J
JMJ_coder
Guest
To use your line of thinking…which is the Liturgy of the Catholic Church, the Roman Rite Mass or the Byzantine Divine Liturgy? They can’t both be right.
Do you see how that just falls apart?
- Status
Do you see how that just falls apart?
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Do you have any idea how ridiculous that makes you sound? That’s almost identical to the Baptist who believes in Once Saved Always Saved and then argues if a person who was thought to be saved commits a horrible crime, then they must never have really believed and been saved to begin with.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
It should at least be noted that this authority was also present in the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 1247.2).
S
Spirithound
Guest
Fine then. The Ordinary Form of the Mass can’t be abused either. If something that is not rubrical enters into it, it is no longer the Ordinary Form, but something else. Let’s call it the Novissimo Ordo.
L
Layman
Guest
The changes to the rite, individually, may have a precedent. There is no precedent for all these changes made all at once. And such banal ones. A precedent of dramatic change has been set. It’s only a matter of managing the outrage.
By ‘vestments optional’ I meant the ‘White alb does for all’ trend. By dialect I meant whatever the local lingo is. In a church I went to recently in London, it was Tamil. With a woman in the sanctuary singing into a microphone in a high, keening voice. The effect was comical, the Mass incomprehensible.
And I was being sarcastic. Except a pal of mine recently told me he once considered joining the Jesuits over a decade ago. He went on retreat. They invited him to Mass. *The altar was a coffee table. *
The vocations director had a sign in his office that said, to the effect: “Vocations stopped here”. As they say in the newspaper trade, my friend ‘made his excuses and left’.
By ‘vestments optional’ I meant the ‘White alb does for all’ trend. By dialect I meant whatever the local lingo is. In a church I went to recently in London, it was Tamil. With a woman in the sanctuary singing into a microphone in a high, keening voice. The effect was comical, the Mass incomprehensible.
And I was being sarcastic. Except a pal of mine recently told me he once considered joining the Jesuits over a decade ago. He went on retreat. They invited him to Mass. *The altar was a coffee table. *
The vocations director had a sign in his office that said, to the effect: “Vocations stopped here”. As they say in the newspaper trade, my friend ‘made his excuses and left’.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
While it is generally suggested that laity in the Sanctuary wear an alb, for the Liturgy the Deacons wear a stole, Priests wear their proper vestments which on the outer most layer is a chasuble, and Bishops in addition wear their mitre and crosier.
All liturgical texts in the vernacular must receive the recognitio of the Vatican first, so if that language has received the recognitio, it is really no different than in English. The fact that you can’t speak a certain language is another issue.
So you don’t like women singers – sounds more like a personal problem than a liturgical one.
Was it? Are you sure? A coffee table sounds very difficult to stand at – you’d have to bend over to do just about everything. Perhaps it was just wooden in nature and not actually a coffee table.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
It’s awkward indeed. Here’s Bishop Clark of Rochester (NY) saying Mass:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
P
ProVobis
Guest
Even Fr. Phleger wouldn’t stoop this low.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
You don’t know very much about Father Phleger, do you?
On the plus side, they’re all facing the same way
Edited to add: If that was meant as a pun on “stoop,” I take it back and offer my compliments!
P
ProVobis
Guest
I have never met him but I catch him on the local news (I live near Chicago) all the time. I also remember a recent thread someone else started just for him and the OP on that thread showed how he celebrated Holy Thursday. To be honest, though, I can’t remember if I meant what I said as a pun. I probably did.
P
ProVobis
Guest
You think the painting will sell a few hundred years from now?On the plus side, they’re all facing the same way
M
MarkThompson
Guest
LOL – it’ll be in the Vatican Museum, hanging next to this one from St. Sabina’s:You think the painting will sell a few hundred years from now?
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/32...E84293980F0CE29294F3ADFEC4D77E30A760B0D811297
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
The Novus Ordo can’t be abused. Why? Because it already has been. Every Novus Ordo you attend will have some kind of abuses present. Whether it be CITH, Eucharistic Ministers, no altar, etc. Even “reverent” Novus Ordos will have atleast one abuse. That’s why it’s called the Novus Ordo, which means New Order. It’s a new form of Mass.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
I’m a bit confused on your reasoning here. How does that apply to my post about abuses at a TLM? Care to elaborate?Do you have any idea how ridiculous that makes you sound? That’s almost identical to the Baptist who believes in Once Saved Always Saved and then argues if a person who was thought to be saved commits a horrible crime, then they must never have really believed and been saved to begin with.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
The Once Saved Always Saved believer will say if a person commits a grave sin (like adultery), then obviously they were never saved to begin with.
You claim if there is an abuse at a Liturgy, then obviously it was never a “Traditional Latin Mass” to begin with.
Do you see the similarity now?
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Ok, now I see what you are saying. However, I mean planned abuses. Do you think a Mass with Eucharistic Ministers planned to allow them or they showed up without any warning and started distributing Communion? A TLM never has any planned abuses.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
Every Mass has Eucharistic Ministers, since every Mass has a Bishop or Priest.
If you mean an “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion” (the proper name given to them), then they are not an abuse, but something that is valid. The Pope and the Bishops – those who have the authority to regulate the Liturgy – have said that lay members of the faithful, if needed due to the large size of the crowds and the unavailability of a sufficient number of Ordinary Ministers, may be deputed to aid in the distribution of Holy Communion. This is the current law given by the divinely authorized law-givers in the Church.
