Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tridentine Mass, Eucharistic Ministers
Seattle Catholic ^ | December 27,2002 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

Posted on 12/27/2002 2:16:03 PM PST by ultima ratio

Tridentine Mass, Eucharistic Ministers by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

The spirit of innovation of the past forty years has dulled the sensibilities of many churchmen to the seriousness and gravity of their almost routine ruptures with tradition. If it is pointed out to them that some innovation would obviously have been detested by the entire assembly of saints, they either do not care (an attitude that at one time would have been unthinkable for a Catholic) or they actually claim that we have made "progress" since their time. Such is the level of our spiritual idiocy that an age as spiritually and aesthetically impoverished as our own can describe itself as "progress," and interpret the saints' presumed displeasure at our novelties as a sign of their backwardness rather than of our immaturity.

As a convert, I have always found the use of "Eucharistic ministers" one of the most disturbing of the postconciliar innovations. I wondered: if Catholics really believe what they say about the Holy Eucharist, and if they really believe what they say about the holy priesthood, why on earth undermine both by the introduction of laymen into so sacred an area of the Church's life - and one into which laymen had never asked or desired admission? After all, St. Thomas Aquinas made an explicit connection between the ordination of the priest and his distribution of Holy Communion, and Pope John Paul II once pointed out the relationship between the consecration of the priest's hands and his inestimable privilege of distributing consecrated Hosts to the faithful.

None of this seems to matter to the innovators, whose ideological point isn't exactly subtle: the introduction of Eucharistic ministers clearly and obviously denigrates the office of the sacramental priesthood in the name of an egalitarianism utterly foreign to Catholic tradition (though, not coincidentally, quite welcome to the world). The implicit premise is that we must be conformed to the world: since the age we live in is one that emphasizes "equality," and since the privileges of the priesthood therefore seem incongruous and intolerable to the opinion makers of our time, the demands of the age rather than those of immemorial tradition must be satisfied.

In at least one case, Eucharistic ministers are apparently being foisted on an indult Mass community - that is, people who attend the Church's traditional Latin Mass. Of course, people who attend that Mass do so precisely in order to avoid the casual familiarity in the presence of the sacred that the use of Eucharistic ministers so plainly reflects. In a world that believes that nothing is immune to change, that the family itself is subject to redefinition according to human whim, they appreciate the fact that the piety and reverence of the traditional Latin Mass, in its beauty and stately reserve, and in its reservation of sacred tasks to the priest alone, reminds us that some things really are not to be touched by man. What message do our society and our children need more than this?

The great King Philip II of Spain, upon eyeing a young toddler attempting to scale the Communion rail, explained to the young child, "Only the priests may go there." Today, a generation with more misplaced self-confidence than spiritual maturity laughs at the beautiful and solemn piety of our forebears, who would never have dreamed of encroaching on the terrain of the holy priesthood and demystifying and rendering profane the site of the most beautiful and majestic thing on earth.

Good Catholic parents must therefore work against the pressures of the media, of the entertainment industry, and of the overall Zeitgeist to impart to their children the idea that some things are sacred, an idea that is best expressed through action and gesture. Holy Communion, they tell their children, by imparting to us a share in the divine life, is God's greatest gift to us on earth. Holy Communion, moreover, contains the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Himself. The only rational and spiritually mature response to such a gift, therefore, must be great reverence, and it is this message to children that the presence of Eucharistic ministers, non-ordained members of the faithful, consistently undermines. Since, moreover, the priest's exclusive custodianship of the Eucharist has traditionally been one of the aspects of the priesthood that has so fascinated and enticed boys from a young age about that sacred office, the use of Eucharistic ministers can only detract from the mystery of the priesthood that young boys find so compelling. (Why make all the sacrifices associated with the life of the priest if Mrs. Jones can feed the flock just as well as you can?)

It is this spiritual sickness that besets us on all sides, and which is practically institutionalized throughout American parish life, that people who attend the traditional Latin Mass are attempting to avoid. They make great sacrifices to attend these Masses, often driving hours each way or even relocating elsewhere in the country where the old Mass is more easily accessible. Bishops and pastors who go out of their way to demonstrate their "pastoral understanding" toward divorced and remarried Catholics, dissenting Catholics, feminist Catholics - the list gets much worse - have nothing but contempt for those Catholics who are simply trying to live the Faith as their fathers and grandfathers did, and who in their own way are trying to resist the surrounding culture's fixation with desacralization and the profane that bishops and pastors should themselves be resisting rather than indulging.

