Should we even have EMHC's?

[Brendan]

Perhaps you can tell us what parts of Vatican II have not been implemented yet?

Jim

Oh, how about the parts about Gregorian Chant having the principal place in the Liturgy, or the part about the faithful knowing their prayers and responses in LATIN

 

[Sure]

Perhaps you can tell us what parts of Vatican II have not been implemented yet?

Jim

Appropriate liturgical music, sacred architecture, emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, encouraging the faithful to the frequent reception of the Sacraments, clear catechesis on the teachings of the Church.

These have been somewhat implemented in some places, but in many places they have been largely ignored in favor of a ‘spirit of Vatican II’ that doesn’t speak of the things listed above.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Appropriate liturgical music, sacred architecture, emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, encouraging the faithful to the frequent reception of the Sacraments, clear catechesis on the teachings of the Church.

clear catechesis on the teachings of the Church

Since Vatican II, this has not only NOT been implemented, it has in some areas been totally obliterated. I taught 4th grade religious education one year awhile back. In the course of the entire year the word SIN was only used during one lesson - the one on reconciliation. (I think the publisher couldn’t figure out how to discuss the sacrament without bringing up the S - word.) Even after using the S-word it was never defined. The curriculum spent more time that year discussing the Christian’s responsibility to the environment, than their responsibility to God.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Oh, how about the parts about Gregorian Chant having the principal place in the Liturgy, or the part about the faithful knowing their prayers and responses in LATIN

Gregorian Chant never went away, nor did Latin responses, but responses in general were new for the people.

Also, Vatican II didn’t mandate Gregorian Chant nor Latin, but said that it should be preserved. However, Vatican II called for closser paticipation of the people and that predecated use of Gergorian Chant and Latin, as the Bishops found that the people favored the vernacular over Latin.

I remember using Latin responses in the first days of what we called, the New Mass.(Novus Ordo). However, being the people’s participation in reciting the parts of the Mass was new to them, they had a difficult time combining that with the Latin. So, the Bishops allowed more use of English and the people quickly learned the responses, so that they are part of life today.
Vatican II was firmly being implemented…i.e. the people were participating more fully, in the Mass.

Jim

 

[anamchara]

Perhaps you can tell us what parts of Vatican II have not been implemented yet?

Jim

Anything that doesn’t fit the very rigid world they live in. They won’t be happy until we are all speaking in Latin, we are going to confession once a week, women are wearing head coverings and should never help with anything but serving food and washing linens and we do away with that dreaded “spirit of Vatican II”

 

[anamchara]

Also, Vatican II didn’t mandate Gregorian Chant nor Latin, but said that it should be preserved. However, Vatican II called for closser paticipation of the people and that predecated use of Gergorian Chant and Latin, as the Bishops found that the people favored the vernacular over Latin.

I remember using Latin responses in the first days of what we called, the New Mass.(Novus Ordo). However, being the people’s participation in reciting the parts of the Mass was new to them, they had a difficult time combining that with the Latin. So, the Bishops allowed more use of English and the people quickly learned the responses, so that they are part of life today.
Vatican II was firmly being implemented…i.e. the people were participating more fully, in the Mass.

Jim

This makes sense but I do have a question. Do you think people started favoring the English due to them never really knowing the Latin responses in the first place? Also, participation in reciting parts of the Mass were new? Which parts, do you know? I’m curious.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sure

Appropriate liturgical music, sacred architecture, emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the Mass, encouraging the faithful to the frequent reception of the Sacraments, clear catechesis on the teachings of the Church.

These have been implemented most everywhere I’ve been in the Catholic Church. My guess is that they’re not implemented according to your taste, which doesn’t mean Vatican II wasn’t implemented.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This makes sense but I do have a question. Do you think people started favoring the English due to them never really knowing the Latin responses in the first place? Also, participation in reciting parts of the Mass were new? Which parts, do you know? I’m curious.

