YOUR N.O. Mass

[CradleCath]

Even though I usually attend the EF Mass on Sunday, our OF Mass:

• Celebrated Ad Orientum
• Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei usually in Latin and Chanted.
• Eucharistic Prayer I or III used based on the priest.
• Communion on the tongue via intinction (GIRM 287) while kneeling at the communion rail.
• No EMHC. Only priest/deacons distribute communion.

WOW!! I am impressed. While I have never received (or seen offered) Communion by intinction according to GIRM 287…I can certainly see the advantages. No need for 27 EEM’s doing it that way.

I can’t tell you (& everyone who posted the way their Novus Ordo Masses are done) how much I’ve enjoyed reading about your liturgies. I can definitely see that some of you have very faithful parishes. You have surely given me hope that dignity, reverence & fidelity to Rome are on the upswing. God Bless!!!

 

[weepixie71]

Even though I usually attend the EF Mass on Sunday, our OF Mass:

• Celebrated Ad Orientum
• Gloria, Sanctus, and Agnus Dei usually in Latin and Chanted.
• Eucharistic Prayer I or III used based on the priest.
• Communion on the tongue via intinction (GIRM 287) while kneeling at the communion rail.
• No EMHC. Only priest/deacons distribute communion.

i hope your realize how truly blessed you are to have a OM that completely with the way vat II originally intended it to be.

i hope it continues and like cradle cath you give me hope also

 

[ncjohn]

Your words seem to relegate Church disciplines to the area of the unimportant & frivilous. They aren’t you know. Church disciplines are defined by the author of “Institutiones Juris Publici Ecclesiastici” (Elements of Public Ecclesiastical Law), Felice Cardinal Cavagnis. He described Church Disciplines as **“conduct conforming itself to faith”. **

I wasn’t in any way saying that they come and go “easily”. I was only saying that unlike dogma and doctrine, they do change and that Popes can and have changed them through the years as they saw the need.

That being said, the sacrileges that I mentioned in my post were not Church “Disciplines” that were changed by the council or the Pope. Cott & the allowance of only boys serving in the sanctuary, were in fact, Church disciplines but the rest of the abuses were not. (btw., I gave my opinion on the circumstances surrounding the abrogation of these disciplines…but you didn’t refer to said circumstances in your reply to me???)

I’m a little confused at exactly what you’re trying to say here. I addressed things separately in my own comments as there were at least two different classes of things that you noted. Some things are indeed abuses, and my point was that no Pope has approved abuses and there are mechanisms to deal with actual abuses where they exist.

The other items however, like CITH and female altar servers, are NOT abuses. Your comment that I ignored your discussion about circumstances is not true. I simply commented that HOW they came into being isn’t ultimately relevant, however interesting that history may be. The only thing that is relevant is that they have in fact been approved by one or the other of the Popes, which makes them valid and licit. No individual approved action needs to be in accordance with what was proposed by Vatican 2, or any other Council, to be valid; it only needs to have the approval of the Pope, which those things do.

Neither the Popes nor the council of Trent, nor Vatican II gave assent to the use of EXTRAordinary Eucharistic Ministers in ordinary situations.

What constitutes ordinary or extraordinary situations is a matter of interpretation for which the Holy See and the Bishops get to make the decision. There may indeed be situations where there are “too many” though my experience is that the argument is really just that there shouldn’t be any at all. If there are too many, it is an abuse and again there are mechanisms for dealing with that. Just the fact that they exist however is not an abuse since the Pope approved that.

I don’t believe that either the council or the Holy Fathers envisioned a Mass where Fr. Billy Bob presides at the “Table” while the Band of Piano, Guitars, and Drums plays “Blowin’ in the Wind”. Yet that has happened more often than you seem to realize.

You love throwing out the idea that churches are filled with rock bands playing secular music. Maybe that happens somewhere some time but I have never encountered any such thing. I have seen Lifeteen Masses and even they never played secular music though one may not like the choice of instruments. Again though, if what is happening is felt to be out of line, there are mechanisms for dealing with actual abuses. Ultimately though it is the bishop’s call not ours based on our personal preferences and sensibilities. I too would complain if someone actually played “Blowin’ in the Wind” at my Mass.

Neither the Popes nor the council gave assent to the complete abrogation of Latin & Gregorian Chant in our Masses, to the ad orientem/populus position of the “presider”, nor did they give the clergy the right to change the words of the liturgy at will.

