Reasons you love the Extraordinary Form

[fish90]

Um, question: what do you mean, EWTN heresy?? Could you or someone else please explain what this is referring to? I had the briefest of glances at the website mentioned, and it appears to be anti-pope. I’ve never heard anything from EWTN that was anti-pope.

What did I miss? Anyone?

I just think it is a little iffy that a traditional Catholic website would write a review such as this about EWTN.
*
Now that I’ve discussed what is clearly, in my view, the primary purpose of the book, it’s important to discuss some other points. I do believe that Ferrara’s and Gruner’s desire to expose, in some fashion, the incredible apostasy of EWTN was an additional reason for the publication of the book. (The reason that I can confidently state that this is only a secondary reason – the promotion of Gruner by creating the impression of an alliance between Gruner and the supposedly “traditional” Mother Angelica being the primary reason for the book – is because if their intention were primarily to expose apostasy for what it is they wouldn’t lie about Mother Angelica’s “robust Catholicism,” but would expose her as well.)

In the book, there is much valuable information documenting the almost unbelievable heresies and apostasy promoted by the “Global Catholic Network.” Some of these points we’ve also made on our website; for instance, EWTN’s heretical show The Journey Home, which treats the conversion of Protestants as something nice, but completely unnecessary for salvation.

Among other things, EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong documents how Fr. Benedict Groeschel (a huge figure at EWTN) not only turns away converts, says that he never “bought” that non-Catholics can’t be saved (a defined dogma), preached in “200 Protestant churches and a hundred synagogues,” declares that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, and even denies that Our Lord even said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you” (John 6:54)! The book documents how EWTN’s “experts” totally reject the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. EWTN’s “experts” inform non-Catholic inquirers – including a Jew who rejects Christ and the wife of an “Orthodox” schismatic wondering about her husband’s obligation to convert – that they are fine for heaven right where they are.

The book documents the astounding sexual perversion of “experts” featured on EWTN, such as Gregory Popcak, whose ideas I don’t consider fit to repeat in this article. Ferrara sums it up by pointing out that EWTN promotes a sexual Gnosticism and an NFP cult. Regarding Popcak’s views, he states: “That EWTN would showcase a man capable of such insane and blasphemous filth is almost impossible to believe, but such is the state of New Church theology” (p. 202).
*
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/a_review_of_book_on_EWTN.html

These are just my thoughts. When I have watched EWTN, I cannot think of anytime there was heresy going on. **These are just my thoughts and I will retract them should I be proven wrong.
**
Best,
fish90

 

[fish90]

Most Holy Family is a sedevecantist site but EWTN?

Not at all!

 

[fish90]

I can chew gum in church and try to convince others of the same thing.

I gave proof that Communion in the hand is not heretical and mentioned that I do find a great reverent action when receiving on the tongue. I never said that receiving on the tongue is profane, since I acknowledged that method is the ordinary method of receiving Communion in the Latin Rite.

 

[ProVobis]

Why was Mass said in Latin - becuase lots of people started speaking Latin, though more formal Latin was used at Mass.

Also because it’s been heavily supported by most if not all Popes, including John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and, of course, Benedict XVI.

 

[MarineGuy]

I just think it is a little iffy that a traditional Catholic website would write a review such as this about EWTN.
*
Now that I’ve discussed what is clearly, in my view, the primary purpose of the book, it’s important to discuss some other points. I do believe that Ferrara’s and Gruner’s desire to expose, in some fashion, the incredible apostasy of EWTN was an additional reason for the publication of the book. (The reason that I can confidently state that this is only a secondary reason – the promotion of Gruner by creating the impression of an alliance between Gruner and the supposedly “traditional” Mother Angelica being the primary reason for the book – is because if their intention were primarily to expose apostasy for what it is they wouldn’t lie about Mother Angelica’s “robust Catholicism,” but would expose her as well.)

In the book, there is much valuable information documenting the almost unbelievable heresies and apostasy promoted by the “Global Catholic Network.” Some of these points we’ve also made on our website; for instance, EWTN’s heretical show The Journey Home, which treats the conversion of Protestants as something nice, but completely unnecessary for salvation.