That Catholics should have to contend with their own pastors in such a struggle is bizarre and demoralizing enough, but that they should have to do so in the context of the traditional Mass is inexcusable. Such profanation shows utter disregard for the sensibilities of those present and gives scandal to the children. There is more than a touch of fanaticism in those who, while acquiescing in or positively encouraging such spectacles as charismatic hysteria, the alleged "cathedral" in Los Angeles, and interfaith liturgical dance, only grudgingly allow the traditional Mass of their own Church - and even then have to impose on its hapless faithful one of the most impious and destructive innovations since Vatican II, one which obviously violates the entire ethos of the old rite and the traditional view of the priesthood - that is, the only one the saints would have recognized. Can't these poor folks simply be left alone?


TOPICS: Catholic; Religion & Culture; Worship
KEYWORDS: catholic; eucharisticminister; indult; ministers; novusordo; thomasewoods; tridentinemass; vaticanii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Desdemona
<> Well, I love the 1962 Roman Missal, but, I also recognise the schismatic mentality of those attached to it. It is undeniable and those that set themeselves up as spokesmen for the Indult or Traditionalist movement are leading into extremism thos eon the fence.

It is also undeniable there are MANY who both love the 1962 Roman Missal and maintain the Bionds of Unity in Worship, Doctrine and Auhtority are are obedient to Rome, recognise the Missa Normativa and are bound by the Second Vatican Council but their voices are silent. If they do speak and object to the behavior and extremism of those who have seized control of the Indult/Traditionalist movement, they are read out of it as not really committed to the truth<>

22 posted on 12/28/2002 7:46:57 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
If they do speak and object to the behavior and extremism of those who have seized control of the Indult/Traditionalist movement, they are read out of it as not really committed to the truth

True. But the same can be said for the modernists. Just try objecting to some of the abuses.
23 posted on 12/28/2002 7:50:54 AM PST by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HDMZ
It is also common occurence to force the congregation to receive communion "consecrated" at a previous "novus ordo missae" and usually by a "priest" ordained in the new rite.

You're the sedevacantist, aren't you?

What a bizarre human being!

24 posted on 12/28/2002 7:55:32 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Just read (Part) of the "biography" that a liberal reporter did on Ratzinger. What I found most interesting was the part about how the Church dwelt with Kueng. The Cardinal gave up on Kueng about the same tme I did, about 1975, when his biggest best seller came out and came to the same conclusion: That Kueng turned Christianity into an abstraction and that the Church should make it perfectly clear that he spoke not for the Church but only himself and his sect. Reminds me of a story I once read about Maimonides, that he reasoned himself almost out a faith in God. Compare that with the story about St. Thomas, that he had a mystical experience that made everything he had written seem like straw. Ultimately, we can know God only after HE reaches out and touches our mind.
25 posted on 12/28/2002 8:37:28 AM PST by RobbyS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
We have a deacon who helps out at Mass. No lay ministers. It works well. And the extra time at the rail on your knees is a good thing. Why rush through Communion?
26 posted on 12/28/2002 8:40:01 AM PST by WriteOn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS; ultima ratio
Reminds me of a story I once read about Maimoneides,that he reasoned himself almost out of a belief in God.

That is the reason I have asked Ultima Ratio why he chose that name. He has not responded.

I have wondered if his "greatest reasoning" has led him to the abyss of non-belief in anything but the Tridentine Mass and when something harms that certainty his world will collapse. Or,if he knows exactly what he is doing and is trying to lead us all into questioning all that is Catholic with the hope of luring us into the abyss.

But rather than speculate,I will again ask UR,just why did you choose your screen name?

27 posted on 12/28/2002 10:00:57 AM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
First, faith and reason have always marched together in Catholicism. Second, there is something in what you say. And it is this: if the post-conciliar rejection of the past two thousand years is allowed to stand, then it would prove that the Catholic Church itself is a sham and has always been a sham. You simply cannot reverse Catholicism and say--oops!--we were wrong before, but we've finally got it right, the popes were infallible before, but somehow they still got it wrong, but this pope has got it right and is infallible. No, if the past popes were wrong, then the whole concept of infallibility collapses.

That is why we should understand that Vatican II is a pastoral council only and was not itself making claims to infallibility. Otherwise it would logically bring the whole Church into ruin. This Pope and his bureaucracy understand all this. They are very careful to make changes that do not attack Tradition directly. They do so only indirectly, destroying Catholic culture and suppressing doctrines they no longer find convenient or convincing--which was the real purpose behind the manipulation of the liturgy. Gradually, the hope was that Catholics would no longer believe in the old faith; gradually, a new faith would be introduced while the old faith simply faded away--as it did in Catholic England in the sixteenth century under Cranmer.