J
JReducation
Guest
It would be a heresy to call it the Lord’s Supper. The OF remains the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Whether the sacrifice is more or less visible, it does not change the fact that it is fully present and true.
Truth does not depend on what our eyes can see.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Whoah!
The Ordinary Form of the mass: let’s look at what you’re calling abuses.
COMMUNION ON THE HAND: not an abuse as long as it is approved by the local Ordinary.
EXTRAORDINARY MINISTERS OF HOLY COMMUNION: not an abuse as longs they are installed by the pastor or a major religious superior who has the same authority as a bishop, even if he’s not a bishop.
NO ALTAR: There is not such thing as a church without an altar.
NOVUS ORDO: Latin for New Order, does not mean new form of the mass. Order is an ancient word in the Roman Church. It is used to mean rule. That’s why we call some religious communities, religious orders, because they follow a rule. Those that do not have a rule, because they were never given one, are called religious congregations. The Sacrament of Holy Orders is called such, because each rank of the sacrament has rules and functions that are proper to that rank. A bishop is called an Ordinary because he sets the rules of his diocese. A religious superior of men is called an Ordinary, because he sets the rules for his brothers. The liturgical guide is called the Ordo, because it give you the rules for the LIturgy of the Hours and the Liturgy of the Mass. Novus ordo was a Latin phrase that means the new rules for the mass.
It was Pope Benedict XVI who renamed the Pauline and the Tridentine masses FORMS. He wants us to understant that they are exactly the same Latin Rite mass in different forms. But intrinsically, nothing is different about them. The difference is external, not internal. Unlike the the rites. They are different externally and internally. The Latin Rite and the Melchite are not the same externally. We can see the differences. They are not the same internally either. The hidden things such as the prayers of the priest, the canon, the liturgical calendar and even the words of the Creed are different. Most Eastern Rites do not have the Filioque. They can use it, but do not have to do so. There are so many internal differences and external differences between the Eastern Catholics and the Roman Catholics as to make them different rites. Even among the Eastern Catholics there are five rites. In the Roman Catholic Church there are four rites and five traditions.
Even when we had just the Tridentine Mass, it was not a universal practice in the Roman Church. It was the most common form in the Roman Church. This is true, but it was never the only form in the Roman Church. There were the Latin Rite (Tridentine), Dominican Rite, Carthuisan Rite, and Maronite Rite.
Within the Latin Rite or the Tridentine mass, there were traditions:
Franciscan, Carmelite, Benedictine, Augustinian,and Roman. Each of them had variations.
Among the Franciscans you did not have kneelers, because we always stood during the canon. Communion on your knees was up to the superior of the house to decide. You never used Gregorian chant, because it was forbidden by St. Francis. It was introduced by Vatican II. You never had a distinction betwee the priest and the non ordained. It was forbidden by St. Benedict and by St. Francis. In Franciscan houses the altar was in the center of the sanctuary, but there were choir stalls on either side of the sanctuary so that all the friars were on the sanctuary at the same time. The laity sat on the pews facing the altar. The priest celebrated with his back to the laity, but the friars were looking at him sideways. It was only the chapels after Vatican II that took the choir stalls out of the sanctuary.
If you ask the Carmelites they’ll tell you about what they did in their houses that was different from what the laity saw in the parish. The problem here is that the laity often thinks that the Tridentine mass was homogenious. That is not the case. There was one way of celebrating it when lay people were present and another when it was only religious men present. When only religious men were present, whether they were priests or brothers, the rules that governed were the rules of the order. This was approved by Pope Innocent III who erected the exempt orders. These orders were exempt from many of the changes made to the mass by Trent and Pius V. They still enjoy exemptions today.
You have to be very careful to tell people that the EF is not as consistent as they think. It was never so uniform as to not have variation. It was never the only form of the mass celebrated in the Roman Church, even in parishes. If you had a parish run by Dominicans, you did not have the traditional Latin Rite mass at that parish. You had the Dominican Rite at that parish. The differences were small, but there were differences. St. Dominic built them in to protect his friars from creating a distinction between the friars who were priests and the friars who were lay. Mendicants have always avoided this distinction. This distinction was introduced in the late 1800s. It was accidental, not intentional.
Let’s keep it honest. We cannot prove or win an argument by telling people only part of the story. Yes, there were many abuses in committed by priests who celebrated the Tridentine mass. The biggest abuse or disrespect was racing through it. In some rectories they had running jokes about which priest could get through the morning mass the fastest.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
P
ProVobis
Guest
But that’s exactly what Paul VI called it.
According to “The Reform of the Roman Liturgy” by Monsignor Klaus Gamber:
In the first edition Paul VI called the Novus Ordo “**the Lord’s Supper **or the holy gathering or assembly of the people of God, as they come together, into one [body], with the priest as presider and taking on the persona of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.”
His signature appears on the document.
Later, he was forced (by the “traditionalists”) to change the definition but he didn’t change the texts in any way to reflect the sacrificial aspect. His intentions seemed to be clear and that’s why we battling each other here.
PS. There was also a subtle change of the role of the priest that didn’t go unnoticed either. But we can discuss that under another thread.
- Status