed said this. *On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful (1997):

*To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:

• extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
• association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
• the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful.”
  If they are being used every Sunday, this is habitual, and therefore, forbidden.

If there is a true need for using EMsHC based on a lack of clerics at any Catholic Mass then it is never an abuse.

Using EMsHC at every Mass would not be a “habitual use” if it was based on true need:

*hab·it
–noun

An acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary: the habit of looking both ways before crossing the street.*

It might be a “constant use” but it’s certainly not a “habitual use.” You’re trying to incorrectly define the word “habitual” in this case.
*
Need does not equate to habit.*

I answered this based on an identical response from the Very Reverend Peter Stravinskas, editor of the Catholic Answer. My response was not pernicious as I was echoing the response of a very well-respected priest, and this is exactly what I hoped to avoid: presumption of ill-intent. After researching this point, I found that Fr. McNamara of Zenit disagreed with Fr. Stravinskas and said that it isn’t an abuse. However, I do not understand how this doesn’t lend itself to “the habitual use of EMsHC”, which is to be avoided/eliminated as per the previously cited document from Rome.

As I said, if there is a true need for using EMsHC based on a lack of clerics at any Catholic Mass then it is never an abuse.

The Church has never even hinted at the notion of limiting communion to one species in order to limit the use of EMsHC. Not ever.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Fun thing about being new, you get to pigeonhole people.

Spiller = Obvious agenda, unkown as to exact allegiance. Watch my back, all is not as it appears here.

Will be fun to flesh that out with details in the coming weeks.

 

[Windmill]

When you have a **schedule **of EMsHC, and when people are used to seeing them every Sunday without thinking twice, and when people would freak if they were not allowed, then it’s habitual. This is the case in most parishes, and I firmly believe that EMsHC have contributed to a decrease in vocations.

 

[Howard_Roark]

A person who assists at masses in the USA, at least, who does not see abuses concening EMHCs is either very unobservant or has a seriously liberal liturgical agenda…and we’re all getting suckered here. I’m going for option #2.

 

[Spiller]

When you have a **schedule **of EMsHC, and when people are used to seeing them every Sunday without thinking twice, and when people would freak if they were not allowed, then it’s habitual. This is the case in most parishes, and I firmly believe that EMsHC have contributed to a decrease in vocations.

Actually that’s not true.

If EMsHC are used based on need and not simply habit (or anything else) then their use is never wrong. You want a practical example? A parish makes use of a visiting priest. Great efforts have been made to get a second priest or deacon (retired or not) to help distribute communion which is under both kinds based on the preference of the local ordinary, to no avail.

Using an EMHC at said Mass would NEVER be wrong – even if said person was “scheduled” unless a second cleric became available in which case there would not be a true need.

You can talk about your opinions and experiences – even though you said long ago you were going to quit replying. I’ll stick with what the Church actually directs.

 

[Howard_Roark]

They never sit back down.

That’s the thing.

Even if there are sufficient clergy to distribute, the EMHCs never sit back down. It has become so expected that, in our diocese, priests and deacons are expected to defer to the EMHCs, and they do. That’s the reality. Now, pedant, what will you produce in refutation of that? This abuse is why the Church warns against using EMHC habitually - if the abuse caused by habitual use of EMHCs is occurring, then un-necessary habitual use is occurring, quod erat demonstrandum.

One reason I do not prefer the Pauline Mass is the ease with which it is abused. See above posts by Spiler.

 

[Windmill]

They never sit back down.

That’s the thing.

Even if there are sufficient clergy to distribute, the EMHCs never sit back down. It has become so expected that, in our diocese, priests and deacons are expected to defer to the EMHCs, and they do. That’s the reality. Now, pedant, what will you produce in refutation of that? This abuse is why the Church warns against using EMHC habitually - if the abuse caused by habitual use of EMHCs is occurring, then un-necessary habitual use is occurring, quod erat demonstrandum.

…as evidenced by the uproar we saw when the Pope refused to allow EMsHC at the Yankee Stadium Mass (even though there were 300 priests). It has become ingrained in people’s minds that this is normal. EMsHC are a regrettable compromise for extenuating circumstances. However, it has come to be seen as a “way of involving the laity”, and has, thus, adopted a meaning foreign to its nature.

In fairness to Spiller, s/he does admit that if a cleric is available, it is wrong to use an EMHC.

