Reasons Why I Prefer the Pauline Mass

[ethelzguy]

Because we don’t wish to support abuses in any way. Simple as that.

What does “supporting abuses” have to do with receiving the Blessed Sacrement from a EMHC?

 

[cothrige]

FYI, the OF celebrated entirely (or even the majority of it) in Latin was never the “norm.”

You are wrong. Latin is the normative language, and is both available in all Churches and is approved in all. No permissions are ever needed, whereas any vernacular must be made from the Latin and be approved. That makes Latin the norm and the others allowed.

Not really. Many people can follow a second language at least to some degree. The bilingual Mass simply helps them get more out of it.

That is absurd. Spanish speakers can get all there is to get out of a Spanish language Mass, and the same is true for English speakers and English Masses. Bilingual Masses only ensure that those who are not bilingual get less out of the Mass.

There are people in my parish who only speak Spanish or only English who have no option but to attend a bi-lingual Mass.

And that is less than optimal. Why should people who don’t speak a language have to worship in that language? I thought you praised the OF because it was in a language you understand. If there are English speaking people in an English speaking country forced to attend bilingual English-Spanish Masses then I would say that the parish is doing a disservice to those who live in that parish. The same is true for the Spanish minority, and a Mass should be available if at all possible in that tongue. If that can’t be done, then only English should be used for the vernacular, since that is the mother tongue of the people in that area. What you are defending is by all means a bad approach, and is a failure of design concerning the vernacular, and its implementation.

I have not seen a suppression of anything the Church directs in my world.

That is good for you, however, in other parts of the world, such as where I live, the complete suppression of the traditional forms is a fact. And that is permitted by the rubrics of the OF. It is intrinsic to that form, and is not an optimal development, which is my point.

I’m not getting angry – not in the least. I’m just ignoring any rants on abuses because it has nothing to do with the topic.

No, that is not true. You are ranting yourself that other people’s opinions are irrelevant. But, this entire thread is about your opinion, demonstrated by the use of the word “Prefer” in the OP. Abuses were never brought up by me, but merely demonstrations of why the very things you praise can actually be less than optimal for everyone, myself included. You admitted that what I was discussing was not an abuse, and therefore you have no reason to have objected to my points by recourse to your position regarding so called abuses.

Not all of what you claim (and prefer) was ever instructed by the Church. While it’s perfectly licit for example to celebrate the OF entirely in Latin, the Church never mandated that even the majority of it be celebrated in Latin and you are trying to suggest that.

Sorry, but I think the Second Vatican Council disagrees with you, and last I checked that was the Church. Additionally, the whole Latin thing is a digression. I am not advocating that, merely pointing out that the arguments for the vernacular are being ignored in order to have multi-lingual Masses. You can’t have it both ways.

You are also trying to infer that what you call a “norm” is somehow superior to what is licitly allowed by the Church and that just ain’t so.

No, that is not true. I just disagree with you about what is the norm. The facts don’t bear you out on your position. What is really relevant is that you seem to be implying that what is licitly allowed by the Church is superior to what is more traditional and also licitly allowed by the Church. As a traditionally minded Catholic what I prefer is the Confiteor, at least some Latin, and the Roman Canon, and any non-Latin in a language I can speak. And the OF has allowed that all of these not be the case, and that is not what I prefer. Therefore what you praise in the OF has had a deleterious effect on the Mass where I live, and I cannot praise that. That is very relevant to this topic.

 

[japhy]

That’s not been my experience be it in person or on daily TV on EWTN.

Oh, sure, I can see it on EWTN. But that’s not happening at the vast majority of parishes around the country.

 

[japhy]

What does “supporting abuses” have to do with receiving the Blessed Sacrement from a EMHC?

Receiving from an EMHC when there is no just cause for an EMHC to be distributing. See post #49.

 

[Howard_Roark]

What does “supporting abuses” have to do with receiving the Blessed Sacrement from a EMHC?

Obviously, you’re not reading back in the thread.

IMO, 99+% of the instances of use of EMHCs in the USA (at least) is abusive. If they have a Mass at Shea Stadium and no priests or deacons show up, fine, use 'em. The typical 10+ EMHCs at Masses with 150 people assisting? NO sir, I will not show any support for that.

 

[ethelzguy]

What does “supporting abuses” have to do with receiving the Blessed Sacrement from a EMHC?

Obviously, you’re not reading back in the thread.

IMO, 99+% of the instances of use of EMHCs in the USA (at least) is abusive. If they have a Mass at Shea Stadium and no priests or deacons show up, fine, use 'em. The typical 10+ EMHCs at Masses with 150 people assisting? NO sir, I will not show any support for that.

But as has been stated repeatedly, that call is neither yours nor mine to make. It is the call of the primary celebrant. Go to seminary and get ordained, then it will be YOUR call.

Besides, I suspect your “99.9 percent” claim is a tad exaggerated.

And your use of the word “assisting” speaks for itself as to your prejudices toward the Church.

 

[ethelzguy]

Receiving from an EMHC when there is no just cause for an EMHC to be distributing. See post #49.

