Bro JR, I’m talking about priests who want to pray the EF. If a priest doesn’t want to pray the EF, that’s fine with me. I don’t want to assist a Mass with a priest who doesn’t want to pray it.
But in cases where those who want the EF have a qualified priest, the UE implies “let them have it”
If a priest wants to celebrate the EF and there is no canonical impediment, there is no reason not to let it happen.
BrJR, do offer simple explanations for dumb people?
UE for Dummies?
You seem patient and knowledgable, and despite my reading, reading and reading I, as a layperson, don’t get the BASICS of how or if this will impact our parish or diocese and ultimately the Church.
Specifically: how will the
OF change?
This does not affect the Ordinary Form at all. The Ordinary Form will follow the revised missal and rubrics that will take effect the First Sunday of Advent 2011.
Like, we will kneel rather than stand?
You continue to kneel and stand at the proper times in the rubrics. When there is an option, such as receiving Holy Communion, that’s up to you. You can kneel or stand, unless the priest asks you not to kneel for a legitimate reason. For example, we have an older priest who has a tough time bending and some people, especially women, are short. When they kneel, it’s hard on his back. Those are legitimate reasons. Other than that, it’s really the choice of the communicant.
On the tongue, not in hand?
Communion on the hand is an indult, in other words, an exception from the rule. It’s really up to the local diocesan bishop or the local religious superior to decide whether he wants to keep it or not.
I know some of the responses will be as from the 1962 Missal, right? Or am I way off base?
The responses will be according to the missal for the Ordinary Form approved by Pope John Paul II in 2000. The problem in the English speaking countries is that the translations are inaccurate. For example, instead of “And with your Spirit” our missals says “And also with you.” Our missal says “one in being with the Father” and the other language groups say “consubstantial with the Father” Our translation of the Creed begins with “We believe” instead of “I beleive”. A profession of faith is made by individuals in communion with each other, not by a collective.
I’m not sure how this mess happened. I was in the USA until 1998. I left to go to the foreign missions. When I came back in 2002, the wording had changed. I knew there has been a revision by Pope John Paul II, but he did not do anything that dramatic. I was in the Amazon and in the Quichua translation, the revisions of 2000 were not that many. I came back to the USA and the revisions were many more than I had seen. Don’t ask me what happened. I have no idea. I have heard that the translators were trying for language that flows more smoothly. I have to admit “consubstantial with the Father” requires at least two-years of colleg to pronounce it correctly when you’re saying it in chorus and tyring to keep the pace with everyone else.
Also, I had hoped EF would be offered at our parish; while I get both forms are valid I probably hoped it more because our music makes me cringe, squirm and think uncharitable thoughts. So EF isn’t necessarily going to be implemented … right? I can ask my priest but it’s up to him, not the parish ‘right’ to have EF, correct?
If a group asks the pastor to celebrate the EF and if the pastor has a priest who can do it, and if there is no conflict with schedules or financial concerns, there is no reason why the pastor should decline. If the pastor does not have a priest, but another priest, with faculties, volunteers to do it, he should be allowed to celebrate it. The only exception to this rule is if the church, chapel or oratory belongs to a religious order. In that case, if the superior says that you cannot use his church, then that’s the end of the line. You have to find another place.
If you would be so kind as to spell out for me a few basic points, you would be contributing to the formation of our youth as well, since I have NO idea how to simply explain this to my tween.
(Note: as a mother, I will use guilt as needed. I hope it worked here
)
What you have to explain to your tween is that the Latin mass can be celebrated two different ways and that they are equally good and equally holy. No one is going to get to heaven faster by going to one instead of the other. The priest and people in the one mass are not holier or more reverent than the priest and the people at the other mass. We need to take this competition out of it (My mass is better than your mass). The competion is nonsense and childish.
You can explain to the tween that both are part of being a Roman Catholic and that one form is older than the other. You may explain that older form is always in Latin and the newer form can be in Latin or any other language.
He may like to know that the old form is no longer the norm; therefore, the Church calls it the extraordinary form. It’s not extraordinary, as in WOW!!!. It’s extraordinary as in “out of the ordinary”. It can be a Wow experience for some people and a bummer for others. It’s still the extraordinary form.
He can learn that the newer form is the ordinary form, because it’s the form that most churches use. Again, ordinary does not mean common or dumb. Ordinary means “the usual”. For some people this is helpful and for others it is boring as heck.
Then you can encourage him or her to attend both and adopt the form that best meets his spiritual needs. We have to remember that our spiritual needs evolve as we grow older and our life circumstances change.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Thank you again!