Practically, priests are under a lot of pressure to allow these people to exercise their “ministry”. In our parish, Deacons were expected to sit in the pews if they weren’t “scheduled” to help distribute Holy Communion. In the parish across town, even at small daily Masses, EMHC’s are used. Yes, these are abuses, but they are a natural evolution of this constant use of EMsHC, and have become, ipso facto, habitual.

 

[Windmill]

I’ll just [really] end my posting here by saying this:

You first posted saying that you were a tradition-minded Catholic, yet all the things you posted as preferences in the OF are not traditional.

EMsHC, vernacular Masses, Communion under both kinds, a spoken Penitential Rite by everyone together, the expanded lectionary, lay readers, multiple Eucharistic prayers, and everyone giving the Sign of Peace…none of these things have been “handed down” [Latin: *traditio] as traditions. They either never existed, or they were phased out through the organic development of the liturgy. To introduce these into (or back into) the liturgy is certainly within the competence of the Holy See, but you cannot claim that these are traditional.

Thank you for a civil debate.

 

[cothrige]

As a traditionally minded Catholic Christian I was thinking about why I prefer the abuse-free Pauline Mass over an abuse-free Tridentine Mass. Here is my own “top 10” of the reasons why:

Spiller, I am curious what you have in mind by “traditionally minded”? I ask because everything in your list is a preference for a modern innovation over a traditional method. I am not trying to suggest that only the older way is good, but I really don’t see how exactly you see yourself as “traditional” in this matter, and what you would see an “untraditional” person as being.

It’s in a Language I Can Understand: While I certainly appreciate the Latin language, I do prefer to FOCUS on the Mass in a truly hardcore manner which I cannot do when I must use a missalette.

I will admit that I am not that hung up on Latin. I don’t speak it or read it, so I am not dying to have it constantly. But, what bothers me is the mind of the Church. The Church has professed, in council, that Latin should be the norm, but it isn’t. I think that is less than optimal all around, simply because dissent is not the proper way to do things. Now, if the Church had really said that the Mass should be in a language understood by the people I would have no problem with it. I would certainly prefer either that or Latin, but what we have now seems really bad.

The Papal Masses on the Pope’s trip to the US are a case in point. If a Mass is for English speaking people it should be in English. If the people are Spanish, then in that language. However, if you do some in one and some in the other you guarantee that all of the people can understand only half of the liturgy. I would certainly prefer a missal over a Spanish dictionary and phrase book.

I guess that would be my big complaint about the modern way of doing things. People assume it should be in the vernacular when in actual practice it seems more that anything is good as long as it isn’t Latin. It isn’t clear what is really sought and why. And the end result is seemingly less about being understood than it is about political correctness or anti-latin preferences.

You also mention penitential rites and selections regarding the EP. Why are more choices better? Especially if they are not used? In our parish the confiteor is never, and I mean never used. I haven’t heard it in years. But, why would the random comment about Jesus followed by Lord have mercy be good anyway? What does it have to do with penitence? It is empty ritual to me which I find myself simply waiting to get finished with since it means next to nothing liturgically. And you say the Roman Canon is not the best for every Mass. Good thing, and apparently it is not best for any Mass, since I have also heard nothing but #2 in years. And why is that prayer better than #1 in any case? I can hear nothing there which is an improvement over #1, and if it weren’t a choice then the Roman Canon may still be heard.

You may be tempted to say that these are abuses, but they are not. I am aware of no liturgical law that on any given day this or that penitential rite must be used, or Eucharistic prayer, or any other such thing. Latin is a choice, which means you never hear it. Incense is a choice, which means you never smell it. The Confiteor is a choice, which means you never say it. The Roman Canon is a choice, which means you never hear it. These are all valid choices today, and that they may always, and without exception, be exercised in only one direction in any given parish would not seem, at least in a legal sense, to be abusive. Though I do think it can show why more choices are not automatically going to result in having more options available to you in the pew.

 

[pnewton]

Reading the responses above…what is this thread doing in this forum? This is far, far from “Traditional”.

I was wondering the same thing. It is not like you have to be a traditionalist to post here, but the topic should be. This would seem to fit more into the liturgy forum. It is unfair to define Traditionalism or Traditional spirituality to mean just anything you want it.

 

[Spiller]

Spiller, I am curious what you have in mind by “traditionally minded”? I ask because everything in your list is a preference for a modern innovation over a traditional method. I am not trying to suggest that only the older way is good, but I really don’t see how exactly you see yourself as “traditional” in this matter, and what you would see an “untraditional” person as being.

