Reasons Why I Prefer the Pauline Mass

[ethelzguy]

Clergy are not above doctrine. Get that straight. Catholicism is not a matter of some priest’s opinion. They may spend their whole lives teaching heterodoxy…then there is no way to “move on”.

Do you enjoy following me around from thread to thread?

That’s fine. At least you’re leaving the others alone.

 

[Howard_Roark]

Fine, I started a new thread just for us. Surely you’ll have time to make at least one teeny-weeny littl post in it?

 

[CradleCath]

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:

Having read through this thread, I came back to reply to your first message, because I think that you’ve based your arguments on the fact that one can find an “abuse-free” Pauline Mass. I don’t believe that such a thing exists.

If You attend a Mass where Extraordinay Eucharistic Ministers are used every Sun…are, in fact, scheduled to be used months in advance, you’re attending a Mass that contains an abuse.

If you attend a Mass in which altar GIRLS serve at the altar, thanks to another indult for a situation that was presented to the Pope as a “done deal” & is not truly in harmony with the Tradition & traditions of the Church…you’re attending a Mass with another abuse.

If you are attending a Mass that makes no concessions for those who would receive the Eucharist kneeling & on the tongue, you are once again attending a Mass that shows abuse. For the Universal Laws of the Church require that & once again, CITH is a favor that was granted to us by indult. That time it was an indult gained by underhandedness & manipulation.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

If you are attending a Mass, in which Latin & Gregorian chant are not given “pride of place”, you are celebrating a Mass that is not in harmony with the wishes of the Magisterium OR the tradtions of the Church.

Any Mass that requires **so many **indults in order to be celebrated must be viewed with suspicion. It took me many years to p(name removed by moderator)oint the causes of my uneasiness at the Novus Ordo, but, if you will do some studying about some of the practices that are considered the NORM for this Mass, I think you’ll agree.

 

[cothrige]

Apples and Oranges.

First off, your comment that I feel completely free to critcize “all traditional Catholics” is way off base. I am a traditional Catholic. But, my tradtional Catholicism also includes obedience.

No, this is not about obedience. There is no evidence that any of the traditionalists here have been disobedient, either to the Church or even their pastor, and so you have no right to level that charge against anybody. People on these fora do criticize what they see as uncatholic behaviour, and that is their right. That has nothing whatsoever to do with obedience, and I think you know it. What is at issue is that you believe that it is a sin to criticize clerics while it is your obligation to criticize other Catholics. The Church does not make this distinction, and so you are on your own there.

We could, I think, say something about obedience though, since you seem to think it is relevant. You suggest, unless I completely misunderstand what you have said in this and other threads touching on this topic, that any priest deserves obedience since he has authority by his position. You would have us believe that this authority is severed from the obedience he shows to orthodoxy and orthopraxis and is an absolute due only to his position as a cleric. I would suggest that he only has authority when he teaches in truth, and if he passes from the truth then he no longer has authority, and is not due obedience in that issue. For instance, I have been to a Mass in which the priest declared that the saints are not in heaven and that the Gospel should not be read since it is nothing but the opinion of men. Should I “obey” and stop reading the Gospel and stop asking for the intercession of the saints? Or should I obey Holy Mother Church and continue as I have before? Who has my obedience, the Church or the heterodox cleric?

Second, I guess I’ll resort to analogy. A teenager is mouthing off to a parent or other elder. A second teenager steps in and says to the first one “hey man, you’re getting out of line here”. Does that clear the picture up?

Didn’t you say something about apples and oranges? It is fine to say “you’re getting out of line” if a person is getting out of line, but that is not what is happening or what you are doing. Let us continue with your dubious analogy and see where it fails. A parent is in a restaurant and is telling his daughter that she is unattractive and he has scheduled a surgery to correct her deficient features so that she can marry the husband he has selected for her. She protests and says she doesn’t think that he should be able to force her to do this. You speak up and say “Hush girl, he has the authority, and if you get to be a parent then you can correct this with your children.” Perhaps still not oranges to oranges, but maybe this one is at least a tangerine.

