THe boy only Altar server debate is over

[THurifer2]

The comments I am hearing about lay readers and EMHCs must be comming from people who have absolutely no idea what the 1962 Mass is…Why in the world would there need to be EMHCs when holy communion is offered under one kind and what is this ignorant comment about “lay readers”?

I am convinced people here are commenting on the TLM with no idea what they are commenting on. The mass of Blessed John 23 has rubrics that are clearly outlined and Must be followed. The Motu Proprio AND the USCCB statement have REINFORCED the fact that the Mass of BJ23 will be followed diligently and to the T. If any of the Rubrics of this Mass are intenionally changed then it is no longer the extraordinary Mass and it becomes somthing else. These are two authorized Masses now of the Latin rite The Ordinary Novus Ordo and the extraordinary mass of BJ23. The latter of the two has virtually NO WIGGLE ROOM and the rubrics are concrete solid. I would put the house on it that the 1962 Mass of BJ23 will not be tinkered with AT ALL. Which includes Boys in Cassocks ONLY. ( it is part of the locked in stone ruberics of the mass) . If the 1962 is altered then it will no longer be called the 1962 and it will be called the Mass of B16.

One last note to any progressive/Modernists here…KEEP YOUR PAWS OFF THE 1962 MASS!

 

[paramedicgirl]

The comments I am hearing about lay readers and EMHCs must be comming from people who have absolutely no idea what the 1962 Mass is…Why in the world would there need to be EMHCs when holy communion is offered under one kind and what is this ignorant comment about “lay readers”?

I am convinced people here are commenting on the TLM with no idea what they are commenting on. The mass of Blessed John 23 has rubrics that are clearly outlined and Must be followed. The Motu Proprio AND the USCCB statement have REINFORCED the fact that the Mass of BJ23 will be followed diligently and to the T. If any of the Rubrics of this Mass are intenionally changed then it is no longer the extraordinary Mass and it becomes somthing else. These are two authorized Masses now of the Latin rite The Ordinary Novus Ordo and the extraordinary mass of BJ23. The latter of the two has virtually NO WIGGLE ROOM and the rubrics are concrete solid. I would put the house on it that the 1962 Mass of BJ23 will not be tinkered with AT ALL. Which includes Boys in Cassocks ONLY. ( it is part of the locked in stone ruberics of the mass) . If the 1962 is altered then it will no longer be called the 1962 and it will be called the Mass of B16.

One last note to any progressive/Modernists here…KEEP YOUR PAWS OFF THE 1962 MASS!

It is exactly the points you bring up here that our priests will face when people request the TLM. Some people will try to bring all these factors with them, out of ignorance for what the rubrics are. They will be offended when they find out that can’t have altar girls, lay readers, communion in the hand and Marty Haugen songs at the TLM. Some will try to persuade the pastors to give in and some may give in. It could be a nightmare.

That’s why I’m not pushing for the TLM at my parish. What I described is what would happen. I’d rather drive all day to the FSSP Mass in Calgary, (an eleven hour round trip) than see the TLM subjected to these abuses.

 

[eric3141]

Well, there was that one little thing St. Paul mentioned about women being quiet in the churches. But I guess Catholics don’t talk about that anymore.

Probably cut out of their Bible the same way that Ephesians chapter 5 was.

 

[bkovacs]

That’s the way it should be!. And no eucharistic ministers either!. Keep it as it was before Vatican 2. That is why it is called tradition!.

Well, Now that we have an extraordinary missal to freely to use I guess we can put the boy only altar server to rest since the 62 missal does not allow females in the sanctuary. Any comments?

 

[ChemicalBean]

I am convinced people here are commenting on the TLM with no idea what they are commenting on. The mass of Blessed John 23 has rubrics that are clearly outlined and Must be followed. The Motu Proprio AND the USCCB statement have REINFORCED the fact that the Mass of BJ23 will be followed diligently and to the T. If any of the Rubrics of this Mass are intenionally changed then it is no longer the extraordinary Mass and it becomes somthing else. These are two authorized Masses now of the Latin rite The Ordinary Novus Ordo and the extraordinary mass of BJ23. The latter of the two has virtually NO WIGGLE ROOM and the rubrics are concrete solid. I would put the house on it that the 1962 Mass of BJ23 will not be tinkered with AT ALL. Which includes Boys in Cassocks ONLY. ( it is part of the locked in stone ruberics of the mass) . If the 1962 is altered then it will no longer be called the 1962 and it will be called the Mass of B16.