Actually, one of the implementation documents did in fact distinguish between Masses done in Latin and Masses done in the verncacular as to how much Latin or Chant should be used. It also noted that trying to do Chant if a choir is not equipped to do so is not recommended as poorly done Chant would be just as sacriligeous. I’ve heard bad choirs and soloists attempt Latin hymns or Ave Maria and know firsthand that there are places where sticking to what the choir is capable of is important. No, they shouldn’t be totally abrogated, and I’ve not personally encountered any parishes where they were though some only use it during Lent and Advent.

As to the *ad orientem *position, again one of the implementation documents and what Pope Paul approved do specify what we currently have.

Changing the words of the liturgy is of course an abuse and again has mechanisms in place to deal with where it is found.

(continued)

 

[ncjohn]

(continued from previous)

I’m no fan of council, but it was a true & valid council that was hijacked by those who “in the spirit of Vatican II” have brought us to a low point in the history of Catholicism…

You are certainly entitled to that opinion but it is certainly not objective fact by any stretch of the imagination. Personally, I find the stabilization process after this Council to be a minor blip as compared to the years of buying and selling church offices, right up to the Papacy, or things like the Inquisition. The periods after Councils always have a period of adjustment. From what I’ve read it took about 100 years for things to stabilize after Trent.

Now, you may prefer the more liberal way, however, the Mass must follow the truth as it was given to us by Vatican II & it doesn’t.

I probably give more latitude than you might, though I’m not sure what you might be implying by a “more liberal way”. I want my Mass orthodox but without necessarily being stifling, and believe that legitimate adaptations in such things as music can be made within limits to work with the parish culture.

I fully disagree though with your comment that the Mass does not “follow the truth as it was given to us by Vatican II”. There is no legitimate practice in the Mass that is contrary to Vatican II, nor could there be. The disciplines are defined and approved by the Popes and are not based on Council directives as no Council or previous Pope is binding on a future Pope in matters of discipline. There is no “truth” given to us by Vatican II regarding the Mass that is not part of the Mass even if, as I previously noted, the final form might be slightly different than the guidelines that SC had anticipated.

I get the idea that your actual argument is that the Mass should look exactly like the vague guidelines in SC, though even that document explicitly recognized that it wouldn’t be the case. And that anything that doesn’t look like those original guidelines is untrue to the faith and the Council in some way. That is just not the way the the Church or the liturgy works however.

We continue to see adjustments being made to bring things to the proper balance, though apparently not quickly enough for your tastes and perhaps not far enough. Redemptionis Sacramentum dealt with a great many of the obvious abuses and there have been documents issued dealing with music and the coming new translation. That doesn’t mean we’ll have 100% perfect Masses at some point, but then we didn’t have 100% perfect Masses before the Council either, which is why the Council realized that a new approach was needed.

Peace,

 

[CradleCath]

QUOTE=ncjohn;4703037](continued from previous)

You are certainly entitled to that opinion but it is certainly not objective fact by any stretch of the imagination. Personally, I find the stabilization process after this Council to be a minor blip as compared to the years of buying and selling church offices, right up to the Papacy, or things like the Inquisition. The periods after Councils always have a period of adjustment. From what I’ve read it took about 100 years for things to stabilize after Trent.
I probably give more latitude than you might, though I’m not sure what you might be implying by a “more liberal way”. I want my Mass orthodox but without necessarily being stifling, and believe that legitimate adaptations in such things as music can be made within limits to work with the parish culture.

Oh MY, once again I return to my computer & this time find **2 ** posts challenging my belief that the Novus Ordo that many of us celebrate today is not the Mass envisioned by the council & the Popes.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into one of those long threads where each person states & RESTATES their opinion 20 times.

So, let’s just agree to disagree. As I said in an earlier post, I’m no fan of Vatican II. I tend to agree with one of our Cardinals, I believe that it was Cardinal Manning, that “to convoke a General Council, except when absolutely demanded by necessity, is to tempt God”. I also believe that the liberals, especially members of the hierarchy & periti from Austria, Germany, Switzerland…the countries around the Rhine river…hijacked the council.

That said, nowhere in the “implementation documents”… 16 of them…does the Church call for:

**Masses with no Latin.
**No chant.
**No Communion rail.
**No Confessionals
**No Altar, just a table

(IOW. the Protestantizing of the Mass)

I do believe that the ecumenical council, Vatican II, though it defined no doctrine, made no ex-Cathedra statements…was a valid council & the Novus Ordo that I speak of above does not show the respect due to the Fathers of the Council, the Popes who were involved. I don’t believe that this Mass is what they envisioned, I don’t think it’s faithful to Vatican II. If I did, I’d dislike the results of the council even more than I do.