Well I remember when the Mass first changed. All of a sudden, instead of going to the Church and watching and listening to the priest, altar boys and choir, we suddenly had to(God forbid) sing. I remember the parish having photo copied responses, in Latin, handed out by a teacher, who would run through the responses before Mass started and then lead us during the Mass. This went on for a while, until we got new responses, only in English. Even the first missalettes that we used, had both the Latin responses along side the English and then they eventually only included English. There is no doubt that Mass in the Vernacular, is easier for people to understand and be a part of. Ask anyone who has never attended a Latin Mass, what it was like the first couple times. There is a giant learning curve in the process, and those who do not have the aptitude, for whatever reason, feel left out and never return.

Jim

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

Our Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Brothers and Sisters say “NO”.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[KCT]

Are we to say ‘no’ to our pastors?

If I didn’t feel called to be an EM, I would say so to my pastor. I might offer to do something else, though. —KCT

 

[Windmill]

Are we to say ‘no’ to our pastors?

Sure. Why not? I would say this in a heartbeat when it comes to EMHC’s and their over-use. If enough people stopped doing it, then the problem would rectify itself (either through not using the option of both species, by bringing in more visiting priests if possible, by using altar rails, and even by reminding people that they should be spiritually prepared before coming up…something we don’t really think about. If one way to shorten the communion lines is to remind people to go to confession, then there is less need for EMHC’s because there are fewer communicants…and it has the added benefit of them avoiding the grave sin of sacrilege.)

Saying no to an invitation is not disobedience. Actually, in a situation where you are being asked to participate in something wrong, you are supposed to say no.

 

[Sure]

Sure

These have been implemented most everywhere I’ve been in the Catholic Church. My guess is that they’re not implemented according to your taste, which doesn’t mean Vatican II wasn’t implemented.

Jim

In many areas they were not implemented or rather even “anti-implemented” (yeah, I made the word up).

For instance, Sacred Architecture was deeply disturbed by a modernist movement that changed the theology of the church building from a place where a “foretaste of the heavenly liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)” to a living room (not in Sacrosanctum Concilium). It is not my taste, it is the theological error of removing statues and leveling sanctuaries and eradicating stained glass windows. Those actions are directly OPPOSED to what Vatican II said about the sacred liturgy and the worship space in which it should occur. In an effort to implement Vatican II many many dioceses did exactly the opposite of what was called for. Even the document produced by the USCCB on sacred art and architecture contained blatent contradictions to Vatican II in their instructions.

Just so we’re clear. I believe this is getting MUCH better now around the country. But it is disheartening to realize that much of what was asked of us by Vatican II was ignored and, many times the exact opposite was actually done!

And to get back on topic…

Here is the rule of thumb that I propose for appropriate use of EMHC’s:

1. Each available priest and deacon must distribute Communion.
2. Communion should be under one species unless there are enough priests and deacons to distribute under both species.
3. If number one is observed and there are more than 100 people per ordinary minister, extraordinary ministers may be used at the rate of 1 EMHC per every 100 people.

Example One, if 600 people attend Mass and there are 2 priests and 1 deacon (each serving 100 people = 300 people), 3 EMHC’s may be used to distribute to the remaining 300 people.

So what do you think…good rules???

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Sure

In many areas they were not implemented or rather even “anti-implemented” (yeah, I made the word up).

For instance, Sacred Architecture was deeply disturbed by a modernist movement that changed the theology of the church building from a place where a “foretaste of the heavenly liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)” to a living room (not in Sacrosanctum Concilium). It is not my taste, it is the theological error of removing statues and leveling sanctuaries and eradicating stained glass windows. Those actions are directly OPPOSED to what Vatican II said about the sacred liturgy and the worship space in which it should occur. In an effort to implement Vatican II many many dioceses did exactly the opposite of what was called for.

This is a very few cases where this was done. Most parishes used the same churches they used for 100 years or more.

Even the document produced by the USCCB on sacred art and architecture contained blatent contradictions to Vatican II in their instructions.

I think this may be your opinion and not necessarily fact.

Just so we’re clear. I believe this is getting MUCH better now around the country. But it is disheartening to realize that much of what was asked of us by Vatican II was ignored and, many times the exact opposite was actually done!

I disagree.

And to get back on topic…

Here is the rule of thumb that I propose for appropriate use of EMHC’s:

1. Each available priest and deacon must distribute Communion.

Agreed, its how its done in my dioceses.

