CatholicBoard

okay so he said that its totally fine
he also asked if I would tell you guys that after some reflection he realized that he didnt hate pope francis. He hates that pope francis is a more liberal minded pope than they usually are, and is more forgiving and permissive with certian groups and he is worried that groups like the pro-lgbt catholics, the pro-protestant catholics, and the pro-choice catholics, and the catholics who think everyone goes to heaven regardless, that those guys will get in power, and ruin the church. He says to tell you that he just wants a more hardline pope to crush these groups and get rid of them before they get into real positions of clerical power. But that he is sorry for being such a dick about it

The united dutchies wrote:

okay so he said that its totally fine
he also asked if I would tell you guys that after some reflection he realized that he didnt hate pope francis. He hates that pope francis is a more liberal minded pope than they usually are, and is more forgiving and permissive with certian groups and he is worried that groups like the pro-lgbt catholics, the pro-protestant catholics, and the pro-choice catholics, and the catholics who think everyone goes to heaven regardless, that those guys will get in power, and ruin the church. He says to tell you that he just wants a more hardline pope to crush these groups and get rid of them before they get into real positions of clerical power. But that he is sorry for being such a dick about it

I can understand some of his concerns. However, he should still remember to temper his criticisms of the Supreme Pontiff, and that the Church cannot defect. Meaning that no matter how many people are in power that he dislikes, no matter what politics are going on, the Church will remain. And as long as the Church remains, so does its authority. If he accepts that the Church today is the Catholic Church, then he has to accept what it teaches. After all, Christ promised the Apostles that "He who hears you, hears me."

Anyway, here's a couple quotes to clarify what I mean.

"By certain indications it is not difficult to conclude that among Catholics - doubtless as a result of current evils - there are some who, far from satisfied with the condition of the "subject" which is theirs in the Church ... think they are allowed to examine and judge after their own fashion, the acts of authority. A misplaced opinion, certainly. If it were to prevail, it would do very grave harm to the Church of God, in which, by the manifest will of her Divine Founder, there are to be distinguished in the most absolute fashion two parties the teaching and the taught, the Shepherd and the flock, among whom there is one who is the Supreme Shepherd of all. To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgement, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor." - Pope Leo XIII

"No, it cannot be permitted that laymen who profess to be Catholic should go so far as openly arrogate themselves in the columns of a newspaper, the right to denounce, and to find fault, with the greatest license and according to their own good pleasure, with every sort of person, not excepting bishops, and think that with the single exception of matters of faith they are allowed to entertain any opinion which may please them and exercise the right to judge everyone after their own fashion" - Pope Leo XIII

"When we love the Pope, we do not dispute whether he commands or requires a thing, or seek to know where the strict obligation of obedience lies, or in what manner we must obey; when we love the Pope we do not say that he has not yet spoken clearly - as if he were required to speak his will in every man's ear, and to utter it not only by word of mouth but in letters and other public documents as well. Nor do we cast doubt on his orders, alleging the pretext which comes easily to the man who does not want to obey, that is not the Pope who is commanding, but some one in his entourage. We do not limit the field, in which he can and ought to exercise his authority; we do not oppose to the Pope's authority that of other persons - no matter how learned - who differ from the Pope. For whatever may be their learning, they are not holy, for where there is holiness there cannot be disagreement with the Pope." - Pope St. Pius X

“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery [priesthood] as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic [Universal] Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” - St Ignatius of Antioch

"A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties." - Canon 1373 of the Code of Canon Law

Hi guys! Seeing this debate makes me sad. Prayers for you all. Anyways, new topic, is there anyone here who has never attended a TLM Mass once in his whole life (like me)? If so, can someone tell me about this beautiful Mass? I've seen this Mass online, it's long, like 2 times the Novus Ordo.

Di-Camilleri di-Rosica wrote:

Not quite 2x Novus, really they're about 1.5-1.75 hr.

The TLM is full of beautiful and authentically Catholic prayers, some of which dates back to the time of Christ. As you would have observed, it is more God-centered rather than people-centered because the priest faces Our Lord in the tabernacle while he offers the Holy Sacrifice.
On the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales website (lms.org.uk) you can find the trad missal ('62) and the novus missal ('70) side by side.

You should find one near you and attend one before they're banned... Traditionis Custodes is being very radically implemented in some dioceses.

Every form of liturgy can be beautiful and all are traditional by default. I'd also add that almost all of the ordinary form comes from ancient sources. Including numerous passages of Sacred Scripture. Dr. Scott Hahn's book The Lord's Supper is a great intro to this.

Both the ordinary and extraordinary form can be done either facing the congregation or facing away from them. In fact, I'd argue that the 1970 Missal is written as if facing away from the people is normative. In any case, neither makes the liturgy "more God centered." In both cases we have the priest and the congregation facing God. Worth noting that just because the priest is facing away from the people doesn't mean it's ad orientem. I've been to three different churches that exclusively offered the 1962 Missal, and none of them faced east. Not to say that there's no relevance to ad apsidum. Just that it isn't always ad orientem.

Ottovanus wrote:

Every form of liturgy can be beautiful and all are traditional by default.