Now that I’ve restated my position re the Mass of Vatican II, I’ll bow out of this “conversation”, before it becomes yet another thread filled with repetition.

 

[plefe]

I know that…but I am. If someone opens their mouth to receive that way (not kneeling, you understand…for that would distrupt the flow of the Communion line)…but just standing in front of the Priest with tongue extended to receive, the priest just looks beyond them & gestures for the next person to step forward.

This is the point of the poll. How many really attend the Novus Ordo as it was promulgated by the Council?

BTW. I left out an option to answer “none of the above”. Sp. just put that in your post if it applies.

THANKS

I hope I’m not intruding, but I’m one of those Catholics who disrupt the communion line by knealing when accepting communion on the tongue. I have not been chastized for it and pray every day that I may be an example to the people that God’s grace is something that I continue to strive for. Amen.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

I love my parish and the Mass that is celebrated there. It is exclusively the Ordinary Form, but every Mass is reverant and beautifully said.

We currently have a PV with a beautiful voice who chants at almost every Mass he says. (Never at the 6:15 am Mass. ) Our other priests also chant, but not as often, possibly because they don’t have the voice for it.

We do hear more than one cannon. I don’t know how the priest decides which he will say. It seems that preference and the occasion of the Mass (optional solemnity, etc.) are involved. Our visting priests from other countries (not mission priests here in the US) will often use the shorter cannon, perhaps because they are not native English speakers.

We don’t hear Latin at ordinary daily or Sunday Masses very often, but it is used at special Masses especially with the choir.

Our church was built after VII, but we have traditional confessionals and a stone altar (not a wooden table). No altar rails though, but receiving on the tongue is encouraged. In fact our CCD program teaches how to receive on the tongue exclusively.

 

[Bbigam]

At our Sunday choir Mass, the one I attend, Father almost always uses EP 1, the Roman Canon. We always chant the Kyrie in Greek, and in Lent and Advent we use Latin for the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and sometimes the Pater Noster. The other two weekend Masses are recited Masses and generally no Latin is used and EP 2 is used, and the same goes for weekday Masses. Occasionally the choir will chant some Latin after Communion.

I don’t think Father ever uses the EPs for Reconciliation or children, but I have heard them (licitly) at other parishes. I’ve also heard EP 3 a number of times, and EP 4 once in a great while on weekdays of Ordinary Time.

We can always receive on the tongue - about 50% do including all altar servers - and we do use communion patens. We use a few EMHCs if “needed” at weekend and Holy Day Masses but not weekday Masses; communion is rarely offered from the Chalice.

Other parishes in the area offer under both species, use huge teams of EMHCs, and don’t use communion patens, but I’ve never heard of anyone around here having problems receiving on the tongue, even in parishes where it’s uncommon. I’ve had a priest or two look mildly surprised but not upset when I’ve received on the tongue elsewhere.

 

[MikeDunphy]

I hope I’m not intruding, but I’m one of those Catholics who disrupt the communion line by knealing when accepting communion on the tongue. I have not been chastized for it and pray every day that I may be an example to the people that God’s grace is something that I continue to strive for. Amen.

THANK YOU. People almost never kneel to receive Holy Communion at OF Masses at my parish, but when someone does, it is a beautiful, edifying thing to see.

 

[At_Trent]

I hope I’m not intruding, but I’m one of those Catholics who disrupt the communion line by knealing when accepting communion on the tongue. I have not been chastized for it and pray every day that I may be an example to the people that God’s grace is something that I continue to strive for. Amen.

You have a good priest

Keep following our holy father’s example

 

[Holly3278]

We are able to receive either on the tongue or in the hand and I think that we do have a little Latin in each Sunday or Saturday vigil Mass. Also, our Novus Ordo Mass is very reverent and orthodox. We have a very reverent and orthodox priest. In fact, he once got on to me for walking across the platform where the altar is located because he said it is disrespectful. He asked me to instead go around to the side door and come in to the room where they get their vestments on that way. I, of course, apologized because I didn’t realize that what I was doing was disrespectful.

 

[CradleCath]

I hope I’m not intruding, but I’m one of those Catholics who disrupt the communion line by knealing when accepting communion on the tongue. I have not been chastized for it and pray every day that I may be an example to the people that God’s grace is something that I continue to strive for. Amen.

You are most certainly NOT intruding & I can see that you realize how blessed you are that your priest is willing to give you the Eucharist is this way. You are definitely an example of God’s grace.