What should the Church do next with the Liturgy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roman_Army
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Frank Roman:
I think we should not allow as many “options” in the New Mass.

In order of importance.
  1. NO RECIEVING ON THE HAND thats what Aryans did to show they weren’t Catholic, along with the Protestants.
  2. Face East- don’t make the priest turn his back on the tabernacle and crucifix! The Sacrafice of our Lord was to the Father not us!
  3. CORRECT Translations
“Qui pro vobis et pro multis.” For you and for** many **.

“Lord I am not worthy **that thou should come under my roof **but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

“**Behold **the Lamb of God” not “This is”

“for our good and for the good of all his **HOLY **Church”
  1. Enforce Silence in the presence of Our Lord.
    Silence is Golden! latin-mass-society.org/canon.htm
Click to expand...
And don’t forget, “And with your spirit” instead of, “and also with you.”
 
Frank Roman:
Face East- don’t make the priest turn his back on the tabernacle and crucifix! T
Click to expand...
There are two points here:
  1. Ideally the tabernacle should not be on the altar behind the priest.
  2. Ideally the tabernacle should be empty. This is because ideally all at Mass should receive from the species consecrated at that Mass (and all that which is consecrated should be consumed). The original reason for reservation was for the sick and later for Adoration.
    The tabernacle should not have the central place on the sanctuary where Mass is being celebrated, but in the words of the GIRM in a place that is “truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated and suitable for prayer.”
 
I voted “Other”.

Here is what should be done, IMHO:

A) Make sure that Vatican II is properly adhered to. This means displacing the “Spirit of Vatican II” hogwash that replaced the council with the actual council itself. In other words, priests facing away from the people, Latin as the primary liturgical language, Gregorian chant given pride of place, proper iconography and sacred art within the church, the Tabernacle in the center front of the church, etc.

B) Crack down on liturgical abuse. I mean get rid of it entirely. Brook no opposition.

C) Reform the god-awful 1973 ICEL missal with a proper translation that adheres to the actual Latin text.

D) Remove all barriers to the Tridentine rite, and re-institute it into every parish in the world, giving it equal side-by-side place with the Novus Ordo everywhere. Each parish should have at least one Novus Ordo and one Tridentine Mass every weekend.

E) Fire every self-proclaimed “liturgical expert” in the world, and put an end to liturgical “innovation”, “progressiveness” and experimentation. You stick to the rubrics, and that’s the end of it.

F) Burn every post-Vatican II songbook in the United States of America, and return to decent congregational music until some proper material can be written. 40 years of “Kumbayah” is enough.

It’ll never happen in my lifetime, of course, but as Bing Crosby once said, “I can dream, can’t I?”
 
40.png
steve99:
There are two points here:
  1. Ideally the tabernacle should not be on the altar behind the priest.
  2. Ideally the tabernacle should be empty. This is because ideally all at Mass should receive from the species consecrated at that Mass (and all that which is consecrated should be consumed). The original reason for reservation was for the sick and later for Adoration.
    The tabernacle should not have the central place on the sanctuary where Mass is being celebrated, but in the words of the GIRM in a place that is “truly noble, prominent, readily visible, beautifully decorated and suitable for prayer.”
Click to expand...
Wrong.

From the GIRM:
  1. It is more in keeping with the meaning of the sign that the tabernacle in which the Most Holy Eucharist is reserved not be on an altar on which Mass is celebrated.
Click to expand...
Consequently, it is preferable that the tabernacle be located, according to the judgment of the Diocesan Bishop,
Click to expand...

  1. *]Either in the sanctuary, apart from the altar of celebration, in a form and place more appropriate, not excluding on an old altar no longer used for celebration (cf. above, no. 303);
    *]Or even in some chapel suitable for the faithful’s private adoration and prayer and which is organically connected to the church and readily visible to the Christian faithful.
Click to expand...

  1. and
    1. In accordance with traditional custom, near the tabernacle a special lamp, fueled by oil or wax, should be kept alight to indicate and honor the presence of Christ.
    Click to expand...
    Why, pray tell, would you keep a lamp alight to indicate the presence of Christ if the tabernacle was empty? :confused:
 
  1. Ideally the tabernacle should be empty.
Click to expand...
The sacrament has to be available for the parish priests to make calls to sick and (particularly) dying parishioners, I think its better for the hosts to be reserved in the church as opposed to the priests’ office or room, where the hosts might be comingled with unconsecrated hosts, or be more subject to theft.
 