[to be continued]

 

[cothrige]

[continued from above]

Third, I become amused when someone chastises me for “complaining about the complainers”…What a cop out. You feel free to bash away at the HMC, but when someone takes you to task for it, you hide behind the “your being judgemental” card, when it is your judgemental attitude toward the HMC that incited the whole thing to begin with.

Except that nobody is chastising your for complaining, but for your apparent clericalist position. If you said “traditionalists are a bunch of whiners” I doubt that you would get anything other than the obvious disagreement about your point. You should keep in mind that just because you insist something is so doesn’t mean that you are actually right. But, you build an argument about why traditionalists are wrong for what they say, and that argument is that it is wrong to criticize a cleric. That is clericalism.

There is more evidence above about my point too. What were we talking about here? Traditionalists who criticize a priest or other cleric for acting in a manner which people believe is beyond his rights or authority. But, how do you describe it? “You feel free to bash away at the HMC…” Holy Mother Church? I thought we were talking about a priest? Which is it? Priests often, as I pointed out above, act and teach in a way which is itself disobedient to Holy Mother Church, and yet you still equate disagreement with them as disagreement with the Church? Perhaps I am wrong, but it sure looks like clericalism to me, and I would love to know how you can support your position without some recourse to that view.

Lastly I believe you owe me an apology. I cannot see into your heart, and cannot say what your mind is, but there is no way to view your words above in any manner but as calumny. It is a lie. I have never, and I mean never, bashed Holy Mother Church, and I resent your accusation. It is hard for me to take any of your claims about what other people are doing wrong when you are willing to defame and disparage people you have never met and know nothing about. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[ethelzguy]

No, this is not about obedience. There is no evidence that any of the traditionalists here have been disobedient,

You seem obsessed with the notion that I only take issue with “tradtionalists”…not so. I take issue with the holier-than-the-pope types that think they know so much more than the HMC and her clergy.

A parent is in a restaurant and is telling his daughter that she is unattractive and he has scheduled a surgery to correct her deficient features so that she can marry the husband he has selected for her.

Your choice of analogy speaks volumes. I can see where you would think you’re entitled to critique the HMC and her clergy.

 

[ethelzguy]

Except that nobody is chastising your for complaining,.

Actually, that HAS been the case. You are the only one I recall accusing me of “clericalism”.

 

[cothrige]

ethelzguy,

You are a sad human being, and I can only feel sorry for you. Perhaps you don’t even read what you type, or have some deficiency, but for whatever reason it seems obvious you will continue to post calumny not befitting a Christian forum. So, regardless of your reasons I will treat you as the cockle, and simply pray you find conversion.

 

[ethelzguy]

ethelzguy,

You are a sad human being, and I can only feel sorry for you. Perhaps you don’t even read what you type, or have some deficiency, but for whatever reason it seems obvious you will continue to post calumny not befitting a Christian forum. So, regardless of your reasons I will treat you as the cockle, and simply pray you find conversion.

Thank You ! Prayers are always welcome.

Proudly defending the HMC against those who attack her.

 

[CradleCath]

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

On August 15, 1997, the Instruction on Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful was issued jointly by several Congregations of the Church.

This is the crux of the document: clergy and laity have distinct vocations and missions. Each vocation has its own particular beauty. By virtue of apostolic succession, the clergy are called to teach, govern, and sanctify the People of God; by virtue of baptism, the laity are called to imbue the secular order with the spirit of the Gospel. We are to take what we receive at Mass to the world beyond our Church, to the workplace, to our club meetings, to our family. That is our role. The role of the priest is mentioned above & includes the distribution of the Eucharist.

At times, because of a grave shortage of clergy, it might be necessary for the laity to assume roles normally reserved to the clergy; but such situations, according to the document, should be extraordinary and temporary. To act otherwise is to demean both the vocation of the laity & the vocation of the ordained priest.

In my area the title “Extraordinary Eucharistic Minister” has become a trophy. It seems to be part of the self-image building of many who are EEM’s. This “look at me, I’m up front” attitude has resulted in jockeying for the prime position in the sanctuary, arguments about the scheduling & hurt feelings because someone served at the altar during the First Communion Mass & another didn’t.

On the other hand, I’ve known priests who appointed people to be EEM’s in order to give known busy-bodies & trouble-makers within the parish, “something positive to do in order to keep them busy” (IOW., to shut them up).

