Who here is getting tired of the same old same old?

[odile53]

To try to get this a little back on track, I understand that someone who likes the EF Mass would be welcome on this forum, as would someone who likes the OF but is interested in the EF.

Actually, I happen to like both forms! Sometimes I’m in the mood for Latin and the traditional Mass, with all its sense of awe. Sometimes I’m in the mood for the more understandable OF Mass. I am registered in and give financial and prayer support to my local parish, and attend Mass there most Sundays. However, I attend weekday Mass at a Jesuit run parish that exclusively celebrates the OF Mass (they also have daily confession hours as well as daily Adoration; initially, the most important thing at first was that they offer a daily Mass that is easy for me to get to after work but I’ve really begun to experience the graces of daily Adoration and probably feel the most “at home” there.) There are two parishes that offer the EF. One parish has a priest that seems a little smug, and seems to be going for the land speed record in Latin (and yes, I took the language for 3 1/2 years in school, and can pick most of it out.) He’s always way ahead of the choir when it is a Missa Cantata.

The other parish that offers the EF Mass sticks to the Low Mass. No schola, no huge choir. And no racing the clock in Latin, either.

Frankly I wish I could take the most attractive features of each church I attend, take the features of a couple of churches I attended when I was in New York, and fuse them all together and place them at my very friendly and welcoming, and very nearby, local parish!

But nobody seems to be consulting me----BWAHHHH!

 

[Cojuanco]

Me, I have nothing against either form. I like to argue that “The Mass is the Mass is the Mass”. I like both.

 

[Chris_McAvoy]

I could never imagine myself asking someone who prefers the OF “what are you saying? I’m against the Church and not with the times? Are you saying I’m an extremist, sedevacantist or stuffy just because I like tradition and the EF? Are you saying I don’t accept Vatican II?” It doesn’t sound right because in truth all these accusations are only one way. Those who prefer the EF are always on the DEFENSIVE because somehow OF church goers feel on edge. By the same logic though I am not in error and it’s a good question to ask…yea right, it’s simply not needed because it’s a loaded question. You don’t ask those kinds of questions…

Deep down inside nearly everyone who goes to the Ordinary form secretly knows that “things were tampered with” and that it feels more secular than it did a long time ago. There are evergrowing widespread doubts as to how authentic it is. This means that people need reassurance that things are alright. It is an attempt reassure themselves that their illusion is reality and their doubts are unfounded.

As in the Emperors new clothes, a frequent analogy here.

The new translation of the mass only reinforces these feelings, because by the Church promoting a new translation it is acknowledging that there was a serious error in the 1973 translation.

This is the transitional phase the Church is in. More certain, more confident times may be on the horizon.

 

[At_Trent]

It speaks to the heart of the issue though, and that is the heart of the receiver. People would not judge my reverence based on the cane, then why look at my reverence at all?

In my heart I profess the belief in the Real Presence, and that I am consummating my relationship with Christ Jesus through the Sacrament. You would think that’s good enough, cane or no cane.

(Full disclosure; I receive standing, on the tongue currently. Pre-cane I would genuflect before receiving, and receive standing on the tongue).

Fair enough, all I’m saying is that just because I feel the norm should be COTT, kneeling, and also say it’s more reverent than standing, doesn’t mean beyond a shadow of a doubt I am judgmental of those who receive CITH standing.

I don’t think those who have never been in a parish where COTT is the norm are irreverent if CITH is all they have ever known. And if they are aware that we can receive on the tongue, kneeling, and continue to receive CITH, that’s ok too. The Church says it’s ok.

But I think that when discussing the origins of CITH in the EF, it’s not out of line at all to point out that those who had a hand in the novelty of CITH were guilty of liturgical abuse, and later, after Rome said no, disobedience. Of course once the indult was finally granted, there no longer was any disobedience.

 

[TrueLight]

But I think that when discussing the origins of CITH in the EF, it’s not out of line at all to point out that those who had a hand in the novelty of CITH were guilty of liturgical abuse, and later, after Rome said no, disobedience. Of course once the indult was finally granted, there no longer was any disobedience.

