Reasons you love the Extraordinary Form

[MarineGuy]

Respectfully, can you provide any specific evidence?

Fish, I’ll find the sources to back up my statements later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time. One piece of evidence I’m trying to find was something written by Martin Luther himself: I can’t remember where I found it when I first read it a few years ago but it was chilling to me. He wrote specifically about how in his new liturgy (the “Deutsche Messe”) he wanted to practice communion in the hand, using a table, vernacular of course, and many of the other practices which were always forbidden by the Church until they found their way into the New Rite of the Mass of Vatican II (the Novus Ordo). One thing particular I remember reading was that even Luther thought that celebrating the liturgy facing the people was too revolutionary to introduce all at once, but wanted it to be introduced gradually, over time, and eventually become the norm. ALL of these things, I might add, were designed to undermine Catholic doctrine such as the sacrificial nature of the Mass, transubstantiation, and the priesthood…they succeeded in doing so in the 16th century when 1/3 of Europe became Protestant, and are succeeding now based on the loss of faith amongst Catholics after Vatican II. LEX CREDENDI, LEX ORANDI!

 

[fish90]

Fish, I’ll find the sources to back up my statements later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time. One piece of evidence I’m trying to find was something written by Martin Luther himself: I can’t remember where I found it when I first read it a few years ago but it was chilling to me. He wrote specifically about how in his new liturgy (the “Deutsche Messe”) he wanted to practice communion in the hand, using a table, vernacular of course, and many of the other practices which were always forbidden by the Church until they found their way into the New Rite of the Mass of Vatican II (the Novus Ordo). One thing particular I remember reading was that even Luther thought that celebrating the liturgy facing the people was too revolutionary to introduce all at once, but wanted it to be introduced gradually, over time, and eventually become the norm. ALL of these things, I might add, were designed to undermine Catholic doctrine such as the sacrificial nature of the Mass, transubstantiation, and the priesthood…they succeeded in doing so in the 16th century when 1/3 of Europe became Protestant, and are succeeding now based on the loss of faith amongst Catholics after Vatican II. LEX CREDENDI, LEX ORANDI!

I believe I was watching TV and it was St. John Chrysostom who allowed Communion in the hand. Please find these sources if you are willing.

Please avoid mostholyfamilymonastery.com.

 

[Canto]

The introduction of additional Eucharistic prayers to choose from (two of which do not even mention sacrifice)

Personally I think we should just use the Roman Canon, however
3/4 mention the word sacrafice and right before the EP begins

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands
for the praise and glory of his name,
for our good and the good of all his holy Church.

Mass facing the people

The ruberics imply the Priest faces east

on a table rather than a consecrated altar

The altar is consecrated

vernacular

There was vernacular before Vat II

Latin anyone? Greek, Aramaic, Slavonic?

 

[palmas85]

I believe I was watching TV and it was** St. John Chrysostom who allowed Communion in the hand.** Please find these sources if you are willing.

Please avoid mostholyfamilymonastery.com.

Which proves exactly what?

 

[fish90]

Which proves exactly what?

1.) The practice of receiving on the hand can be respectful and reverent.
2.) It is a legitimate practice.

Also, I do acknowledge reception on the tongue is the ordinary method of receiving the Eucharist and that it does hold a significant reverent respect.

Best,
fish90

 

[Art321]

I have never been to a Traditional Mass before. Can anyone tell me the differences between this one and the new one?

 

[fish90]

I have never been to a Traditional Mass before. Can anyone tell me the differences between this one and the new one?

In brief, please read the posts on this thread for the most clear differences. The Mass in the Extraordinary Form uses a different missal. The priest faces the altar (ad orientum), says the Mass in Latin ONLY (except for the homily and according to Summorum Pontificum), and follows a rubric according to the missal of 1962. Other posters can do a better job.

Here are some examples of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
youtube.com/watch?v=R6AOvStZS64
ewtn.com/liturgy/traditional/Archive.htm
institute-christ-king.org/news/news-interviews-and-press-coverage/

Best,
fish90

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Personally I think we should just use the Roman Canon, however
3/4 mention the word sacrafice and right before the EP begins

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands
for the praise and glory of his name,
for our good and the good of all his holy Church.

The ruberics imply the Priest faces east

The altar is consecrated

There was vernacular before Vat II

Latin anyone? Greek, Aramaic, Slavonic?

All that aside, I attended an EF Mass this evening and I have to tell you, with one wave of its hand, the Church threw all sanctity out the window. The NO is a clown show by comparison.

 

[MarineGuy]

I believe I was watching TV and it was St. John Chrysostom who allowed Communion in the hand. Please find these sources if you are willing.

Please avoid mostholyfamilymonastery.com.

Yes, St. John Chrysostom did allow Communion in the hand. As the Church’s faith and understanding of the Eucharist deepened and matured, she saw fit to allow Communion on the tongue only, and that was the way it was practiced for more than a thousand years. Interestingly, St. John Chrysostom belonged to the Greek/Byzantine rite–their liturgy is named for him in fact–and to this day the Eastern rites do not allow Communion in the hand.