Among other things, EWTN: A Network Gone Wrong documents how Fr. Benedict Groeschel (a huge figure at EWTN) not only turns away converts, says that he never “bought” that non-Catholics can’t be saved (a defined dogma), preached in “200 Protestant churches and a hundred synagogues,” declares that the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, and even denies that Our Lord even said “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you” (John 6:54)! The book documents how EWTN’s “experts” totally reject the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation. EWTN’s “experts” inform non-Catholic inquirers – including a Jew who rejects Christ and the wife of an “Orthodox” schismatic wondering about her husband’s obligation to convert – that they are fine for heaven right where they are.

The book documents the astounding sexual perversion of “experts” featured on EWTN, such as Gregory Popcak, whose ideas I don’t consider fit to repeat in this article. Ferrara sums it up by pointing out that EWTN promotes a sexual Gnosticism and an NFP cult. Regarding Popcak’s views, he states: “That EWTN would showcase a man capable of such insane and blasphemous filth is almost impossible to believe, but such is the state of New Church theology” (p. 202).
*
mostholyfamilymonastery.com/a_review_of_book_on_EWTN.html

These are just my thoughts. When I have watched EWTN, I cannot think of anytime there was heresy going on. **These are just my thoughts and I will retract them should I be proven wrong.
**
Best,
fish90

Fish, stop derailing the thread.

 

[Lormar]

Why do I love the “Extraordinary Form”?

Because it lifts me up and out of myself. It is reverent and quiet and always goes by too quickly for me. On the other hand, I find the OF absolutely boring.

 

[JustaServant]

Here is a positive thread for people to give their reasons why they love the Traditional Latin Mass.

My list:

It is said ad orientem
It is in latin
It has beautiful old chants
Its prayers are deep and theologically rich
For 2000 years it underwent only organic development.

What are your reasons?

Well, I tend to love anything old… I would own an antique shop if I could afford it.

Anyway, I’m 48, a (late) baby boomer and a child of the post-Vatican 2 Church. Yet, I have never been able to relate to the things of my generation. I relate more to my parents generation (of course my father was in his forties when I was born), and even my grandparents. So, I desire that which requires my attention, not something that is simply trying to ‘entertain’ me. I’m glad my parents introduced me to the Latin Mass.
Okay, my reasons.
I feel like I am in the presence of God. It is serious worship of a Holy God. It requires me to know the Latin and be able worship in a language that is truly universal. I love the dignity in which the Eucharist is celebrated. It leaves you with no doubt that there is something very important and serious about to be celebrated. And when I leave, I truly feel I have been to CHURCH.
Sorry, but the folk group singing ‘I’ll fly away’ just doesn’t cut it after that.

 

[Lycorth]

I’ve only seen the EF Mass on YouTube, but that was enough; the reverence of this truly august Mass still awes me to this day.

The ancient forms appeal to me more and the facts of the tighter disciplines and reverential rubrics testify to the worthiness of this form of the Mass. As a Medievalist, to be able to see the sacred ceremony by which the Church offered up the sacrifice of the Body and Blood that our Medieval forebears used is wordlessly amazing and humbling. There scarcely are words fit for it.

 

[palmas85]

I gave proof that Communion in the hand is not heretical and mentioned that I do find a great reverent action when receiving on the tongue. I never said that receiving on the tongue is profane, since I acknowledged that method is the ordinary method of receiving Communion in the Latin Rite.

I notice that you did not answer my post. I am not surprised.

 

[fish90]

I notice that you did not answer my post. I am not surprised.

With all due respect, I did cite this “quick question” from Catholic Answers.
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1766

Getting back to topic, the quality of Catholics the EF attracts is of great benefit to the Church.

 

[palmas85]

With all due respect, I did cite this “quick question” from Catholic Answers.
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1766

Getting back to topic, the quality of Catholics the EF attracts is of great benefit to the Church.

The post that I am referring to is post 213, which you did not respond to. If you do read it, it is possible that you may learn a few things about why the early Church allowed communion in the hand. You may also discover that just a because a Saint approves of something does not always guarantee the rightousness of that thing, whatever it may be

I have always found it beneficial to understand why things are done instead of merely accepting a rote response Isn’t that he alleged reason they did away with the Baltimore Catecchism, rote responses without a true understanding of what is really going on?..