One last note to any progressive/Modernists here…KEEP YOUR PAWS OFF THE 1962 MASS!

I am convinced that many people here who promote the Mass of 1962 are actually just stuck in time and/or are hiding behind it to forward an agenda. Sir, I consider myself a progressive Catholic who loves good liturgy. I have never attended the old Mass. It might surprise you, then, that I would be interested in attending a good one once in awhile for its informative and transformative liturgical value. The two forms of the Roman Rite should ‘inform’ each other and any good liturgy should transform the faithful.

I don’t know the “rubrics” of the old Mass and I wouldn’t really know where to look. But since these types of conversations give rise to exacting statements like “boys in cassocks only”, I would like to see chapter-verse where they say exactly that: that there MUST be servers, who MUST be boys, and MUST be vested in cassock and surplice. If that cannot be shown, then I should expect to see a few Tridentine Masses celebrated in accordance with current Church dicipline which allows for female altar servers and says nothing about head coverings.

In the case of altar servers, in the ordinary form of the Mass, the gender of the servers and their liturgical garb neither adds nor subtracts ANYTHING from the liturgical value of the mass. (Boys-only may or may not have other merit, which has been debated ad nauseum on this board.) It is my suspicion that the same statement would be true for the extraordinary form (ie: the Sacrament does not bear any more grace for you this week just because a boy held a paten under your chin.)

I think the real test of the extraordinary form is to allow it to serve the Church of 2007. If it can’t make its peace with today’s Catholics and come alive, it will be a mere nostalgic trip, at which point it will have lost its transformative value and will cease to be authentic liturgy.

 

[paramedicgirl]

I am convinced that many people here who promote the Mass of 1962 are actually just stuck in time and/or are hiding behind it to forward an agenda. Sir, I consider myself a progressive Catholic who loves good liturgy. I have never attended the old Mass. It might surprise you, then, that I would be interested in attending a good one once in awhile for its informative and transformative liturgical value. The two forms of the Roman Rite should ‘inform’ each other and any good liturgy should transform the faithful.

I don’t know the “rubrics” of the old Mass and I wouldn’t really know where to look. But since these types of conversations give rise to exacting statements like “boys in cassocks only”, I would like to see chapter-verse where they say exactly that: that there MUST be servers, who MUST be boys, and MUST be vested in cassock and surplice. If that cannot be shown, then I should expect to see a few Tridentine Masses celebrated in accordance with current Church dicipline which allows for female altar servers and says nothing about head coverings.

In the case of altar servers, in the ordinary form of the Mass, the gender of the servers and their liturgical garb neither adds nor subtracts ANYTHING from the liturgical value of the mass. (Boys-only may or may not have other merit, which has been debated ad nauseum on this board.) It is my suspicion that the same statement would be true for the extraordinary form (ie: the Sacrament does not bear any more grace for you this week just because a boy held a paten under your chin.)

I think the real test of the extraordinary form is to allow it to serve the Church of 2007. If it can’t make its peace with today’s Catholics and come alive, it will be a mere nostalgic trip, at which point it will have lost its transformative value and will cease to be authentic liturgy.

You should not be imposing your innovations and novelties on the ancient rite of the Mass. I hope we never see these expectations of yours to bring the TLM in line with 2007. There are rubrics for the TLM which must be followed, and I really hope that people with your viewpoint don’t destroy the traditions of the Mass that we just had returned to us.

 

[bkovacs]

You should not be imposing your innovations and novelties on the ancient rite of the Mass. I hope we never see these expectations of yours to bring the TLM in line with 2007. There are rubrics for the TLM which must be followed, and I really hope that people with your viewpoint don’t destroy the traditions of the Mass that we just had returned to us.

Agreed!!!. Why it is called Tradition!!!.

 

[patg]

I am convinced that many people here who promote the Mass of 1962 are actually just stuck in time and/or are hiding behind it to forward an agenda.

Yes, things were always better before…

In the case of altar servers, in the ordinary form of the Mass, the gender of the servers and their liturgical garb neither adds nor subtracts ANYTHING from the liturgical value of the mass.

Absolutely! Great comment!