I have nothing to do with mostholyfamilymonastery.com–why would you mention that??

 

[MarineGuy]

Personally I think we should just use the Roman Canon, however
3/4 mention the word sacrafice and right before the EP begins

May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands
for the praise and glory of his name,
for our good and the good of all his holy Church.

The “May the Lord accept the sacrifice…” is not part of the Canon (“Eucharistic prayer” in Novus Ordo terminology). It is after the Canon. And WOW, one mention of “sacrifice” . Does that single instance of the word “sacrifice” in the New Rite make clear to the people that the Mass is the bloody Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary made present on the altar in an unbloody manner? Do you think the average Catholic in the pews is cognizant of this?

The ruberics imply the Priest faces east

No they do not. If they were, 99.9999999999999999999% of Novus Ordo masses would not be celebrated facing the wrong way. Novus Ordo Masses celebrated with the priest facing the correct way are far rarer than traditional Masses, which are celebrated facing the correct direction by default. The post-Vatican II documents mandate freestanding altars “so that Mass may be celebrated facing the people.”

The altar is consecrated

If an altar is even used (as opposed to a table), it is sometimes a consecrated altar. You do realize that for an altar to be “consecrated” it must contain relics? Many churches use a four-legged, movable, wooden table for their NO Mass and I promise those do not contain relics. In the traditional rite, Mass was ALWAYS celebrated over the relics of saints–even when, by necessity, the priest had to celebrate Mass without a consecrated altar, for example, on a battlefield, he always had an altar stone with him which contained a relic.

There was vernacular before Vat II

Latin anyone? Greek, Aramaic, Slavonic?

Your point? Latin–much less ecclesiastical Latin as is used in the liturgy–is not vernacular and hasn’t been for nearly 2,000 years. Greek, Aramaic, Slavonic–this makes me laugh. All of these are, like Latin, liturgical languages and not everyday languages.

 

[MarineGuy]

All that aside, I attended an EF Mass this evening and I have to tell you, with one wave of its hand, the Church threw all sanctity out the window. The NO is a clown show by comparison.

Some Novus Ordo “Masses” are clown shows indeed.
http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/clown-eucharist.gif

 

[fish90]

Yes, St. John Chrysostom did allow Communion in the hand. As the Church’s faith and understanding of the Eucharist deepened and matured, she saw fit to allow Communion on the tongue only, and that was the way it was practiced for more than a thousand years. Interestingly, St. John Chrysostom belonged to the Greek/Byzantine rite–their liturgy is named for him in fact–and to this day the Eastern rites do not allow Communion in the hand.

I have nothing to do with mostholyfamilymonastery.com–why would you mention that??

Honestly, I find the position you hold about the NO to come from untrustworthy sources such as mostholyfamilymonastery.com (i.e. EWTN heresy). I wrote that for that reason and also to joke (hence the ). Please understand I mean no offense.

Here is some more information on receiving in the hand and EMHC.
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1766

Best,
fish90

P.S. If I remember correctly, I learned that there was a relic at the altar at my NO parish. Also, clown masses are not the normal method of celebrating the Mass.

 

[MarineGuy]

Honestly, I find the position you hold about the NO to come from untrustworthy sources such as mostholyfamilymonastery.com (i.e. EWTN heresy). I wrote that for that reason and also to joke (hence the ). Please understand I mean no offense.

Here is some more information on receiving in the hand and EMHC.
catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/?qid=1766

Best,
fish90

Umm, I didn’t get ANY of my sources from mostholyfamilymonastery.com and never have. (Even if I did, what if? ALL of their stuff isn’t necessarily untrustworthy).

I sometimes find “untrustworthy” stuff coming from Catholic Answers, Inc. That doesn’t mean everything they publish is untrustworthy though.

P.S. If I remember correctly, I learned that there was a relic at the altar at my NO parish. Also, clown masses are not the normal method of celebrating the Mass.

That’s a relief. Thank God only SOME NO Masses are clown Masses and not all of them!

 

[palmas85]

1.) The practice of receiving on the hand can be respectful and reverent.
2.) It is a legitimate practice.

Also, I do acknowledge reception on the tongue is the ordinary method of receiving the Eucharist and that it does hold a significant reverent respect.

Best,
fish90

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?

Yes, you guessed it, old Saint John Chrysostom was in fact a hermit monk for a good portion of his early life:extrahappy:

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.