This is NOT what distribution of the Eucharist is or should be about.

This pratice, which is terribly abused since most parishes use Extraordinary Eucharist Ministers even during ordinary times… has blurred the distinction between the ordained priest & the “priesthood of the faithful”. The distribution of the Eucharist is commonly the duty of the priest (or priests). Eucharistic Ministers are not priests & are to be called upon ONLY when circumstances demand the help. Circumstances that call for the laity to distribute Communion should be rare indeed.

For instance, if a parish normally has 200 Communicants at Mass, distributing to 200 is not EXTRAordinary…it is the norm. Therefore, the priest (or priests) should distribute alone & if the Mass runs to 1 & 1/2 hrs. & keeps people from being first in line at the restuarant afterwards…so be it. Do you ever wonder how the priests who gave Communion before Vatican II managed to do so in a timely fashion? Did they always have another priest handy to help??..No. It can be done & done easily & will result in more vocations as the priest’s role becomes defined (& different) once again.

 

[Spiller]

ethelzguy,

You are a sad human being, and I can only feel sorry for you. Perhaps you don’t even read what you type, or have some deficiency, but for whatever reason it seems obvious you will continue to post calumny not befitting a Christian forum. So, regardless of your reasons I will treat you as the cockle, and simply pray you find conversion.

Judging others is one of the most non-Christian of all activities…

 

[Spiller]

This coming from the person who created this thread.

None of my comments contravene what the Church teaches or directs. Other peoples’ do…

 

[Spiller]

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.

To underscore two facts. First that someone may prefer the Pauline Mass and still be a traditionally-minded Catholic. Second to show that one may still love the Tridentine Mass while still preferring the Pauline Mass. All too many try to suggest that one may like one at the total exclusion of the other and that’s nothing but balderdash.

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.

:yawn:

 

[Spiller]

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

You’re not the arbiter of that for the Church…

 

[SJP]

None of my comments contravene what the Church teaches or directs. Other peoples’ do…

Can you please provide evidence for the second part of your post. Where have people contradicted Church teaching?

 

[cothrige]

Judging others is one of the most non-Christian of all activities…

Ah, well, I suppose next you will compare me to Hitler. It is obvious this tired charge gets thrown around far to often by people seemingly unaware of what the word actually means. I would be interested in knowing just what “judgment” you think I have made. Care to share?

In the meantime, let me leave you with this. It is not unchristian to give testimony to a crime if one witnesses it. That is judgment of objective fact. It is not unchristian to return a guilty verdict if sitting on a jury. That is also a judgment of objective facts. It is not even unchristian to say that you don’t like somebody, as this is also a judgment of objective fact. It is unchristian to declare the state of another person’s soul, since while that is an objective fact, it is known only to God. Do you see the difference? So, we can as Christians correct objective sin. If a person commits adultery, we can say that it it is what it is. No judgment in the sense you use. The act is, like many others, objectively sinful and objectively evil, even if the person doing it is not himself guilty of sin or evil. This is an important distinction. However, if we say that another person will go to hell for that, then we judge. That unchristian form of judgment lies in condemnation, which rests on the disposition of another’s conscience and soul. That is not for us to judge, and when we condemn others in such manner we ourselves are condemned.

My comments were based on objective fact, and made no judgment on the disposition of another. I have not acted in an unchristian manner in so doing. But, of course, you actually agree with me. If you didn’t then you wouldn’t think you had any right to make a judgment about what I did in that post, now would you?

 

[Spiller]

Ah, well, I suppose next you will compare me to Hitler. It is obvious this tired charge gets thrown around far to often by people seemingly unaware of what the word actually means. I would be interested in knowing just what “judgment” you think I have made. Care to share?

In the meantime, let me leave you with this. It is not unchristian to give testimony to a crime if one witnesses it. That is judgment of objective fact. It is not unchristian to return a guilty verdict if sitting on a jury. That is also a judgment of objective facts. It is not even unchristian to say that you don’t like somebody, as this is also a judgment of objective fact. It is unchristian to declare the state of another person’s soul, since while that is an objective fact, it is known only to God. Do you see the difference? So, we can as Christians correct objective sin. If a person commits adultery, we can say that it it is what it is. No judgment in the sense you use. The act is, like many others, objectively sinful and objectively evil, even if the person doing it is not himself guilty of sin or evil. This is an important distinction. However, if we say that another person will go to hell for that, then we judge. That unchristian form of judgment lies in condemnation, which rests on the disposition of another’s conscience and soul. That is not for us to judge, and when we condemn others in such manner we ourselves are condemned.