Good point and I guess that’s what I was getting at. Why when given a choice did people choose one over the other?

 

[Sirach2]

At Trent:

But I think that when discussing the origins of CITH in the EF, it’s not out of line at all to point out that those who had a hand in the novelty of CITH were guilty of liturgical abuse, and later, after Rome said no, disobedience. Of course once the indult was finally granted, there no longer was any disobedience.

This allegation came up in L&S recently, and when challenged to produce the facts, the poster making the allegations disappeared. Apparently there are no facts. Let’s put matters right, please. I find ample information to discredit this view.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm
　
The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion.

1. Bishops allowing introduction of the new way of receiving communion are requested to send this congregation after six months a report on the result of its concession.

Point #7 indicates that this was a permission granted for a temporary period, followed later by the indult. There is no indication that Bishops took liberties in disobedience of Rome.

 

[TrueLight]

This allegation came up in L&S recently, and when challenged to produce the facts, the poster making the allegations disappeared. Apparently there are no facts. Let’s put matters right, please. I find ample information to discredit this view.
ewtn.com/expert/answers/c…on_in_hand.htm

The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion.

Do you know what led to this, though? Of course the document would not say, “Because of your disobedience…”

Does anyone have any references regarding the disobedience? Because I’ve also heard that CITH came about because of disobedience.

 

[Sirach2]

True Lilght:

Do you know what led to this, though? Of course the document would not say, “Because of your disobedience…”

Of course not. On the other hand, neither would the Church succomb with an indult simply because a few bishops took matters in their own hand. This would make the Church subservient to disobedient clergy, yes? That would put Her at the whims of falsehood, rather than uphold truth.

Since the truth is that the Church issued the indult, it was certainly not due to willy-nilly following the pressures put upon Her to give in to their wishes.

 

[ProVobis]

Do you know what led to this, though? Of course the document would not say, “Because of your disobedience…”

In a strange way it does. CITH is still condemned by the Church unless some conditions are met. In addition to having 2/3 of bishops in your country approve it, one of the other conditions was that it has to already be the practice in that country, or something to that effect.

 

[Sirach2]

Source, Pro Vobis?

 

[Poor_Soul]

I personally never understood communion in the hand. Mostly because it was never practiced in the parishes I have been in. I don’t hold anything against the people that practice it; I just never saw the reason to do it. I always felt that the paten under the chin and communion on the tongue was the best way to ensure that Christ’s Real Presence doesn’t touch the floor. I mean since one drop of His blood can save an entire world a thousand times over then shouldn’t we want to use a method which does a better job of ensuring that none of it is lost? There a ton of little particles that fall off the host and onto the paten. Now just think how many little particles are on your hands that you do not consume and which get lost. Then just think that every little particle contains all of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It’s just too scary for me to do communion in the hand. Heck I dont even like communion on the tongue unless there is a paten.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

I personally never understood communion in the hand. Mostly because it was never practiced in the parishes I have been in. I don’t hold anything against the people that practice it; I just never saw the reason to do it. I always felt that the paten under the chin and communion on the tongue was the best way to ensure that Christ’s Real Presence doesn’t touch the floor. I mean since one drop of His blood can save an entire world a thousand times over then shouldn’t we want to use a method which does a better job of ensuring that none of it is lost? There a ton of little particles that fall off the host and onto the paten. Now just think how many little particles are on your hands that you do not consume and which get lost. Then just think that every little particle contains all of Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. It’s just too scary for me to do communion in the hand. Heck I dont even like communion on the tongue unless there is a paten.

And if there is no parish around that uses a paten…then what?

 

[TrueLight]

And if there is no parish around that uses a paten…then what?

Annabelle,

I think you’re taking more of a personal viewpoint. The point, at least from my perspective, is not that those who attend churches that don’t do COTT should go out of their way to kneel (unless they want to). The point is that why can’t parishes use patens?