1. Communion should be under one species unless there are enough priests and deacons to distribute under both species.

Disagree. Communion should be offered under both species unless the gathering is too large to accomodate.

3

. If number one is observed and there are more than 100 people per ordinary minister, extraordinary ministers may be used at the rate of 1 EMHC per every 100 people.

I prefer to leave the decision up to the celebrant.

So what do you think…good rules?

Not as you presented.

Jim

 

[MrS]

Are we to say ‘no’ to our pastors?

Sure. Why not? I would say this in a heartbeat when it comes to EMHC’s and their over-use. If enough people stopped doing it, then the problem would rectify itself (either through not using the option of both species, by bringing in more visiting priests if possible, by using altar rails, and even by reminding people that they should be spiritually prepared before coming up…something we don’t really think about. If one way to shorten the communion lines is to remind people to go to confession, then there is less need for EMHC’s because there are fewer communicants…and it has the added benefit of them avoiding the grave sin of sacrilege.)

Saying no to an invitation is not disobedience. Actually, in a situation where you are being asked to participate in something wrong, you are supposed to say no.

Amen and hallelujah. Gee you must be a Catholic who understands Cardinal Arinze and his statement regarding the heresy of horizontal liturgy.

.

 

[Sure]

Sure

This is a very few cases where this was done. Most parishes used the same churches they used for 100 years or more.

I think this may be your opinion and not necessarily fact.

Disagree. Communion should be offered under both species unless the gathering is too large to accomodate.

3

I prefer to leave the decision up to the celebrant.

Not as you presented.

Jim

It’s not just an opinion I dreamed up.

Here is an article that details what I am talking about. This is NOT an article by some whackjob fringe traditionalist guy who wants to roll back the clocks. He is a teacher at a large seminary and really knows his stuff and actually likes a lot of “modern” architecture. Give it a fair read and it will describe where the USCCB instructions really depart from Vatican II and the Catechism.

adoremus.org/98-03_mcnamara.htm

As to the both species argument, I would argue that if the crowd is more than the priests and deacons can handle, that would be too large to accomodate both species.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It’s not just an opinion I dreamed up.

Here is an article that details what I am talking about. This is NOT an article by some whackjob fringe traditionalist guy who wants to roll back the clocks. He is a teacher at a large seminary and really knows his stuff and actually likes a lot of “modern” architecture. Give it a fair read and it will describe where the USCCB instructions really depart from Vatican II and the Catechism.

adoremus.org/98-03_mcnamara.htm

As to the both species argument, I would argue that if the crowd is more than the priests and deacons can handle, that would be too large to accomodate both species.

Adoremus is a conservative organisation which presents stories that fit their bias. I take their articles with a grain of salt.

The fact is, there are relatively few new church’s that have been built in the United States in the past 40 years. Those new churches that I have seen, are beautiful and for the most part, more functional than the older cathedral style churches.
They’re also easier to maintain and are more cost effective.

Heck, my current parish, the church was once the town blacksmith shop, which was purchased by Methodist, who sold it to the Rome Catholic Church. You could easily turn the building back into a barn if need be. I’d love to see our parish get one of those new modern style churches.

Jim

 

[Brendan]

Gregorian Chant never went away, nor did Latin responses, but responses in general were new for the people.

Also, Vatican II didn’t mandate Gregorian Chant nor Latin, but said that it should be preserved. However, Vatican II called for closser paticipation of the people and that predecated use of Gergorian Chant and Latin,

First of all, it seems you are accusing Vatican II of contradicting itself. It said that the faithful should know the responses in Latin, but then you say that ‘closer partication’ precluded the use of Latin.

How do you justify that contradiction in your mind.

as the Bishops found that the people favored the vernacular over Latin.

Do the preferences of the people in anyway effect that validity of a Council’s teaching?

Vatican II was firmly being implemented…i.e. the people were participating more fully, in the Mass.

Jim

Do you have an uinderstanding of exactly what “full, active and conscience particpation” meant to the Vatican Council.

I belive I went over this with you once before, but we’ll go over it again.

Pope Benedict wrote a book called “The Spirit of the Liturgy”. In that book, he devoted a whole chapter to explaining what is, and what is not, active participation.