I would like to echo that sentiment. Do you know the real reason why the TLM is so beautiful? Because those priests who use the TLM, love the liturgy, they respect the liturgy, they stand in awe of the liturgy. I would even argue that this has never been about specific liturgy; it's been about respect, and awe. And, honestly, at least in the United States, we're actually winning. It may not seem that way, especially with the state of musical resources still in play, but we are winning. The exaggerated translations of English have been replaced, tabernacles that were once moved to the side of the church are now being moved back behind the altar, and so forth. Yes, a lot of parishes suffered devastating blows as a result of COVID (but is dropping communion under both species really a bad thing) and my church still doesn't have altar servers, but we are slowly coming back.

Ottovanus wrote:

Only thing I'd disagree on is communion under both species. I never liked that we abandoned this practice in the Roman Rite honestly. That's why I'm always down to go to the ordinariate since they allow reception of both.

Communion "from the cup" is more complex than you might realize. And that's the real key here. Communion isn't technically from bread and wine but from bread and the cup (which contains wine). This becomes liturgically problematic. We might be able to liturgically wiggle our way from the "one loaf" but it's hard to claim two or more chalices are "one cup." And we won't want the altar looking like the scene from Indiana Jones. This is before you get to the point that there is a vast difference between a priest placing the host on your tongue and having everyone lips touch the chalice. And the typical Protestant solution of having trays and trays of plastic shot glasses (ignoring the material for a moment) is as far from the "one cup" as zero is from infinity. This same problem also creeps into the eastern practice of intinction and remember strict unleavened bread doesn't stand up well to intinction.

Ottovanus wrote:

I do recall a criticism by Eastern Orthodox about how the use of unleavened bread takes away the symbolism of unity from one loaf. Which seems to be in the same vein as your criticism about multiple cups.

Knowing how the Orthodox take their "loaf" of leavened bread in their fraction rite, I can see their argument (although the initial loaf on the last supper was unleavened because of Passover). And for a while there were some who were taking a single decanter on the altar which would be then later poured into the chalices during the fraction rite, but this was called into question and stopped. And this is why I do not say it is "wrong" or "right" but "problematic." Our actions and words need to be in harmony and where they are not, no matter how minor the difference is, there is the source of a problem.

Which brings us back to the original problem. It's hard to argue for the pure sense of the "command" as opposed to the alternate sense of the "nature." As we can see the command to drink from the cup often collapses into drink the blood, implying that the body and the blood are separate which is, technically, heresy. The host contains the body and the blood, the cup contains the body and the blood, (as well as both containing the soul and divinity). Thus, to consume one is to consume both. Again, this is not a question of right or wrong, but of "problematic" and "practicality." (And the size of the Mass might also come into play here as well, although my experience at a local college parish whose parish chaplain - as opposed to the parish pastor who was the dean of Humanities and Social Sciences at the college at the time - tended to over consecrate the hosts at the Sunday Masses, still is a strong influence on my thoughts on this matter.)

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:

Knowing how the Orthodox take their "loaf" of leavened bread in their fraction rite, I can see their argument (although the initial loaf on the last supper was unleavened because of Passover). And for a while there were some who were taking a single decanter on the altar which would be then later poured into the chalices during the fraction rite, but this was called into question and stopped. And this is why I do not say it is "wrong" or "right" but "problematic." Our actions and words need to be in harmony and where they are not, no matter how minor the difference is, there is the source of a problem.
Which brings us back to the original problem. It's hard to argue for the pure sense of the "command" as opposed to the alternate sense of the "nature." As we can see the command to drink from the cup often collapses into drink the blood, implying that the body and the blood are separate which is, technically, heresy. The host contains the body and the blood, the cup contains the body and the blood, (as well as both containing the soul and divinity). Thus, to consume one is to consume both. Again, this is not a question of right or wrong, but of "problematic" and "practicality." (And the size of the Mass might also come into play here as well, although my experience at a local college parish whose parish chaplain - as opposed to the parish pastor who was the dean of Humanities and Social Sciences at the college at the time - tended to over consecrate the hosts at the Sunday Masses, still is a strong influence on my thoughts on this matter.)

I think I get what you mean in regards to the Eastern Orthodox on the leavened vs unleavened bread issue. However, it still seems to be the same problem that you have with the blood. Multiple pieces of bread and multiple cups of wine. I don't think I'd agree that, as is, the situation is problematic. The logic of having to drink from one cup to make the wording consistent with our actions just looks as if it would then imply that we need to also use one piece of bread during the consecration as opposed to multiple wafers.

Do you have a good source for saying that the communion wafer contains both the body and blood, and vice versa with the wine? I'm not denying it. I just haven't heard this before and would like to look into if you can point me in the right direction.