WHO has the authority to determine “just cause” ??

 

[Howard_Roark]

***But as has been stated repeatedly, that call is neither yours nor mine to make. It is the call of the primary celebrant. Go to seminary and get ordained, then it will be YOUR call.

Besides, I suspect your “99.9 percent” claim is a tad exaggerated.

And your use of the word “assisting” speaks for itself as to your prejudices toward the Church.***

Ethel, “assisting” is the proper term. Read up.

 

[Howard_Roark]

It’s a strange sort of Traditional Catholic forum, isn’t it?

 

[japhy]

WHO has the authority to determine “just cause” ??

Did you even read my example? It does not take a priest or canon lawyer to see that when six priests are (con)celebrating Mass, and only one of them distributes Holy Communion, with the other five being replaced by seven EMHCs, something is wrong.

I will admit two of the priests should not have distributed, because they are quite elderly and frequently infirm. But the others routinely celebrate Mass at my parish.

 

[ethelzguy]

“Assisting” is a term most generally used by the TLM/SSPX crowd. The rest of us “participate in” or “attend” Mass.

As in real life, words aren’t always used in totality by their dictionarial meaning.

And, the name’s “Tommy”, Ethel’s husband, a.k.a. Ethel’s Guy…

 

[ethelzguy]

Did you even read my example? It does not take a priest or canon lawyer to see that when six priests are (con)celebrating Mass, and only one of them distributes Holy Communion, with the other five being replaced by seven EMHCs, something is wrong.

I will admit two of the priests should not have distributed, because they are quite elderly and frequently infirm. But the others routinely celebrate Mass at my parish.

But, because it doesn’t appear right to either you OR ME, doesn’t make it factual abuse. It may be our OPINION of abuse though…Do either of us have a letter from Rome or our Chancery Office declaring our opinion of abuse to be valid?

 

[Kevin42]

Oh if only I had the entire Vatican at my personal disposal…how wonderful that would be.

 

[japhy]

But, because it doesn’t appear right to either you OR ME, doesn’t make it factual abuse. It may be our OPINION of abuse though…Do either of us have a letter from Rome or our Chancery Office declaring our opinion of abuse to be valid?

This isn’t my opinion! Priests who are celebrating Mass but do not distribute Holy Communion are derelict in their duty!

RS 157: “If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed. Indeed, in such circumstances, those who may have already been appointed to this ministry should not exercise it. The practice of those Priests is reprobated who, even though present at the celebration, abstain from distributing Communion and hand this function over to laypersons.”

Can I make it any more clear?!

 

[Spiller]

You are wrong. Latin is the normative language, and is both available in all Churches and is approved in all. No permissions are ever needed, whereas any vernacular must be made from the Latin and be approved. That makes Latin the norm and the others allowed.

Tell that to my Byzantine-Ruthenian priest this coming Sunday morning at Divine Liturgy. I’ll repeat again – the OF celebrated entirely (or even the majority of it) in Latin was never the intention of the Church.

That is absurd. Spanish speakers can get all there is to get out of a Spanish language Mass, and the same is true for English speakers and English Masses. Bilingual Masses only ensure that those who are not bilingual get less out of the Mass.

Spanish and English speakers will get more out of a bilingual Mass then they will one entirely in a foreign language. No way around that one.

And that is less than optimal. Why should people who don’t speak a language have to worship in that language? I thought you praised the OF because it was in a language you understand. If there are English speaking people in an English speaking country forced to attend bilingual English-Spanish Masses then I would say that the parish is doing a disservice to those who live in that parish. The same is true for the Spanish minority, and a Mass should be available if at all possible in that tongue. If that can’t be done, then only English should be used for the vernacular, since that is the mother tongue of the people in that area. What you are defending is by all means a bad approach, and is a failure of design concerning the vernacular, and its implementation.

Simple. Not enough priests.

That is good for you, however, in other parts of the world, such as where I live, the complete suppression of the traditional forms is a fact. And that is permitted by the rubrics of the OF. It is intrinsic to that form, and is not an optimal development, which is my point.

So you say. I cannot comment except to say if it doesn’t contravene Church teachings/directions then it’s fine.

No, that is not true. You are ranting yourself that other people’s opinions are irrelevant…You admitted that what I was discussing was not an abuse, and therefore you have no reason to have objected to my points by recourse to your position regarding so called abuses.

Settle down. I’m not ranting. I’m just ignoring those who rely on emotion to try and make their points. All they carp about are “abuses” – the more obscure and inflammatory the better. I’m comparing the OF and the EF as defined by the Church – not as abused by man – and that goes for either form.

Sorry, but I think the Second Vatican Council disagrees with you, and last I checked that was the Church. Additionally, the whole Latin thing is a digression. I am not advocating that, merely pointing out that the arguments for the vernacular are being ignored in order to have multi-lingual Masses. You can’t have it both ways.

Not all of what you claim (and prefer) was ever instructed by the Church. While it’s perfectly licit for example to celebrate the OF entirely in Latin, the Church never mandated that even the majority of it be celebrated in Latin and you are trying to suggest that.