The most active partipation of the laity involves them being silent, not saying a word, not doing a thing.

Rather, what the Council wanted was that the faithful particpate in the actio of each Liturgy. IN the Liturgy of the Word, the actio is the proclamation of God’s Word. The faithful actively particpate when they sit quitely and listen to the readings, the psalm, Gospel and the Homily, reflecting on the teachings given.

In the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the actio is the Sacrifice of the Mass being offered by the Priest. The faithful. as members of the Common Priesthood, also have a Sacrifice to offer, themselves, their hearts. So the active particpation of the laity is to silently offer their hearts to God at the same time that the priest is offering Christ Himself.

In each case, the faithful are silent during their active participation, and the language of the Mass is irrelevant.

It’s an excellent book, I highly recommend that you read it.

Pope John Paul was also of the same opinion, here is Pope John Paul in his Nov 1998 address to the US bishops during their ad lima visit

Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

So, if you are going to talk about “full” or “active” particpation, please do so in the sense that the Council thought of it, as an INTERIOR participation that does not necessarily involve words or actions.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

First of all, it seems you are accusing Vatican II of contradicting itself. It said that the faithful should know the responses in Latin, but then you say that ‘closer partication’ precluded the use of Latin.

How do you justify that contradiction in your mind.

There is no contradiction. Its said should, not must. But then read the introduction to The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy. It clearly states the intended goal. Fuller participation of the people.

Do the preferences of the people in anyway effect that validity of a Council’s teaching?

 

[Sure]

Adoremus is a conservative organisation which presents stories that fit their bias. I take their articles with a grain of salt.

The fact is, there are relatively few new church’s that have been built in the United States in the past 40 years. Those new churches that I have seen, are beautiful and for the most part, more functional than the older cathedral style churches.
They’re also easier to maintain and are more cost effective.

Heck, my current parish, the church was once the town blacksmith shop, which was purchased by Methodist, who sold it to the Rome Catholic Church. You could easily turn the building back into a barn if need be. I’d love to see our parish get one of those new modern style churches.

Jim

I don’t know much about adoremus but I do know that the author of this article is very good and was recently on Relevant Radio talking about the same subject. I urge you to read it, I think you’ll like it.

Sadly, the modern churches around here are very bad indeed. Many have hidden tabernacles, no statuary and a throne upon which the priest can be worshipped. There are some good modern churches being built now thanks to a resurgence in sacred architecture at places like Notre Dame.

 

[Brendan]

].

There is no contradiction. Its said should, not must. But then read the introduction to The Constitution of the Sacred Liturgy. It clearly states the intended goal. Fuller participation of the people

See below.

Vatican II wasn’t needed for this. The people were already silently participating. Vatican II called for active participation of the people in the Mass both in interior silence and outward particpation.

Not necessarily, as may on this board have commented, it was a not uncommon practice to say the Rosary during Mass. This defeated the premise of the silently active particpation in the Mass that the Council envisioned.

They also participate by praying the parts of the Mass, singing Hymns and reading Scripture. Vatican II had this in mind as well.

Really, can you document that? The references to vocal partipation by the faithful seem to revolve exclusiely around their ability to say their parts in Latin

Again, Vatican II was not needed for silent interior participation as stated here, it was happening before. It didn’t require Vatican II
for the people to understand this. It was understood better than today. However, Vatican II allowed the physical participation. It allowed for the people to be vocal in prayer, in song and in Scripture reading. This level of participation was never allowed before Vatican II.

Jim

The people could certainly respond vocally during the TLM Mass, they could always sing the chants (especially after St. Pius X reiterated the importance of chant over 'ocha , the Scripture was commonly read in the vernacular. So all the elements of vocal particpation are there in the TLM

Once again, I suggest you pick up a copy of Pope Benedict’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy”, your assesment of Vatican II’s goals in this matter conflicts with what Pope Benedict has to say on the matter.

And considering that he is both far more of a liturgurical theologian than either of us, as well as his being a part of Vatican II ( as a theological expert). He was there for the debates, he particpated in them, so, no offense, if he tells me something about Vatican II that disagrees with your assessment, I’ll go with his taken on the matter.