My comments were based on objective fact, and made no judgment on the disposition of another. I have not acted in an unchristian manner in so doing. But, of course, you actually agree with me. If you didn’t then you wouldn’t think you had any right to make a judgment about what I did in that post, now would you?

You seem quite toucjy about this matter. One must wonder why…

 

[Howard_Roark]

Gee, now that I’ve spent some time on Catholic Answers Forums, I see everything in a whole new light. I love Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist, and I can’t wait to start taking communion in the hand. I think I’ll start jumping communion lines just to be sure I get to receive Jesus on my palm from a divorced ex-nun with AIDS, so that I can show that I love everyone. Because our priest knows everything and I should not question his advice, my wife will start taking the pill immediately, but that is just until I can make an appointment for a vasectomy. I can also now see that it doesn’t matter if the local pastor is excommunicated according to canon law, because obviously, anything to do with law has got to be legalism. So, I’ll be going to confession with him and it will no longer matter that he refuses to say the words of absolution, because he knows better than I do what I need.

I just wanted to say great big thank you to CA for helping me to reach this point. Great job, guys!

I can tell that I’m going to be much happier now. I was being “liturgy police” and “orthodoxy police” and “sacrament police”…what was I thinking!? I’m not ordained, I have no idea what I’m talking about! What I should do, when a priest tells me to pour the Blood of Jesus out on the ground, is to just pour it right out. Otherwise, I’m a bellyacher. I see that clearly now.

Well, I’ve got my head on straight, guys. I feel like I can really bond with the family here now. You know, maybe this is just the non-judgemental Christian love talking, but I finally feel like I have a home, right here on CA. I’m getting a little choked up.

Ok, well, thanks again to everyone who helped me see the light (and thanks to you, Karl Keating, without you, none of this would be possible, big guy!), I can tell we’re going to have lots of great fellowship and fun in the months to come, and nothing could possibly spoil it!

HR

 

[nannygirl]

You seem quite toucjy about this matter. One must wonder why…

Looks like the pot is STILL calling the kettle black.

 

[nannygirl]

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:

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.

The Penitential Rite: Some suggest the EF has no PR, others suggest that function is filled by the celebrant and the server for the entire congregation. Either way I find it extremely cathartic for me to personally take part in the PR and humbling that everyone else present is also personally taking part in the PR.

Enlarged Reading Cycles: This sorta goes without saying. The OF exposes the faithful to FAR more of the Bible with its three cycles. This may be the #1 reason why I prefer the OF – greater exposure to God’s word within the context of the Mass.

More Readings on Sundays: Again, this sorta goes without saying. The readings from the OT and NT epistles, the sung responsorial Psalm and the proclaimed Gospel are a definite improvement of the EF offering.

Lay Readers: This is one area that I think involvement from the laity is a most positive addition to the Mass. To me it underscores the importance of reading and studying the Bible by all members of the Church.

Eucharistic Prayer Collection: The Roman Canon is still my favorite, but in no way is it optimal for all Masses given the other EPs that now exist. I appreciate how the OF allows a priest to pick the EF which best matches that day’s Mass and his own homily.

Sign of Peace: An important and humbling yet joyous part of the Mass. When visiting celebrants employ it at the daily EWTN Mass, it fills a gap and makes a most positive contribution to the Mass.

Allowance of EMsHC: Until we are choke-full with an abundance of priests and deacons once again at all Masses, there are times where the allowance of EMsHC (in a non-abusive manner per the Church) is a good thing.

Receiving the Precious Blood from the Chalice: The improved sign value of receiving under both species in this matter is very important to me. Perhaps it makes me feel more like I am at the table?

The 46 approved Saturday Masses for the BVM: I REALLY appreciate these 46 individual Masses for the Blessed Virgin Mary (and their optional readings) that are approved for Saturdays.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.