 

[Poor_Soul]

And if there is no parish around that uses a paten…then what?

Then on the tongue my friend.

Annabelle,

I think you’re taking more of a personal viewpoint. The point, at least from my perspective, is not that those who attend churches that don’t do COTT should go out of their way to kneel (unless they want to). The point is that why can’t parishes use patens?

Yes this is what I was getting at. The Eastern Catholics communion to me should be how we all should do it but since that’s not the case I think the paten and on the tongue is the best method so then the particles that fall off the host go back into the priest’s chalice and are then consumed. I think everyone should speak to a priest that performs the TLM and ask them how many particles of the Eucharist there are left on the paten after communion. I think we would all be surprised and inspired to request that communion be with a paten and on the tongue unless extreme cases called for something different.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Annabelle,

I think you’re taking more of a personal viewpoint. The point, at least from my perspective, is not that those who attend churches that don’t do COTT should go out of their way to kneel (unless they want to). The point is that why can’t parishes use patens?

No…I was just curious when responding to this poster. None of the parishes in my area use a paten. Which doesn’t bother me because as I stated before I receive CITH. And I’ve seen people receive COTT both standing and kneeling but with no paten…probably because there are not enough altar servers around to help with that…which would get us into the whole altar girl discussion…wow…we’ve come full circle Throw in a Latin discussion and you almost have it…

My question was just…would you receive COTT if there was no paten as they stated their uneasiness with it.

 

[At_Trent]

But I think that when discussing the origins of CITH in the EF, it’s not out of line at all to point out that those who had a hand in the novelty of CITH were guilty of liturgical abuse, and later, after Rome said no, disobedience. Of course once the indult was finally granted, there no longer was any disobedience.

EF should have read OF…my bad

Good point and I guess that’s what I was getting at. Why when given a choice did people choose one over the other?

I’m not sure how it was introduced parish to parish. I suspect if a pastor was in favor of CITH, he just instructed the people to receive that way. I wasn’t going to Mass during the transition.

 

[At_Trent]

Church says we should do a gesture of reverence when receiving standing. So if one is not receiving kneeling, then one should bow or genuflect.

I’ve noticed most do at the OF parish I attend on weekdays.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Fair enough, all I’m saying is that just because I feel the norm should be COTT, kneeling, and also say it’s more reverent than standing, doesn’t mean beyond a shadow of a doubt I am judgmental of those who receive CITH standing.

I don’t think those who have never been in a parish where COTT is the norm are irreverent if CITH is all they have ever known. And if they are aware that we can receive on the tongue, kneeling, and continue to receive CITH, that’s ok too. The Church says it’s ok.

But I think that when discussing the origins of CITH in the EF, it’s not out of line at all to point out that those who had a hand in the novelty of CITH were guilty of liturgical abuse, and later, after Rome said no, disobedience. Of course once the indult was finally granted, there no longer was any disobedience.

The issue here is the word “more”. If one is “more” reverent, then that means the other is “less” reverent. If one is more than the other, then the other is less than the first one.

I think if people follow the instructions carefully and bow or genuflect before receiving standing, then there is no such thing as less reverence.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’ve noticed most do at the OF parish I attend on weekdays.

This is what many who receive standing is guilty off, skipping on the gesture of reverence as instructed by the Church. I mean, gestures of reverence is such a big Church tradition, even Eastern Christians do it! The Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholics would kiss the hand of the priest even if they receive CITH. Not to mention they purify their hands with incense smoke before receiving CITH. Some Byzantine traditions have people kissing the chalice after receiving. I think its fair to ask Roman Catholics who receive standing to bow or genuflect.

 

[At_Trent]

This allegation came up in L&S recently, and when challenged to produce the facts, the poster making the allegations disappeared.

It comes up because it’s true, and just because the person who mentions it disappears doesn’t mean the truth disappears.

CITH was not introduced into the liturgy by Rome initially. It only came to be tolerated via indult after it was apparent those who promoted CITH and practiced it, were not going to stop.