No, that is not true. I just disagree with you about what is the norm…Therefore what you praise in the OF has had a deleterious effect on the Mass where I live, and I cannot praise that. That is very relevant to this topic.

That’s actually very perceptive. While you are wrong I do applaud that you noticed that. What the Church allows is what the Church allows. It’s neither inferior nor superior to what you define/term as “more traditional.”

That’s one of the big downfalls of self-labeled “traditionalists.” Within the context of what the Church allows, they feel they know what is “best” or at least “better” and that’s simply ludicrous. They certainly know what they prefer – and that’s fine, so long as it’s licit, but to suggest they know what is “better” or “best” (or even “more traditional”) places themselves ahead of the Church.

One of the worst problems with this mindset is they start making-up their own rules that are actually illicit with respect to the Church – all under they guise that they know what is better than the Church and that’s bad.

 

[Spiller]

But, because it doesn’t appear right to either you OR ME, doesn’t make it factual abuse. It may be our OPINION of abuse though…Do either of us have a letter from Rome or our Chancery Office declaring our opinion of abuse to be valid?

Of course. It’s fairly amusing sometimes how people set themselves up as the arbiter of what is good or bad.

In the last 3 months we have had a priest not distribute communion. He had a broken toe and a cast and could not navigate the sanctuary steps.

 

[japhy]

It’s fairly amusing sometimes how people set themselves up as the arbiter of what is good or bad. In the last 3 months we have had a priest not distribute communion. He had a broken toe and a cast and could not navigate the sanctuary steps.

I’m simply reporting what I know to be true. I’m not talking about your priest. I’m talking about my parish.

 

[japhy]

Tell that to my Byzantine-Ruthenian priest this coming Sunday morning at Divine Liturgy.

We’re talking about the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. You know that.

I’ll repeat again – the OF celebrated entirely (or even the majority of it) in Latin was never the intention of the Church.

It does not appear that way from Sacrosanctum Concilium. Perhaps you could explain your position better.

I’m just ignoring those who rely on emotion to try and make their points. All they carp about are “abuses” – the more obscure and inflammatory the better. I’m comparing the OF and the EF as defined by the Church – not as abused by man – and that goes for either form.

Well, don’t ignore me, because ONE of SIX priests distributing Holy Communion and delegating it instead to EMHCs two years in a row on Holy Thursday is not a matter of emotion. The Church declared such behavior reprobate.

Have you read Jacob Michael’s essay Inalienable Right or Inferior Rite? Inflammatory title notwithstanding, it looks at the differences between the “normative” Ordinary Form and the Extraordinary Form.

 

[cothrige]

I cannot comment except to say if it doesn’t contravene Church teachings/directions then it’s fine.

I have to ask just why you decided to post a new thread called "Reasons Why* I Prefer *the Pauline Mass" That sounds an awful lot like you are talking about your opinions and what you like. You like lay readers, and EMHCs, new Eucharistic Prayers, and the Penitential Rite. I respond that I don’t prefer the new EPs, and instead prefer the Roman Canon. I prefer the Confiteor and not the alternative Penitential Rites. I prefer the Mass in English and not several languages. What is your response? I am putting myself above the Church, and my opinion is of no value. Alright. But, how are you not doing the very same since no priest is required to use these new forms you like, anymore than they are to use the Confiteor or the Roman Canon? But, of course, your opinion is okay, but all those who differ from you, even when their preferences are licit and approved are wrong, and trying to make the rules, and be popes, and so on.

That’s one of the big downfalls of self-labeled “traditionalists.” Within the context of what the Church allows, they feel they know what is “best” or at least “better” and that’s simply ludicrous. They certainly know what they prefer – and that’s fine, so long as it’s licit, but** to suggest they know what is “better” or “best” (or even “more traditional”) places themselves ahead of the Church.**

Okay, take a breath, and step down from that very high horse you have climbed up on. You know very well that traditional is an objective reality. It requires no clerical status to know what is traditional and what is not, much less what is more traditional. You started this thread off calling yourself a “traditional” Catholic, clearly implying you know what a tradition is. Knowing a tradition is not placing “themselves ahead of the Church”. That really is a very tiresome charge you keep throwing around at everyone you disagree with.

 

[cothrige]

But as has been stated repeatedly, that call is neither yours nor mine to make. It is the call of the primary celebrant. Go to seminary and get ordained, then it will be YOUR call…

I am very uncomfortable with this approach which smacks a bit of clericalism. Being a priest does not make you impeccable or infallible. Being a lay person does not mean that you have no valid opinions or points of view. This sounds like simple “pray, pay and obey” but I would remind you that the Council calls us lay people to be much more involved and the Church has recognized that lay people are true members of Christ’s body and have a real role in defending the faith. If an abuse were occurring then we would have every responsibility to, with charity of course, try to correct it. Our concern for error and abuse should extend to all Catholics as well, and not just our own parish or parish life, since we are all members of one Body and when one suffers we all share in that suffering.