Medi terra wrote:

See CCC 1374 for a start, it was teaching established in the Council of Trent (Trent's text and explanation here: http://newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/if-whole-christ-is-present-under-both.html)

It's Church teaching that even the smallest particle of each species contains the entirety of Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. That's why in the instructions for the TLM (and the GIRM, but it's much less frequently followed in the NO) the Priest is instructed to not separate his pointer finger and thumb from the consecration until the altar boy pours wine over his fingers during the chalice purification, so that not a single particle is lost. That's also why there's an altar cloth that's cleaned into the sacrarium, and why altar boys carry patens during Communion, they follow under the Host to the communicant's mouth to catch even the smallest particle to fall (or the whole Host if it's dropped) and the Priest wipes them down into the Chalice during purification. It's one of the main issues that many traditionalists have with Communion in the hand - if you are not licking clean everywhere there might be a particle that has shed, then Christ's full person is still there when you touch your hair, shake hands, and go to the restroom after Mass. It's not a negligible concern either, I'd encourage you to look for videos of people handling hosts that will show you how much they shed. If you're able to visit a TLM I'd also encourage you to pay close attention to the care the priests and servers give to the handling of the Eucharist and the vessels that contain it, it's one of the things that made me a frequent flyer there.

Another interesting point I'd bring up is the examples of Eucharistic miracles we've documented, as recently as 2013 in Poland. There are a lot of documented and researched cases of consecrated Hosts actively bleeding, or transforming into literal bloody cardiac muscle. Hosts wouldn't become bloody muscle if they weren't both Body and Blood. Here's a webpage made by Blessed Carlo Acutis on Eucharistic Miracles: http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/list.html

Alright I'm convinced, but I'd still say that reception of the wine is still something we shouldn't have abandoned in the Roman Rite. I think CCC 1390 puts it pretty well:

"Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But 'the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.' This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites."

GIRM 282 also affirms this, but adds "However, at the same time the faithful should be instructed to participate more readily in this sacred rite (reception of both bread and wine), by which the sign of the Eucharistic banquet is made more fully evident."

Now as for particles of the host, I challenge the usual perception of this issue. Firstly, because it would seriously complicate our understanding of the Church in the first millennium. Where receiving communion in your hands was absolutely normative for the most part. Second, because the word "particles" seems to be taken to an extreme understanding. As in, instead of believing "particles" to mean small bits of the host that could be noticed, meaning instead pieces that can't even be seen by the naked eye. I haven't seen any Magisterial decrees that specify to that extent, and St Thomas Aquinas taught against this is Summa Part 3, Q 77, Art. 4:

"if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain."

The issue would be identifying at what point the particles cease to the consecrated host. Because the word "particles" can be taken in a couple ways. Granted of course, Aquinas isn't on the same level as the Magisterium, but since I haven't seen any Church teaching that contradicts this, I don't see any reason to go against what he's teaching here.

Now as for the matter of how the Eucharist is treated in the 1962 Missal (not TLM) and the 1970 Missal (not NO), I don't have any preference for the rubrics of the former, and I have seen priests celebrating the extraordinary form not join their thumb and pointer finger at least a couple of times. The ordinary form still has all the necessary instructions to prevent accidents with the Eucharist. Whether or not people follow them is a matter of liturgical formation. Not liturgy itself.

Medi terra wrote:

No major objections to both species from me, I'm actually a big fan of intinction. You receive both species from a common chalice like FF was saying, and only by tongue for obvious reasons.

There's no doubt that communion in the hand was the norm for the first 7 centuries, but it does need to be said that the posture and form it took was different than we see now (profoundly bowed, hands very close to face, passing the Host over the eyes, no picking up of the Host, but bringing your mouth to your cupped hands), as mentioned in writings by St. Cyril and St John Damascene and illustrated in the Rossano Gospels. I'm a woman, so it's pertinent to note that women circa 500 would receive on their veiled hands and touch the Host with only their mouths. Receiving in the hand isn't intrinsically irreverent, but interior disposition and exterior posture to remind yourself of that disposition is what brings it to reverence. If that's done, I'm more neutral to manual reception.

I'm of the belief that widespread communion in the hand (as well as the usual culprits like poor catechesis, etc) has led to the dropoff of belief in the True Presence, something that Paul VI very explicitly warned about when he started issuing the indults. Actually, he warned about care for particles as well now that I reread the stipulations. Because I personally don't know where to draw the line (much like the question of when life begins in the secular abortion debate), at the risk of being scrupulous even barely visible particles is too much risk for me so I do the easy thing and avoid it entirely.

To very briefly address your last paragraph, taking a deep dive into the rubrics of the TLM did a better job of convincing me that the priests actually knew the importance of what they do at the altar... as my catechist made clear, "if he didn't understand what he was doing the first three times he made the sign of the Cross over the species, certainly the next 15 will drive the point home." Eucharistic reverence is in my top 10 passion topics, and I'm much better convinced it's happening at the TLM. If that's not your experience, I'm not gonna be mad about it.

You're a pleasure to discuss with, you know.

Much obliged. Likewise thanks for the info on the reception of the Eucharist.

im back kids. How is all of yalls

Mary, the Virgin of expectation and fulfilment,
who hold the secret of Christmas,
make us able to recognize in the Child whom you hold in your arms the heralded Saviour,
who brings hope and peace to all.
With you we worship him and trustingly say: we need You, Redeemer of man,
You who know the hopes and fears of our hearts.
Come and stay with us, Lord.
May the joy of your Nativity reach to the farthest ends of the universe.
Amen.