 

[cathguy]

The fact that Saint John Chrysostom ,or any Saint for that matter, approved of the practice in and of itself means absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, and definitely has no bearing on the relative reverence or lack of reverence and or respect in the practice…

The Church gives us the saints as exemplars of good and holy lives, and it checks their writings thoroughly before canonizing.

Quoting the saints is definitely fair game when having a theological discussion. It won’t prove a case. But it can’t hurt!

However, since we are speaking of relatively ancient times lets set the record straight shall we?. The Church allowed for reception in the hand in the very early Church for three basic reasons. One was in response to Roman persecution and yes, the persecutions were still going on through a big part of St. John Chrysostoms life. The second was the early Church practice of allowing the consecrated Hosts to be taken home for consumption during the week. What they received then was a substantial size loaf, not the wafer that is used today. A small bit would be consumed at the Mass and the rest wrapped in a white cloth and taken home. The third was so that hermit monks would not be deprived of receiving the Eucharist. Hermit monks, could it be that Saint John was or had been a hermit monk?

First, I would request sources.

Second, for the sake of argument, I will cede your depiction of Eucharistic practice in the Early Church.

However, the Church is not a dead thing. It develops organically. And one of the practices that developed organically in the liturgy over the ages was reception on the tongue. This developed for good reason: faith in the Eucharistic Lord.

I am currently reading “Cranmer’s Godly Order” which is a history of the “Reforms” of the English reformation. I point out that one of the places the protestants, who rejected transubstantiation, really focused reform was on how the laity received. I find it ironic that those who persecuted the Church and referred to the Pope as the “anti-Christ” were so insistent on this subject. The reason? Lex orandi lex credendi. If they could attack the simple faithfuls reception of the Eucharist, they could chisel away at the faith of the common lay person.

Organic development is always superior to top down changes. We developed away from reception on the hand. Why force it back? What theological reasons are given? Even today the Church allows reception in the hand under special indult, but it is NOT the practice of our Holy Father and not the preferred method for the Roman rite (as much as some Bishops want to pretend it is)

That said, it IS allowed, and I think we should charity when addressing each other regarding these arguments. So long as it is allowed, we should not bludgeon people for receiving this way.

So in his day receiving in the hand made perfect sense. In fact, in certain situations it would have been preferable and probably even the only way to do it, especially during his days as a hermit. However, sadly, :crying: those days are long gone. So please explain to me the justification behind the practice today.

Oh and our friend Saint John Chrysostom preached some very virulent anti-Jewish sermons in his day. By your line of reasoning I suppose that would that also be proper and legitimate today.

I don’t think this is at all civil. It is also poorly worded.

You are asking him to explain the justification of what practice today? Reception on the hand? I don’t care to justify that. I think it is an allowable but undesirable practice.

You are asking him to justify reception on the tongue? It was the method that evolved organically over the history of Church, it shows reverence for Christ, it is still the preferred method in the Roman rite, and it is the only way the Pope gives the Eucharist.

Look, the practice is allowed. Why turn this into an argument?

As for anti-semitism, that is entirely outside scope, a thought stopper, and seriously tendentious. I would request charity and decency. I did not start this thread to give people an excuse to bludgeon others and start arguments.

Peace.

 

[Lormar]

Quite right, Palmas.

We’re an adult and mature church now that has left all those juvenile practices behind.

 

[CradleCath]

Fish, stop derailing the thread.

Thank you, Marine Guy
:bowdown2::bowdown2:

 

[palmas85]

The Church gives us the saints as exemplars of good and holy lives, and it checks their writings thoroughly before canonizing.

Quoting the saints is definitely fair game when having a theological discussion. It won’t prove a case. But it can’t hurt!
First, I would request sources.

Second, for the sake of argument, I will cede your depiction of Eucharistic practice in the Early Church.

However, the Church is not a dead thing. It develops organically. And one of the practices that developed organically in the liturgy over the ages was reception on the tongue. This developed for good reason: faith in the Eucharistic Lord.

I am currently reading “Cranmer’s Godly Order” which is a history of the “Reforms” of the English reformation. I point out that one of the places the protestants, who rejected transubstantiation, really focused reform was on how the laity received. I find it ironic that those who persecuted the Church and referred to the Pope as the “anti-Christ” were so insistent on this subject. The reason? Lex orandi lex credendi. If they could attack the simple faithfuls reception of the Eucharist, they could chisel away at the faith of the common lay person.