I think the real test of the extraordinary form is to allow it to serve the Church of 2007. If it can’t make its peace with today’s Catholics and come alive, it will be a mere nostalgic trip, at which point it will have lost its transformative value and will cease to be authentic liturgy.

We should be imposing your innovations and novelties on the ancient rite of the Mass. I hope we quickly see these expectations of yours to bring the TLM in line with 2007. There are rubrics for the TLM which have as little meaning now as they ever did, and I really hope that people with your viewpoint quickly show the folly of this very divisive experiment in appeasement.

Not that what any of us say or think matters…

 

[paramedicgirl]

Yes, things were always better before…

Absolutely! Great comment!

We should be imposing your innovations and novelties on the ancient rite of the Mass. I hope we quickly see these expectations of yours to bring the TLM in line with 2007. There are rubrics for the TLM which have as little meaning now as they ever did, and I really hope that people with your viewpoint quickly show the folly of this very divisive experiment in appeasement.

Not that what any of us say or think matters…

You both have the option to stay away and I truly hope you exercise it to the fullest extent with attitudes like that. You are doing the will of the Holy Father (and the Church) a great disservice by entertaining those kind of wishes.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Folks, these are not my “innovations and novelties on the ancient rite of the Mass.” There is still ONE Roman Rite, just now more freely available in two approved forms. All I’m saying is that the liturgical laws and permissions would seem to exist outside of the missal rubrics themselves, and therefore they apply to the entire rite (both forms). For example, females were not permitted to serve at the altar in 1970 (the missal most used in the US, I believe). The Pope granted permission for this in 1994, but we did not have to wait until the next edition of the missal to have this come into effect. If the Church in 1994 was allowed to “impose” female altar servers on the Mass of 1969, it does not follow that it would not be allowed to “impose” them, or other necessary updates/permissions, on the Mass of 1962.

To clear the air, I am not in favor of upsetting the applecart out of spite. But since the applecart is already rolling downhill, it may be wiser to gently steer it than to quickly throw the brakes and make it flip over.

I hope Pat was not sarcastic. I am worried that this moto proprio will further magnify instead of appeasing divisions in the Church. The last thing we need is people to take sides and say to each other (even within the same parish) to say “Go on back to your Mass and leave us alone, we don’t want you to ruin what we’ve worked so hard for.” The Mass doesn’t belong to any of us to say that! If we can’t look through the eyes of our heart to see Christ in our fellow Catholics, how can we possibly expect to see Christ in the Eucharist, celebrated under either form?

 

[ChemicalBean]

You both have the option to stay away and I truly hope you exercise it to the fullest extent with attitudes like that. You are doing the will of the Holy Father (and the Church) a great disservice by entertaining those kind of wishes.

Exactly the kind of comment I hoped not to hear…

 

[paramedicgirl]

Folks, these are not my “innovations and novelties on the ancient rite of the Mass.” There is still ONE Roman Rite, just now more freely available in two approved forms. All I’m saying is that the liturgical laws and permissions would seem to exist outside of the missal rubrics themselves, and therefore they apply to the entire rite (both forms). For example, females were not permitted to serve at the altar in 1970 (the missal most used in the US, I believe). The Pope granted permission for this in 1994, but we did not have to wait until the next edition of the missal to have this come into effect. If the Church in 1994 was allowed to “impose” female altar servers on the Mass of 1969, it does not follow that it would not be allowed to “impose” them, or other necessary updates/permissions, on the Mass of 1962.

To clear the air, I am not in favor of upsetting the applecart out of spite. But since the applecart is already rolling downhill, it may be wiser to gently steer it than to quickly throw the brakes and make it flip over.

I hope Pat was not sarcastic. I am worried that this moto proprio will further magnify instead of appeasing divisions in the Church. The last thing we need is people to take sides and say to each other (even within the same parish) to say “Go on back to your Mass and leave us alone, we don’t want you to ruin what we’ve worked so hard for.” The Mass doesn’t belong to any of us to say that! If we can’t look through the eyes of our heart to see Christ in our fellow Catholics, how can we possibly expect to see Christ in the Eucharist, celebrated under either form?

We really do want you to leave the TLM alone, though. No novelties, no innovations. You already have that with the new Mass. The Pope has spoken. I wish people would recognize that and respect it.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Exactly the kind of comment I hoped not to hear…

What else can you expect in a reply to a post like this one?