This is why the persistance of SSPX is such an affront. It is the living presence of the old Church in which the memory of the Church itself is stored. Why do you suppose an apostate like Kasper is tolerated, but a traditionalist like Lefebvre is not? Why are seminarians who sleep around tolerated, while those who say their rosaries are not? Why do some bishops welcome gay Masses, clown Masses, teddy bear Masses, teen Masses, polka Masses--but not the old Latin Mass? There is a real fear of the glaring contrast presented by a Society like SSPX which adheres to Catholicism as it has always been preached and lived. Traditionalism is a sign of contradiction that condemns all that is presently going on in the name of Catholicism. It teaches the young what their patrimony truly is--something other than what is now being taught.
28 posted on 12/28/2002 11:05:21 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
They are spiritually and intellectually protestants and they are dooming what they claim to love...Go figure.

What is pathetic is that those who claim to love the 1962 Roman Missal encourage their mouthpieces in their sucidial actions. That illustrates the schismatic mindset that suffuses the Indult crowd.

Spot on CG!

The author provides no way to corroborate his claim. Just an unsubstantiated rumor to get the horses saddled. I'm thinking that if an indult needs a eucharistic minister, it speaks to the popularity of that particular mass, that one priest can't distribute communion in a timely fashion. There must be hundreds of communicants. Hooray! But no. The schismatics will say that because of this one instance, the Vatican ( the pope pulls all the strings of the billion strong adherents you know) is "foisting" EM's on the indult crowd. That's like me, going to the local convenience store on Christmas eve, observing that it is closed, and remarking that well, all the convenience stores are closed fom now on. What a travesty!

It is precisely because of this type of illogic and radical paranoia that they are not taken seriously, and are viewed with utmost skepticism. They think that they are upholding the faith when in reality , they demonstrate their sublime lack of faith. Yes, it is suicidal, because it is not inappropriate to deduce that this lack of faith, paranoia, and irrationality is related to their adherence to the traditional mass community that is outside the local ordinary's authority. Not that the mass itself creates that kind of mentality, but rather their personalized justification for having made the decisions they have. Their hatred for anything outside their own understanding or experience has made them into mind - numbed clones who tilt at windmills. Etc. Etc.

Sigh.

29 posted on 12/28/2002 11:22:48 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Catholicguy
Your argument regarding the Indult is pathetic in the face of the disobedience of Novus Ordo bishops--which has been widespread and blatant from the beginning of this papacy but which is wholly tolerated. The Indult crowd, on the other hand, has been fairly docile and quiet from the moment it came on the scene. When it occasionally speaks out--as some of their theologians did in Elmhurst--their people are summarily slapped down and fired--without being allowed any redress--something Rome has never done with liberal theologians who may deny the faith to their heart's content without so much as a peep from the Vatican. So clearly there's a double standard. Amazing how much corruption and apostasy Rome will tolerate, but how little traditionalism it can stand.

But you are correct as to why the Indult was granted in the first place. It was designed to split the SSPX, to divide and conquer it, not to show consideration for traditionalists--which was the phony reason the Pope gave publicly in his letter. The entire assault against SSPX has been politically motivated, as had been the continuous pressure brought to bear against Archbishop Lefebvre after the Council since he alone dared to keep the old faith, the only thing NOT to be permitted in the New Church. All else was open for grabs, but not the desire to keep what had been our heritage for two thousand years.

Your attempt to paint traditionalists as Protestants because they resist a bad pope is ludicrous in any case-- precisely because it is this Pope and his minions who have been relentlessly pushing a new Protestantism on the faithful, who have turned around the altars as Luther did, who have thrown out the Offertory as Luther did, who have signed a decree on justification with Lutherans which gives assent to the Protestant, not the Catholic, theological perspective.

Traditionalists, on the other hand, abide by the ancient Catholic faith and put this faith before even the papacy itself, which they rightly understand exists precisely to defend the faith above all else--something this pope does not do. Traditionalists believe what has been HANDED-DOWN from apostolic times, not what has been newly minted by a pope who exceeds his authority. In this they remain most truly Catholic, however few in number.
30 posted on 12/28/2002 11:37:05 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
You fail to understand the problem of eucharistic ministers. It is another attempt to desacralize the priesthood and to protestantize the Church. Traditionalists understand this. You don't because such minstry seems to you normal and familiar, whereas in actuality it is a perversion of Catholicism itself and the claims it makes for a priesthood set apart for a Mass of sacrifice.
31 posted on 12/28/2002 12:14:27 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The link below is to an article in Una Voce by an older Jesuit that I think is very relevant to this discussion:

http://www.unavoce.org/wasdomgueranger.htm

For those who don't want to bother going to the site, here's a quote:

"Dom Gueranger started the liturgical revival in the nineteenth century, and, perhaps with an eye on what had happened during the Reformation, said that to change people’s religion you need do no more than change their books of worship. As we know, our books of worship were changed in 1968. The reason Pope Paul VI initiated the change was his hope that a new liturgy would somehow attract Protestants back into the Church. He accordingly invited Protestant observers, and they later claimed that they had been allowed to make positive contributions to the new text. Certainly, in the new Mass there is nothing that could offend Protestants in any way."

32 posted on 12/28/2002 2:25:47 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: livius
Good article.
33 posted on 12/28/2002 3:46:56 PM PST by Scupoli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Their hatred for anything outside their "own understanding or experience" has made them into mind - numbed clones who tilt at windmills.

Most Catholics who go to great efforts to assist at a Tridentine Mass do so because they understand and have experienced the travesty of the Novus Ordo Mass. Talk about tilting at windmills, the Novus Ordo Mass is still changing on a yearly basis and you all swallow it hook, line and sinker.

At the immediate conclusion of VCII, were the following directives issued: Holy Communion while standing, extraordinary ministers, Holy Communion in the hand, altar girls? What's next?The Novus Ordo is the windmill. The Tridentine Mass is a rock.

34 posted on 12/28/2002 8:34:09 PM PST by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: livius
Certainly, in the new Mass there is nothing that could offend Protestants in any way."

What in the "old" mass was offensive to Protestants? Were those elements eliminated?

35 posted on 12/28/2002 9:08:17 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You fail to understand the problem of eucharistic ministers.

The problem I was addressing in my post to CG is the schismatic tendency to make a mountain out of a molehill. "Aha!" is more likely to come out their mouth before "Dear Jesus". You can't see the problem there. Whatever. Mock on. Mock on.

36 posted on 12/28/2002 9:15:42 PM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
What you see as a molehill IS a mountain. You judge these incrementalisms as insignificant because you lack an authentic sense of Catholic tradition, having been thoroughly protestantized. You suggest my perspective is "schismatic." It would seem that way to you. But I would not want to belong to this new thing which is increasingly alien. It is not the true faith. It is a new religion--and I gladly prescind from it.
37 posted on 12/28/2002 10:43:35 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
That you don't know what it was in the old Mass that was offensive to Protestants is an indication of how lost you are on this issue. Protestants 1) objected to the doctrine of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence; 2) objected to the concept of the Mass as a reenactment of Christ's sacrifice on Calvary; 3) objected to the doctrine of the continual need for expiation for our sinfulness. These central Catholic doctrines--which Trent insisted on--have been suppressed in the New Mass. Liturgists will insist they are still present--but they are beliefs which have been made virtually invisible, overwhelmed by the memorial meal aspects of the Mass and made secondary within the liturgical action. This is why the concept of a priest (he who makes sacrifice) is subordinated to the activity of his presiding; it is why genuflections and kneelings (showing adoration of the Real Presence) have been eliminated; it is why the Offertory (Christ's offering of Himself to the Father in expiation for our sins)has been eliminated. All this is nothing short of blasphemous and profoundly unCatholic.
38 posted on 12/28/2002 11:01:36 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: livius
<> THis Advent I began re-reading Dom Gueranger's "The Liturgical Year." I can promise you he would NOT have countanenced opposition to Divinely-Constituted authority<>
39 posted on 12/29/2002 4:41:32 AM PST by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You judge these incrementalisms as insignificant because you lack an authentic sense of Catholic tradition, having been thoroughly protestantized.

I judge these incrementalisms as insignificant because they are publicized by men such as Woods and Ferrara, who, as of yet, have not impressed me with journalistic accuracy or objectivity. Frankly, when the author says the Vatican is "foisting" EM's on the indult mass my BS detector begins ululating (for you CG)loudly. I do assist at the indult mass in my area, and when traveling I will go out of my way to attend an indult mass. It is my observation, based on personal experience, that EM's at an indult mass be unimaginable. But this is the modus operandi of the schizzies. They create a climate of fear, even of the indult. It is the practice of a cult that employs those type of tactics. They don't want their members attending anything but C.O.W. masses. Which is worse? Thoroughly protestantized, or thoroughly brainwashed?

40 posted on 12/29/2002 8:08:18 AM PST by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson