Why I think the Novus ordo masses* hurt the Catholic faith

2,953 Views | 48 Replies | Last: 16 days ago by 747Ag
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
*the asterisk is a qualifier in that I am only talking about the ones that I have personally attended*

I attended Mass with one of my children at St Anne Catholic Church in Tomball this morning as the rest of the household was feeling sick. St Anne is closest to my house, and as I didn't want to leave my sick family for very long, it was the best way to fulfill the obligation.

The church is fairly small with pews that hold around 400-500 parishioners and then two elevated wings up a staircase that each hold about 50 people. The church was packed (good sign) and there was SRO at the time of mass.

For what seemed to be a decent sized community I was shocked that the parish has only 1 priest, and there was no deacon assisting at the mass. The priests name is Fr.Tommy, and while he seemed very friendly and folksy did not exhibit the type of solemnity nor reverence that I am used to.

He said all the words of the liturgy in the exact same conversational language, and after every response from the laity he would say "thank you" which I thought was odd. He did seem very popular, and his homily on the Epiphany was well received, even if it didn't really speak about the gospel much and instead told the tale of a fictional "4th wiseman", who spent 33 years trying to find Christ and got held up doing acts of charity. When he finally reaches Christ, it's the day of the crucifixion and he's hit in the head by a falling roof slate and Christ takes him to heaven with him. Sweet story, nice message but inappropriate.

The biggest issue I have is with how communion is done. The priest calls down the Holy Spirit and changes the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and then distributes communion to the EMHC before handing them their own chalice or ciborium. The EMHC were a mix of men and women and all were nicely dressed and acted reverently but what struck me most, was the absolute non chalance exhibited by the laity when the EMHC would walk past them to go to their communion station at different points in the church.

The body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, King of Kings, is passing by your location, and you don't even acknowledge it? You don't prostrate yourself, or kneel or even bow your head as God passes by?

It may seem like a small thing but to me this is the biggest indictment of the entire thought process of the church post Vatican II. The Eucharist is the center of our faith, and it seems as a church, we are fine with treating it as regular bread and wine. I don't blame the laity, this is what we're being taught by Bishops who worry that kneeling while receiving will "disrupt the flow" of communion, by parishes that don't have reconciliation available before every Mass, and by priests who give a cursory wipe down of the vessels post communion, instead of taking the time to ensure every piece of our precious Lord's body and blood has been consumed.

It's an absolute travesty. I am extremely depressed. Come Lord Jesus.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I wonder if in the 1,900 years before the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II, if anyone of the laity behaved in such a way?

Well I don't have to, I know they did as my own mother described their experience as children, praying a rosary because they didn't understand Latin.

Not trying to downplay a lack of catechesis in our time, but one of the goals of the liturgical reforms were to Increase participation in the mass by the faithful as evidenced by the well dressed Extraordinary Ministers you recall. The lack of reverence does not mean conscious disrespect of our Lord.

It will take time and Catholics like yourself to help bring about a change in our parish communities of the reality of the body, blood, and divinity that is the Holy Eucharist.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Father Albert at St Thomas in CS has been slowly making his novus ordo masses more and more reverent. It's been really inspiring to see. Idk what the answer is in terms of Latin vs vernacular, but it is possible to make them both very reverent and awe inspiring.

But we do need to cut out the pseudo Protestant services. We're so much worse at it than they are and I comes across as lame.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
To me there are two different things going on here, one is the ascent of understanding that is the Holy Eucharist, which even many on this very forum do not share- and the other is hearing the Call to Universal Holiness that Vatican II set at the center of the changes, beginning with mass in the vernacular.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

I wonder if in the 1,900 years before the liturgical changes brought about by Vatican II, if anyone of the laity behaved in such a way?

Well I don't have to, I know they did as my own mother described their experience as children, praying a rosary because they didn't understand Latin.

Not trying to downplay a lack of catechesis in our time, but one of the goals of the liturgical reforms were to Increase participation in the mass by the faithful as evidenced by the well dressed Extraordinary Ministers you recall. The lack of reverence does not mean conscious disrespect of our Lord.

It will take time and Catholics like yourself to help bring about a change in our parish communities of the reality of the body, blood, and divinity that is the Holy Eucharist.


I'm not sure if you've earned it, but I'm giving you a blue star in hopes that more of your posts are like this
Quo Vadis?
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Banned said:

Father Albert at St Thomas in CS has been slowly making his novus ordo masses more and more reverent. It's been really inspiring to see. Idk what the answer is in terms of Latin vs vernacular, but it is possible to make them both very reverent and awe inspiring.

But we do need to cut out the pseudo Protestant services. We're so much worse at it than they are and I comes across as lame.


Mass in the vernacular, with a communion rail, and pre-Mass reconciliation would go a long way towards making the masses better.

I like the TLM, I also like the liturgy of St John Chrysostom and the Anglican use. There is plenty of room for different liturgies reflecting the universality of our faith. Reverence for Christ in the Eucharist has to be the center of mass.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I struggle with the use of emhcs because like with a lot of reforms, permission was arbitrary enough to lend itself to near universal abuse. "We don't want Mass to take too long" never comes at the expense of announcements about the sale of raffle tickets or fundraisers before the final blessing, or really bad (in most cases) 15-20 minute homilies. And occasionally I have to contend with an exasperated usher who feels ignored when I decline to use the shortest line available.

At my parish it's not done remotely well. There are 3 lines down the nave, and 1 or 2 at each transept, so I have to navigate traffic at least one confusing intersection where people are leaving their station having received the Eucharist and bumping into each other in close proximity to the offering. Disaster waiting to happen.

Eta: I should add that there's a lot to like about the NO Mass we attend. It's definitely not all bad.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bob Lee said:

I struggle with the use of emhcs because like with a lot of reforms, permission was arbitrary enough to lend itself to near universal abuse. "We don't want Mass to take too long" never comes at the expense of announcements about the sale of raffle tickets or fundraisers before the final blessing, or really bad (in most cases) 15-20 minute homilies. And occasionally I have to contend with an exasperated usher who feels ignored when I decline to use the shortest line available.

At my parish it's not done remotely well. There are 3 lines down the nave, and 1 or 2 at each transept, so I have to navigate traffic at least one confusing intersection where people are leaving their station having received the Eucharist and bumping into each other in close proximity to the offering. Disaster waiting to happen.

Eta: I should add that there's a lot to like about the NO Mass we attend. It's definitely not all bad.


Agree with this too. Once I truly came to embrace what the Eucharist is, I cringed at the idea of Eucharistic ministers. I know Pablo is one, so no offense. I know it's technically licit. It just seems so wrong. We take something extraordinary and intentionally make it ordinary for the sake of including people.

Which is the one part of your post I disagree with. I don't think it's truly done out of expediency. It's because to not do it "excludes the laity". This is one of the few cases that the laity should be excluded unless there is a true and pressing need.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

Bob Lee said:

I struggle with the use of emhcs because like with a lot of reforms, permission was arbitrary enough to lend itself to near universal abuse. "We don't want Mass to take too long" never comes at the expense of announcements about the sale of raffle tickets or fundraisers before the final blessing, or really bad (in most cases) 15-20 minute homilies. And occasionally I have to contend with an exasperated usher who feels ignored when I decline to use the shortest line available.

At my parish it's not done remotely well. There are 3 lines down the nave, and 1 or 2 at each transept, so I have to navigate traffic at least one confusing intersection where people are leaving their station having received the Eucharist and bumping into each other in close proximity to the offering. Disaster waiting to happen.

Eta: I should add that there's a lot to like about the NO Mass we attend. It's definitely not all bad.


Agree with this too. Once I truly came to embrace what the Eucharist is, I cringed at the idea of Eucharistic ministers. I know Pablo is one, so no offense. I know it's technically licit. It just seems so wrong. We take something extraordinary and intentionally make it ordinary for the sake of including people.

Which is the one part of your post I disagree with. I don't think it's truly done out of expediency. It's because to not do it "excludes the laity". This is one of the few cases that the laity should be excluded unless there is a true and pressing need.


It has to be out of necessity. So the Mass doesn't take too long is one of the actual reasons given as to why EMHCs may be utilized. I agree with you. Inclusion is the real reason most of the time, which is worse. I was being charitable.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"It just seems so wrong"

Do you believe that we are Priest, Prophet, and Kings? Because this is our faith in the Kingdom as baptized sons and daughters. The ministerial priesthood has a place and so do we in the celebration of the Liturgy.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

"It just seems so wrong"

Do you believe that we are Priest, Prophet, and Kings? Because this is our faith in the Kingdom as baptized sons and daughters. The ministerial priesthood has a place and so do we in the celebration of the Liturgy.


Why are Priests' hands even consecrated? Meaning why does the Church bother?
747Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Bob Lee said:

PabloSerna said:

"It just seems so wrong"

Do you believe that we are Priest, Prophet, and Kings? Because this is our faith in the Kingdom as baptized sons and daughters. The ministerial priesthood has a place and so do we in the celebration of the Liturgy.


Why are Priests' hands even consecrated? Meaning why does the Church bother?

Fun fact... In the old rite of baptism, the person's tounge is blessed (with salt) as that is how the laity were intended to touch the Most Holy Eucharist. Was privileged to witness such a baptism today.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
747Ag said:

Bob Lee said:

PabloSerna said:

"It just seems so wrong"

Do you believe that we are Priest, Prophet, and Kings? Because this is our faith in the Kingdom as baptized sons and daughters. The ministerial priesthood has a place and so do we in the celebration of the Liturgy.


Why are Priests' hands even consecrated? Meaning why does the Church bother?

Fun fact... In the old rite of baptism, the person's tounge is blessed (with salt) as that is how the laity were intended to touch the Most Holy Eucharist. Was privileged to witness such a baptism today.


I didn't know that. In OT sacrifice, the offerings were salted. I wonder if that's the significance of the salt.
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

"It just seems so wrong"

Do you believe that we are Priest, Prophet, and Kings? Because this is our faith in the Kingdom as baptized sons and daughters. The ministerial priesthood has a place and so do we in the celebration of the Liturgy.


I believe I'm priest, prophet and king of my house. The line must be drawn somewhere though, yes? We all agree I can't consecrate the host. Even the deacon can't. But we can all show up to hand it out because "we have a part in the celebration of the liturgy"?

I'm not 100% against Eucharistic ministers if needed, but you seem to be backing up (intentionally or not) the claim that it's about making people "feel a part of the mass" and. You may not mean to, but you almost claim it as a right you obliged to.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Imagine Paul when he heard of how the Corinthians were acting!
The Marksman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My opinion is that two things can be true:
1. Many(not all) lack the proper reverence and respect for the Most Holy Eucharist
2. The NO Mass is not the reason for this
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
As you may know, there are two priesthoods in the Roman Catholic Church, the ministerial priesthood (clergy) and the common priesthood (baptized laity). Here are the references:

CCC 1241:
The anointing with sacred chrism, perfumed oil consecrated by the bishop, signifies the gift of the Holy Spirit to the newly baptized, who has become a Christian, that is, one "anointed" by the Holy Spirit, incorporated into Christ who is anointed priest, prophet, and king.


Excerpt from the Baptism Rite, Anointing with Chrism:
"Then the celebrant says: God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has freed you from sin, given you a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and welcomed you into his holy people. He now anoints you with the chrism of salvation. As Christ was anointed Priest, Prophet, and King, so may you live always as a member of his body, sharing everlasting life."

+++

I am not arguing that there is a need for more reverence for the Eucharist. What I am positing is that this begins with full knowledge of this sacrament and full understanding of our calling through the sacrament of Baptism (see above). Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew chapter 5) lays out his expectation for the baptized and makes a point about salt, Mt 5:13, when he says,

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot."

His point is that we are not to be mere spectators or even silent, reverent bystanders- but active in the mission not just in our families, but in our communities and beyond. This "connection" is made real when the laity engage in the Liturgy, not just with their offering, but even more when they take the Eucharist to others who cannot attend (nursing homes, prisons, hospitals).

Going back to my mom's childhood experience- yes they were quiet and reverent, but they had not made the connection to their baptism. Not until she was an adult (1970's) during the charismatic movement did she do anything more with her faith. It was mentioned before that cradle Catholics tend to take a lot of things for granted- this is part of the problem that the Church recognized and why Vatican II was called. Many like my mom, were just checking a box but not living out their baptismal calling. Hopefully through proper catechism and a prayerful life that will change.

+++

LINKS:

Article by Bishop Barron (excellent summary)
Article in Catholic Digest (very good overview)

ETA: I want to point out that my mom is why I am still a believer. Not just through her prayers, but through her example of what a living faith walk with Jesus looks like. She is very active still at 84 years old, as a Guadalupana (Spanish speaking, fundraising ministry), Eucharistic Minister (nursing homes/hospitals), past Altar Ministry (cleans the church), and on and on. She's my hero!



“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree with almost everything you wrote, but none of it deals with the claim that Eucharistic ministers are just a way to include people for the sake of inclusion. We can have adult altar servers. See them all the time. You can have 20 or more if you want.

You can be an usher. You can discern a deaconship. You can be a lector. You can sing in the choir (although this one admittedly requires some natural gifts that I do not possess). Or, as you said, we can operate as the hands and feet of the priests to take the Eucharist to all of the prisons and hospitals and nursing homes and shut ins that they would not have the time to visit. This all makes sense and would be a borderline (probably even urgent) necessity.

None of that applies to the mass itself by necessity. So, again, it seems like we're doing it just to do it and not thinking through what the cons of such actions might be.
Catag94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree with this.
To the OP's point, I can see where often it seems like a lack of reverence. As I have made know here before, my wife is Catholic and I am attend Mass with here every week and on Holy Days of Obligation regardless of where we are. I was baptized in a Baptist church at age 17 and I seek not love and follow Jesus and know Him more always. However, I am not Catholic. That said, I fully believe Christ is present in the Eucharist and I yearn for it. I have strong reverence for the Eucharist. Unfortunately, this sometimes puts me in a position of noting what I see as a lack of reverence by those who are routinely receiving the Eucharist. I know only God can examine the heart of a person, and it's not my place to judge these things. Nonetheless, I notice a lot of what I suspect the OP is referencing. Sometimes I wonder if the people are really contemplating what they are receiving in that moment.
Ultimately, out of love for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I pray for them, that their hearts are reverent and that the Holy Spirit fills them.

For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. (1 Corinthians 11:27,29 NIV)

I think this is the best we can do, for no matter how sacramental and reverent the process appears, what is in the hearts of the people is what truly matters.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

I agree with almost everything you wrote, but none of it deals with the claim that Eucharistic ministers are just a way to include people for the sake of inclusion. We can have adult altar servers. See them all the time. You can have 20 or more if you want.

You can be an usher. You can discern a deaconship. You can be a lector. You can sing in the choir (although this one admittedly requires some natural gifts that I do not possess). Or, as you said, we can operate as the hands and feet of the priests to take the Eucharist to all of the prisons and hospitals and nursing homes and shut ins that they would not have the time to visit. This all makes sense and would be a borderline (probably even urgent) necessity.

None of that applies to the mass itself by necessity. So, again, it seems like we're doing it just to do it and not thinking through what the cons of such actions might be.

There were more than 3000 participants at Vatican II. There were some 2,860 Bishops from all over the world that voted on all the updates- The word the pope used to describe it was aggiornamento, a lively Italian word whose English translation, "updating," doesn't really convey its energy adequately. There were some 400+ advisors/experts (periti) such as Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), Karlo Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), and others who have devoted their lives and decades of scholarship that DID think it through.

If you are Catholic, this is our faith now and it is only moving onward from 1965.

There was much thought into why they did what did and my little example that my mother shared with me was very common among the laity. Good people that were not fully living out their baptismal calling. I don't remember where I read it, but it was about how the laity saw "holiness" as clergy or religious persons- only. Sure there were exceptions to this, however, the Pope saw a real need for an updating not "for the sake of inclusion" but rather for the life of the church.

Here is a more in-depth article about what I am talking about.

“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

The Banned said:

I agree with almost everything you wrote, but none of it deals with the claim that Eucharistic ministers are just a way to include people for the sake of inclusion. We can have adult altar servers. See them all the time. You can have 20 or more if you want.

You can be an usher. You can discern a deaconship. You can be a lector. You can sing in the choir (although this one admittedly requires some natural gifts that I do not possess). Or, as you said, we can operate as the hands and feet of the priests to take the Eucharist to all of the prisons and hospitals and nursing homes and shut ins that they would not have the time to visit. This all makes sense and would be a borderline (probably even urgent) necessity.

None of that applies to the mass itself by necessity. So, again, it seems like we're doing it just to do it and not thinking through what the cons of such actions might be.

There were more than 3000 participants at Vatican II. There were some 2,860 Bishops from all over the world that voted on all the updates- The word the pope used to describe it was aggiornamento, a lively Italian word whose English translation, "updating," doesn't really convey its energy adequately. There were some 400+ advisors/experts (periti) such as Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), Karlo Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), and others who have devoted their lives and decades of scholarship that DID think it through.

If you are Catholic, this is our faith now and it is only moving onward from 1965.

There was much thought into why they did what did and my little example that my mother shared with me was very common among the laity. Good people that were not fully living out their baptismal calling. I don't remember where I read it, but it was about how the laity saw "holiness" as clergy or religious persons- only. Sure there were exceptions to this, however, the Pope saw a real need for an updating not "for the sake of inclusion" but rather for the life of the church.

Here is a more in-depth article about what I am talking about.




But Vatican 2 didn't do that. Several things Vatican 2 did not do:

- establish a new rite of the mass
- call for totally abandoning Latin
- use of extraordinary Eucharistic ministers as standard
- receiving on the hand
- ripping out altar rails
- changing church architecture
- holding hands at the our father.


And many, many more. These are accretions that were inserted by priests and bishops looking to be cool and modern. I'm not saying any of them being done makes a mass invalid, but they also were not prescribed. So it is fair to challenge whether or not it is a good idea to do them.

ETA: I have no challenges to the fact that the mass prior to the change had its issues. I don't think the TLM solves all the church's problems. I think shutting it down to be a very bad move, but I understand we must all submit to a valid magisterium. That doesn't mean a lot of the nonsense we see today is good or even the intent of Vatican 2

ETA 2: 70% of self proclaimed Catholics don't believe in the real presence anymore, so the problem of "not fully living out their baptismal calling" has certainly gotten worse over the past 6 decades
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

The Banned said:

I agree with almost everything you wrote, but none of it deals with the claim that Eucharistic ministers are just a way to include people for the sake of inclusion. We can have adult altar servers. See them all the time. You can have 20 or more if you want.

You can be an usher. You can discern a deaconship. You can be a lector. You can sing in the choir (although this one admittedly requires some natural gifts that I do not possess). Or, as you said, we can operate as the hands and feet of the priests to take the Eucharist to all of the prisons and hospitals and nursing homes and shut ins that they would not have the time to visit. This all makes sense and would be a borderline (probably even urgent) necessity.

None of that applies to the mass itself by necessity. So, again, it seems like we're doing it just to do it and not thinking through what the cons of such actions might be.

There were more than 3000 participants at Vatican II. There were some 2,860 Bishops from all over the world that voted on all the updates- The word the pope used to describe it was aggiornamento, a lively Italian word whose English translation, "updating," doesn't really convey its energy adequately. There were some 400+ advisors/experts (periti) such as Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), Karlo Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), and others who have devoted their lives and decades of scholarship that DID think it through.

If you are Catholic, this is our faith now and it is only moving onward from 1965.

There was much thought into why they did what did and my little example that my mother shared with me was very common among the laity. Good people that were not fully living out their baptismal calling. I don't remember where I read it, but it was about how the laity saw "holiness" as clergy or religious persons- only. Sure there were exceptions to this, however, the Pope saw a real need for an updating not "for the sake of inclusion" but rather for the life of the church.

Here is a more in-depth article about what I am talking about.




EMHCs didn't explicitly come from Vatican II, did it? Can you point me to the Vatican II document that calls for the ubiquitous utilization of EMHCs in the Mass? The earliest document I can find was 1969, and it definitely does not call for that. But the Bishops at Vatican II didn't even vote for the Novus Ordo Mass as such, and especially not its current manifestation.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Like many things, Vatican II was the framework from which later, much more in-depth documents were promulgated with this renewal in mind. They are connected.

GIRM (1970) would be my first thought. Here is a link to the current version. Read chapter 3, it is very detailed.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What are some of these "accretions that were inserted by priest and bishops looking to be cool"?
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

What are some of these "accretions that were inserted by priest and bishops looking to be cool"?


I listed several….

Did you know the novus ordo does not call for the priest to face the people? That It does not call for Eucharistic ministers? That it does not call for receiving on the hand? That it does not call for receiving while standing? That it does not call for us to do the cringy hand holding thing at the Our Father.

I'm not saying any of these invalidate the mass. But they are not prescribed for us to do and to say it came on directive from the magisterium is incorrect.
Bob Lee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PabloSerna said:

Like many things, Vatican II was the framework from which later, much more in-depth documents were promulgated with this renewal in mind. They are connected.

GIRM (1970) would be my first thought. Here is a link to the current version. Read chapter 3, it is very detailed.



I genuinely can't see how you're apparently interpreting that. Am I not offering the sacrifice in communion with the saints unless I administer the eucharist? Of course we're all participating in that way as the laity, but also we're not the priest. Jesus is priest and oblation, and the celebrant is in persona Christi, but we're not.

There are circumstances the laity are permitted to baptize in an emergency. It doesn't imply we should assist priests in administering the sacrament.

Edit: I missed where you were referring me to III. It makes a little more sense now. But I don't think you're giving my grievance its due. I'm not saying there aren't circumstances that rate EMHCs. I think I've been pretty clear that I worry that the permission granted is arbitrary and lends itself to abuse. And it is being abused from my perspective.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Banned said:

PabloSerna said:

What are some of these "accretions that were inserted by priest and bishops looking to be cool"?


I listed several….

Did you know the novus ordo does not call for the priest to face the people? That It does not call for Eucharistic ministers? That it does not call for receiving on the hand? That it does not call for receiving while standing? That it does not call for us to do the cringy hand holding thing at the Our Father.

I'm not saying any of these invalidate the mass. But they are not prescribed for us to do and to say it came on directive from the magisterium is incorrect.

"One ought not to think, however, that this revision of the Roman Missal has been improvident. The progress that the liturgical sciences has accomplished in the last four centuries has, without a doubt, prepared the way." - Pope Paul VI, April 3, 1969

From the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), Chapter 5 - The Arrangement and Furnishing of Churches for the Celebration of the Eucharist:

262. The main altar should be freestanding to allow the ministers to walk around it easily and Mass to be celebrated facing the people. It should be so placed as to be a focal point on which the attention of the whole congregation centers naturally.[81] The main altar should ordinarily be a fixed, consecrated altar.

+++

Again, Vatican II was a framework from which revisions to the Liturgy were developed in the follows years. The GIRM went through a number of updates starting in 1970. Much of it did come from the Magisterium, in one form or another. Are there excesses? I am sure there are, I can recall hearing, "My Lord and My God" during the elevation at one particular parish I visited. I don't think they did it to be cool- I thought it was a very reverent moment.


“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're citing this from the current GIRM. Not the original document in the new form of the mass.

And I'm not against all change. I have said I don't believe they invalidate the mass. We should all be saying "my lord and my God" internally at that moment, so out loud is not crazy. What we are hyper focused on here is everyday use of Eucharistic ministers.
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From USCCB website:

"In every celebration of the Eucharist, there should be a sufficient number of ministers of Holy Communion so that it may be distributed in a reverent and orderly manner. Bishops, priests and deacons distribute Holy Communion in virtue of their office as ordinary ministers of the Body and Blood of the Lord. (1) When the size of the congregation or the incapacity of the bishop, priest, or deacon requires it, the celebrant may be assisted by other bishops, priests, or deacons. If such ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are not present, "the priest may call upon extraordinary ministers to assist him, i.e., duly instituted acolytes or even other faithful who have been deputed for this purpose. In case of necessity, the priest may also depute suitable faithful for this single occasion (GIRM 162)."

+++

Our parish has a workshop for EMHCs and puts out a detailed schedule. If someone doesn't show up and you are properly attired, verified by the Pastor, in good conscious (confessions, etc.) - you may assist if called upon. We have too many people attending 1 or 2 of the masses. Many are standing in the aisles, in the nave, in the cry room, etc. So much so that the priest has asked for people to attend at different times. We absolutely need EMHCs, not just for mass, but for the shut-in, prison, nursing home, and hospital ministries.

Also, I am distinguishing between the ministerial priesthood (clergy) and the common priesthood (baptized laity)- Jesus IS the High Priest and yes, only the ministerial priesthood can by in persona christi.



“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I know- I am saying that it is a living document.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

I know- I am saying that it is a living document.


And as such, new things that arise can be judged on their merit. We can discuss whether they should be retained or it should return to the norms of before. While we have to agree its licit, but doesn't mean its perfect
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I actually am copying from 1975 GIRM. From EWTN (LINK).

And no we cannot "judge on their merit" - Again, this is a living document and this is where we are at in the past 450 years of the Roman Missal. See Pope Paul's comment above.

“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

I actually am copying from 1975 GIRM. From EWTN (LINK).

And no we cannot "judge on their merit" - Again, this is a living document and this is where we are at in the past 450 years of the Roman Missal. See Pope Paul's comment above.




Haven't you judged the TLM on its merit and come to the conclusion it left people out?

Are you saying because that's how it is now it can change back? Why else have things changed if they weren't judged to need a change?
PabloSerna
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here is a quote that I think is getting to the point,

"This lack of uniformity was not appropriate to the spirit of the Counter Reformation; it bordered rather on the chaotic. Accordingly Pope Saint Pius V by his decree of 1570 attempted to change chaos to order by declaring that the missal was to be used throughout the Western Church. That it was not a new missal at all was made clear enough by the use of the word on the title page. He did allow exceptions for those places which could claim having had a particular use for at least two hundred years. Some did make such a claim. The Dominicans for instance kept their use until the advent of the Paul VI missal. Paris kept its until the French Revolution."

When Pope Paul VI talks about 4 centuries of preparation, he is talking about this decree in 1570. The Church wants to be on the same page. The last revision to the GIRM was in 2002, I believe. Again a living document. I am sure it will be updated in our time.

ETA: or maybe not, depending on how old you are.
“Falsehood flies and the truth comes limping after it” -Jonathan Swift, 1710
The Banned
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PabloSerna said:

Here is a quote that I think is getting to the point,

"This lack of uniformity was not appropriate to the spirit of the Counter Reformation; it bordered rather on the chaotic. Accordingly Pope Saint Pius V by his decree of 1570 attempted to change chaos to order by declaring that the missal was to be used throughout the Western Church. That it was not a new missal at all was made clear enough by the use of the word on the title page. He did allow exceptions for those places which could claim having had a particular use for at least two hundred years. Some did make such a claim. The Dominicans for instance kept their use until the advent of the Paul VI missal. Paris kept its until the French Revolution."

When Pope Paul VI talks about 4 centuries of preparation, he is talking about this decree in 1570. The Church wants to be on the same page. The last revision to the GIRM was in 2002, I believe. Again a living document. I am sure it will be updated in our time.

ETA: or maybe not, depending on how old you are.


What does this have to do with anything I posted?
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.