Organic development is always superior to top down changes. We developed away from reception on the hand. Why force it back? What theological reasons are given? Even today the Church allows reception in the hand under special indult, but it is NOT the practice of our Holy Father and not the preferred method for the Roman rite (as much as some Bishops want to pretend it is)

That said, it IS allowed, and I think we should charity when addressing each other regarding these arguments. So long as it is allowed, we should not bludgeon people for receiving this way.

I don’t think this is at all civil. It is also poorly worded.

You are asking him to explain the justification of what practice today? Reception on the hand? I don’t care to justify that. I think it is an allowable but undesirable practice.

You are asking him to justify reception on the tongue? It was the method that evolved organically over the history of Church, it shows reverence for Christ, it is still the preferred method in the Roman rite, and it is the only way the Pope gives the Eucharist.

Look, the practice is allowed. Why turn this into an argument?

As for anti-semitism, that is entirely outside scope, a thought stopper, and seriously tendentious. I would request charity and decency. I did not start this thread to give people an excuse to bludgeon others and start arguments.

Peace.

Sources are abundant and too numerous to mention in their entirity but a quick read through the writings of Eusebius, Irenaeus and Tertullian should serve for a good start.

The posters statement that a saint approved of it is completely meaningless. By the tone of his post it seemed he was saying that if that particular Saint said it was ok then it was OK. I pointed that the conditions of that saints life,ie: hermit monk, pretty much dictated that he receive in the hand at least sometimes…

As far as the practice of communion in the hand goes, I don’t have a real problem with it, just with the way in which it is generally done. I also don’t really understand why the Church returned to the practice and have never heard a good reason for it from anyone. As far as reception in the hand, I pointed out, as I have done numerous times on this forum that in the early Church there was ample justification for the practice. and that reception in the hand made perfect sense in those days. I merely asked if he or anyone for that matter can come up with a reasonor justification why the practice was resurrected.

If I have poorly worded some things i do apologize. As you may or may not know English is not my native language and even though I have lived in the States for many years, I still find myself stumbling at times.

 

[cathguy]

Sources are abundant and too numerous to mention in their entirity but a quick read through the writings of Eusebius, Irenaeus and Tertullian should serve for a good start.

The posters statement that a saint approved of it is completely meaningless. By the tone of his post it seemed he was saying that if that particular Saint said it was ok then it was OK. I pointed that the conditions of that saints life,ie: hermit monk, pretty much dictated that he receive in the hand at least sometimes…

As far as the practice of communion in the hand goes, I don’t have a real problem with it, just with the way in which it is generally done. I also don’t really understand why the Church returned to the practice and have never heard a good reason for it from anyone. As far as reception in the hand, I pointed out, as I have done numerous times on this forum that in the early Church there was ample justification for the practice. and that reception in the hand made perfect sense in those days. I merely asked if he or anyone for that matter can come up with a reasonor justification why the practice was resurrected.

If I have poorly worded some things i do apologize. As you may or may not know English is not my native language and even though I have lived in the States for many years, I still find myself stumbling at times.

I didn’t know this, and I apologize. I jumped to conclusions. Easy to do online. Sorry

Peace.

 

[plefe]

Firstly, I posted this thread as a place for people, in a positive and uplifting way, to post why they love traditional liturgy.

Thus, your post is somewhat outside scope. Still, I thank you for making it.

That said, I must point out that you are largely incorrect.

The Tridentine Mass is a Mass that is in continuity withe liturgies that preceded it. It enjoys organic development from the liturgy of the early Church. Several very good studies have been done on this.

Yes, there are liturgies that are older AND they have much more in common with the Tridentine mass than with, say, a protestant service or the way the Ordinary Form is commonly celebrated.

Your statement that the “new Mass,” here referring to the Tridentine Mass, is “not the Mass of the Ages” is impossible to support. There is only ONE Mass, one Eucharistic sacrifice. Place your focus on Jesus truly present in the Eucharist. Jesus is not a fan of division and discord. His presence assures the fact that the Mass is the Mass.