Hi. Dr. Bombay,

I don’t understand why you say I am wrong. The piece you quoted from the GIRM seems to confirm the point I made concerning the tabernacle not being behind the priest, not disprove it. It says it should either be to the side (i.e. not behind) or in another chapel.

My point about the empty tabenacle was that*** Ideally*** the tabernacle would be empty because we are coming to Mass for the purpose of Christ coming into our prescence in the form of the Eucharist. I know this is not practical because of the unknown numbers of communicants and the need to reserve for the sick. The Bishops say the norm is that communicants receive the species consecrated at that Mass, not from those reserved in the tabernacle.

Thus the focus for the Mass is on the altar not on the tabernacle.
 
There needs to be a missal that people can follow. There
is so much skipping around and so many choices the priest can use for parts of the Mass that non Catholics feel disoriented. In the Wanderer, there is a column called “What does the prayer really say?” The author explains the Latin, and then the ICEL translation of the collect. The Latin is so full of meaning; the ICEL is a mere paraphrase. We need more accurate translations, less choice of prayers for the priests, and the some of the Mass in Latin. The sense of awe and reverence needs to be restored.
 
40.png
steve99:
Hi. Dr. Bombay,

I don’t understand why you say I am wrong. The piece you quoted from the GIRM seems to confirm the point I made concerning the tabernacle not being behind the priest, not disprove it. It says it should either be to the side (i.e. not behind) or in another chapel.

My point about the empty tabenacle was that*** Ideally*** the tabernacle would be empty because we are coming to Mass for the purpose of Christ coming into our prescence in the form of the Eucharist. I know this is not practical because of the unknown numbers of communicants and the need to reserve for the sick. The Bishops say the norm is that communicants receive the species consecrated at that Mass, not from those reserved in the tabernacle.

Thus the focus for the Mass is on the altar not on the tabernacle.
Click to expand...
Dude, the GIRM is very clear, as I highlighted when I quoted from it. The tabernacle can be located on “an old altar no longer used for celebration.” In most churches, this would be on the old High Altar which is in the middle of the sanctuary and directly behind the free-standing altar.

And I agree that the norm is for communicants to receive the hosts consecrated at that Mass. But there is nothing that says the tabernacle should be empty, as you claim. That is neither the ideal nor the norm. People should be able to walk into a Catholic church anytime, not just at Mass, and be in the Eucharistic presence of Jesus which would be impossible if the tabernacle was empty.

Or so it seems to me… :tiphat:
 
40.png
hollingsworth:
Simply junk the hideous rite!
Click to expand...
The “hideous rite” was what evangelized me into the Church. It is loved by many people. It is also the normative Mass of the Church. In my parish, it is celebrated reverently, without abuse. Your above post only serves to prove my assertion that it is SOME of those who advocate for the TLM who heap scornful abuse on the Mass of Paul VI and that almost none of those of us who love the MPVI would ever dare to mock the TLM. Many, if not most of us, support the idea of a more generous opportunity for the celebration of the TLM. Your disparaging of the Mass of Paul VI might cause some to rethink that position.
 
Dr. Bombay: The TLM will never again be the norm in the Latin Rite. This precious gem will be lovingly preserved by small groups of dedicated priests and attended by people who foster a love and devotion to it in themselves and their children. We do not need an English version of the TLM. We do not need a TLM with the priest facing the people. The TLM is fine just the way it is and just where it is. It has found its niche in the Church and should be left alone.

A “niche,” Dr. Bombay? Baloney! The “TLM” as you and others refer to it is the organically developed Mass of all ages from at least the time of Gregory the Great (604AD) and before. Don’t get too clever, sir. You and others of your admirers on this forum would be satisfied that the TLM might be relegated to “small groups of dedicated priests” and attended by equally small groups of the faithful. But the TLM will eventually triumph, and triumph completely over Paul VI’s Masonic Protestant “Lord’s Table.” Don’t worry about Mahoney and other certified heretics in the Novus Ordo getting their hands on the TLM. They’ll be outta here soon enough. And probably a few of them will end up in the penetentiary where they belong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top