Yes, things were always better before…

Absolutely! Great comment!

We should be imposing your innovations and novelties on the ancient rite of the Mass. I hope we quickly see these expectations of yours to bring the TLM in line with 2007. There are rubrics for the TLM which have as little meaning now as they ever did, and I really hope that people with your viewpoint quickly show the folly of this very divisive experiment in appeasement.

Not that what any of us say or think matters…

 

[ChemicalBean]

We really do want you to leave the TLM alone, though. No novelties, no innovations.

What??? Are you trying to tell me that you don’t think the thurifer should waft a singing incense bowl up and down the aisle in a flowing gown?

 

[Walking_Home]

What??? Are you trying to tell me that you don’t think the thurifer should waft a singing incense bowl up and down the aisle in a flowing gown?

---

If I were to see that at a TLM—I would probably have a stroke.

 

[TNT]

Originally Posted by ChemicalBean
If we can’t look through the eyes of our heart to see Christ in our fellow Catholics, how can we possibly expect to see Christ in the Eucharist, celebrated under either form?

A Traditional Catholic sees the Eucharist AS Christ; Body, Blood, Soul & Divinity. Not in any Eucharist or on it or around it for that matter.

He Sees it through the eyes of Divine & Catholic Faith, not any heart-eyes or any human organ eyes.
It has not a thing to do with whether he sees “Christ in a fellow Catholic”.
In fact he may see the Devil in a fellow catholic. It would have no effect on his belief in the Real Presence/Transubstantiation.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

We really do want you to leave the TLM alone, though. No novelties, no innovations. You already have that with the new Mass. The Pope has spoken. I wish people would recognize that and respect it.

Those who want to impose their will on the Church do not respect the Church or her teachings.

 

[BobP123]

I am convinced that many people here who promote the Mass of 1962 are actually just stuck in time and/or are hiding behind it to forward an agenda.

How diplomatic of you.

I don’t know the “rubrics” of the old Mass and I wouldn’t really know where to look. But since these types of conversations give rise to exacting statements like “boys in cassocks only”, I would like to see chapter-verse where they say exactly that: that there MUST be servers, who MUST be boys, and MUST be vested in cassock and surplice. If that cannot be shown, then I should expect to see a few Tridentine Masses celebrated in accordance with current Church dicipline which allows for female altar servers and says nothing about head coverings.

All’s I can say is, when in Rome, do as the Romans. Check with St. Paul for more information.

 

[THurifer2]

I hope Pat was not sarcastic. I am worried that this moto proprio will further magnify instead of appeasing divisions in the Church. The last thing we need is people to take sides and say to each other (even within the same parish) to say “Go on back to your Mass and leave us alone, we don’t want you to ruin what we’ve worked so hard for.” The Mass doesn’t belong to any of us to say that! If we can’t look through the eyes of our heart to see Christ in our fellow Catholics, how can we possibly expect to see Christ in the Eucharist, celebrated under either form?

I am not worried at all…its just interesting to see “progressives” come here and imply that the 1962 mass can somehow be modernized. Suggesting that altar girls shouldn’t be “refused” to serve is simple a display of ignorance of the reason why there was a motu. It is called the TRADITIONAL Latin Mass for a reason. I am not sure if you understand anything about the Latin Mass, but you must learn that the word RUBRICS is a very important one. The saying “say the black do the red” is not taken lightly. Rubrics (as you may know) means red and also authoritative rule. Rubrics do not bother to follow exclusions, they only follow inclusions (what is to be done… not what cannot be done). Which is why you will not see statements like “there cannot be female altar servers” any more than you will see statements like" pink elephants cannot be in the sanctuary during the Mass" The 1962 rubrics cannot be added to or subtracted from AT ALL.

The people who love the Traditional Mass are for the most part people who would scream bloody murder if a priest broke the rubrics and allowed girl altar boys.

 

[BobP123]

We should be imposing your innovations and novelties on the ancient rite of the Mass. I hope we quickly see these expectations of yours to bring the TLM in line with 2007. There are rubrics for the TLM which have as little meaning now as they ever did, and I really hope that people with your viewpoint quickly show the folly of this very divisive experiment in appeasement.

I see you’re quite bitter about the M.P. Why do I smell a schismatic scent in the air?