This Mass may be celebrated in slightly different ways in different places and in different times throughout history, but in its core and essence, it is the same.

You are absolutely correct that valid liturgies have been celebrated in the vernacular since the earliest days of the Church. That is fine and good. I am a Latin rite Catholic, and I love Latin. Yet I must admit that the liturgy in the Russian Orthodox Church is both ancient and beautiful and valid.

I am also a huge fan of organic development in the liturgy, and resent top down approaches to reform that have little to do with the way the faithful celebrated the Mass for 2000 years.

Thank you. You are such a blessing.

 

[otjm]

The fact that Saint John Chrysostom ,or any Saint for that matter, approved of the practice in and of itself means absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, and definitely has no bearing on the relative reverence or lack of reverence and or respect in the practice… However, since we are speaking of relatively ancient times lets set the record straight shall we?. The Church allowed for reception in the hand in the very early Church for three basic reasons. One was in response to Roman persecution and yes, the persecutions were still going on through a big part of St. John Chrysostoms life. The second was the early Church practice of allowing the consecrated Hosts to be taken home for consumption during the week. What they received then was a substantial size loaf, not the wafer that is used today. A small bit would be consumed at the Mass and the rest wrapped in a white cloth and taken home. The third was so that hermit monks would not be deprived of receiving the Eucharist. Hermit monks, could it be that Saint John was or had been a hermit monk?

I think it would be a mistake (for at least two reasons) to say “The Church allowed for reception in the hand”.

First, I have yet to see anyone establish how the Eucharist was received from the very beginning. I have heard arguments by those who do not like CITH trying to indicate that it was a Jewish custom that someone would put food in the mouth of another. It may or may not have been such a custom under certain circumstances, but there simply is not mention of it. In fact, I am not sure (perhaps someone out there can find a reference) when it was first stated in any document that people received COTT. The earliest practice of CITH seems to be St. John, noted above. However, the point I am trying to make is using the term “allowed” seems to presume that there was a discsuuion of it as a rubric and a decision. It is entirely possbile that CITH was practiced from the very start - that is, the Last Supper (which would presumably imply that Christ approved of it) and proceeded forward from there. But unless someone can produce some documentation, the very bottom line is, we just don’t know which came first or if from the very beginning both were practiced.

The second really relates to the first; and that is, I do not know (again, perhaps someone can cite a document) when we first hear of COTT. I am sure there is something out there, but I have not come across it. It may be that it was the form, or one of the forms of receiveing right from the beginning, but again, St. John does not establish when CITH started but simply details how it was done. It is easy to presume, without facts supporting it, that if we have a docment at one date establishing one form, and a later date establishing the other form, that one preceeded the other; but that is not necessarily the case. In short, I don’t thing there is any information establshing with any certainty when CITH started.

So in his day receiving in the hand made perfect sense. In fact, in certain situations it would have been preferable and probably even the only way to do it, especially during his days as a hermit. However, sadly, :crying: those days are long gone. So please explain to me the justification behind the practice today.

Oh and our friend Saint John Chrysostom preached some very virulent anti-Jewish sermons in his day. By your line of reasoning I suppose that would that also be proper and legitimate today.

It may have made perfect sense also, if that was how the Apostles received, and when they started distributing Communion, that is how they distributed it. In other words, it is not necessarily the case that it was an issue of hermit monks doing so and that being a significant factor. We simply do not know.

As to virulent sermons, that issue seems to have dogged the Church for centuries and centuries. It has no more bearing on CITH’s rightness or wrongness than the fact that adultery has been a fact in every century since Christ spoke to the woman caught in it.

As to why it came back, it would appear that as more and more information became more and more widely available to more people, there was more emphasis on practices of the early Church. And CITH seems to have been a fairly widespread practice of the early Church as was a formal process of candidates and catechumens coming into the Church. The fact that the earlier practice of bringing them into the Church on Holy Saturday Night was done away with does not mean that it was not a good, or perhaps even better practice than bringing them in individually at other times of the year. So also, it is not necessarily true that because CITH eventually was done away with that it was not a valid and perhaps good way of receiving.

At times we confuse lack of catechessis resulting in problems with how those problems appear. Lack of catechesis arguably is far more a cause of lack of reverence in reception of Communion than the rubric of either CITH or COTT.