 

[CradleCath]

Fish, I’ll find the sources to back up my statements later tonight or tomorrow when I have more time. One piece of evidence I’m trying to find was something written by Martin Luther himself: I can’t remember where I found it when I first read it a few years ago but it was chilling to me. He wrote specifically about how in his new liturgy (the “Deutsche Messe”) he wanted to practice communion in the hand, using a table, vernacular of course, and many of the other practices which were always forbidden by the Church until they found their way into the New Rite of the Mass of Vatican II (the Novus Ordo). One thing particular I remember reading was that even Luther thought that celebrating the liturgy facing the people was too revolutionary to introduce all at once, but wanted it to be introduced gradually, over time, and eventually become the norm. ALL of these things, I might add, were designed to undermine Catholic doctrine such as the sacrificial nature of the Mass, transubstantiation, and the priesthood…they succeeded in doing so in the 16th century when 1/3 of Europe became Protestant, and are succeeding now based on the loss of faith amongst Catholics after Vatican II. LEX CREDENDI, LEX ORANDI!

Absolutely!!! One simply needs to study the life & teaching of Luther (& Cranmer) to find the resemblance between their Liturgies & the Novus Ordo. The following is a great site to start with. Clicking on the different links will answer most questions about Luther:
tlogical.net/bioluther.htm

"These controversies necessarily led Luther to develop his doctrines further, and in his Sermon von dem hochwurdigen Sakrament den Leichnams Christi (1519) he set forth the significance of the Eucharist, interpreting the transubstantiation of the bread as the transformation of the faithful into the spiritual body, of Christ, i.e., into fellowship with Christ and the saints. IOW. Lutherans do not believe that the eucharistic sacrifice (sacrifice of praise) of the Lord’s Supper is propitiatory or that it “repeats” Christ’s sacrifice on the cross

Lutherans today still do not believe that the eucharistic sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper is propitiatory or that it “repeats” Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. **They consider it a “communal meal” which transforms the laity, thus it’s all about them. Kind of like our Novus Ordo. **

 

[Canto]

The “May the Lord accept the sacrifice…” is not part of the Canon (“Eucharistic prayer” in Novus Ordo terminology). It is after the Canon. And WOW, one mention of “sacrifice” . Does that single instance of the word “sacrifice” in the New Rite make clear to the people that the Mass is the bloody Sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Calvary made present on the altar in an unbloody manner? Do you think the average Catholic in the pews is cognizant of this?.

I noted that it was just before the canon. The word sacrifice is used 9 times in the EF in the OF with EPI its 7 times.

If one goes to the OF and doesn’t know it’s a sacrifce, as we’d say in OZ they’re a sandwhich short of a picnic

No they do not. If they were, 99.9999999999999999999% of Novus Ordo masses would not be celebrated facing the wrong way. Novus Ordo Masses celebrated with the priest facing the correct way are far rarer than traditional Masses, which are celebrated facing the correct direction by default. The post-Vatican II documents mandate freestanding altars “so that Mass may be celebrated facing the people.”.

The ruberics tell the Priest the 6 times he needs to turn and face the people. This imples that the other times he is not facing the people. I think its 8 times in the EF.

Your point? Latin–much less ecclesiastical Latin as is used in the liturgy–is not vernacular and hasn’t been for nearly 2,000 years. Greek, Aramaic, Slavonic–this makes me laugh. All of these are, like Latin, liturgical languages and not everyday languages.

Why was Mass said in Greek - becuase Christians outside of Palastine mainly spoke Greek.
Why was Mass said in Latin - becuase lots of people started speaking Latin, though more formal Latin was used at Mass.
The re-translation of the Roman Missal 1970 uses more formal English.
Pope John VIII allowed Cyril and Methodius to translate the liturgy for the Slavs into Slavonic.
Even in the 17-18thC Latin was still the language of eudcation, science, art etc.

 

[admonsta]

Honestly, I find the position you hold about the NO to come from untrustworthy sources such as mostholyfamilymonastery.com (i.e. EWTN heresy). I wrote that for that reason and also to joke (hence the ). Please understand I mean no offense.

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?

 

[brotherhrolf]

Most Holy Family is a sedevecantist site but EWTN?

 

[ProVobis]

I noted that it was just before the canon. The word sacrifice is used 9 times in the EF in the OF with EPI its 7 times.

If one goes to the OF and doesn’t know it’s a sacrifce, as we’d say in OZ they’re a sandwhich short of a picnic

Actually the priest’s words are “our sacrifice” and to the ordinary churchgoer, he wouldn’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about, lack of sandwiches notwithstanding. Don’t forget, people just brought up some gifts of bread and wine; is this the sacrifice which is prayed?

Furthermore, why is it “our” sacrifice? In the EF, there the sacrifice is distinguished between the priest’s sacrifice and the people’s sacrifice. Hardly an insignificant distinction.

And don’t forget the beautiful Placeat prayer right before the Last Blessing in the EF: “May the lowly homage of my service be pleasing to Thee, O most Holy Trinity; and do Thou grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and, because of Thy loving kindness, may avail to atone to Thee for myself and for all those for whom I have offered it up. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.”

That about sums it up well, don’t you think?

 

[ProVobis]

1.) The practice of receiving on the hand can be respectful and reverent.
2.) It is a legitimate practice.

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