That’s an excellent question! I appreciate the long-held disciplines and customs of the Church that are still allowed by the Church. Does that mean (for example) that I like the EF? Yes, it does. Does it mean I prefer the EF over the OF? Nope.

I will admit that I am not that hung up on Latin. I don’t speak it or read it, so I am not dying to have it constantly. But, what bothers me is the mind of the Church…I would certainly prefer either that or Latin, but what we have now seems really bad.

No where has the Church ever mandated or even suggested that the norm for celebrating the OF beLatin. That’s simply not true. It does encourage the use of Latin in the OF and it is – at least where I attend. In my own experiences it’s typically used during the Gloria, Agnus Dei and Sanctus. I have experienced it in other parts of the Mass as well.

The Papal Masses on the Pope’s trip to the US are a case in point. If a Mass is for English speaking people it should be in English. If the people are Spanish, then in that language. However, if you do some in one and some in the other you guarantee that all of the people can understand only half of the liturgy. I would certainly prefer a missal over a Spanish dictionary and phrase book.

Yet absolutely no one speaks Latin as their primary language today. Very few would go to the OF each week if it was in a language they needed a missalette to follow – they would choose another OF.

I guess that would be my big complaint about the modern way of doing things. People assume it should be in the vernacular when in actual practice it seems more that anything is good as long as it isn’t Latin. It isn’t clear what is really sought and why. And the end result is seemingly less about being understood than it is about political correctness or anti-latin preferences.

I don’t know anyone that assumes anything about the vernacular. At my home parish, people seem to enjoy the Latin, English and Spanish.

You also mention penitential rites and selections regarding the EP. Why are more choices better? Especially if they are not used? In our parish the confiteor is never, and I mean never used. I haven’t heard it in years…And why is that prayer better than #1 in any case? I can hear nothing there which is an improvement over #1, and if it weren’t a choice then the Roman Canon may still be heard.

None of your misgivings is a result of the intrinsic design of the OF – it has to do with how it’s celebrated at the parish you attend.

You may be tempted to say that these are abuses, but they are not. I am aware of no liturgical law that on any given day this or that penitential rite must be used, or Eucharistic prayer, or any other such thing…Though I do think it can show why more choices are not automatically going to result in having more options available to you in the pew.

No, they are not abuses – they are very legitimate options. They may not fit your own personal taste (nor mine for that matter) but they certainly do not make like love the OF (or the EF for that matter) any less.

The EF analogy is having a Tridentine low Mass Sunday after Sunday after Sunday. Many would have the same sort of misgivings you are trying to communicate above but in no way would the spartan Mass be abusive – it would be a legitimate option.

 

[Spiller]

I was wondering the same thing. It is not like you have to be a traditionalist to post here, but the topic should be. This would seem to fit more into the liturgy forum. It is unfair to define Traditionalism or Traditional spirituality to mean just anything you want it.

That’s a salient point. Maybe CA should define it for us? For me, the Pauline Mass can be choke-full of traditional customs and disciplines…

 

[bilop]

No where has the Church ever mandated or even suggested that the norm for celebrating the OF beLatin.

That’s just not true. The standard Pauline Mass is in Latin. It is written in Latin, and any vernacular is a transalation, and an indult of one form or another, even if it has become pervasive.

Notice, in St. Peter’s in Rome the Mass is always offered in Latin, not Italian.

God Bless

 

[Spiller]

I’ll just [really] end my posting here by saying this:

You first posted saying that you were a tradition-minded Catholic, yet all the things you posted as preferences in the OF are not traditional.

That’s simply your personal opinion. Please keep something in mind though. ** I do like and appreciate the EF and everything that goes with it.** I just like the OF even more. Some people would say a “traditionalist” could not like or even prefer the OF and they would be in error.

EMsHC, vernacular Masses, Communion under both kinds, a spoken Penitential Rite by everyone together, the expanded lectionary, lay readers, multiple Eucharistic prayers, and everyone giving the Sign of Peace…none of these things have been “handed down” [Latin: *traditio]

as traditions. They either never existed, or they were phased out through the organic development of the liturgy. To introduce these into (or back into) the liturgy is certainly within the competence of the Holy See, but you cannot claim that these are traditional.

Thank you for a civil debate.
Actually Masses in the vernacular did exist in the first centuries of the Catholic Church – East and West. They most certainly had more than one EP and almost certainly the Sign of Peace. So they most certainly are ancient if not “traditional.”

Thank you too for keeping this civil.