Tridentine Mass, Eucharistic Ministers

Seattle Catholic ^ | December 27,2002 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.

[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?

[Tantumergo]

"I have experienced first hand, Novus Ordo priests trying to force reception of Holy Communion in the hand."

Then they are breaking Canon Law and should be told where to get off. No priest or bishop has the right or authority to prevent the sacrament being received in the manner approved by the universal Church.

Parents should accompany their children to receive Holy Communion and if necessary hold their hands so that nothing can be forced on them.

Most priests will back off if you play the angry parent - especially in the current climate!

[Catholicguy]

<>If by "new year," you mean The Liturgical Year, then no. I prayed prior to Advent.

If by "new year" you mean the calendar year, then no. I prayed prior to 2002 and I plan to pray in 2003 also

But, wiseguy responses aside, I think it the case U.R. needs prayer and not "dialogue."

He continues to ping me to try and get me to respond even though over a fortnight ago I told him I would ignore him.

I was posting to several different folks at the same time and I was telling them I sould simply ignore then after what I was drafting appeared in the forum publicly.

U.R. requested I ignore him also. I told him I would. That he continues to repeatedly ping me and try to get me to respond is some indication of the confusion the schism leads one into.

The schism is poisonous. It is spiritually lethal and it causes intellectual confusion<>

[ultima ratio]

No rite was "very different" from the Roman rite codified by Trent. The variations among the Western rites were slight and inconsequential, some of them only involving minor differences in rubrics. The Novus Ordo, on the other hand, was a truly radical break. Read Gamber. Read Ratzinger's introduction to Gamber. Whether you are on your knees or not when you incense the Sacred Species, the text itself ignores the Real Presence, even proclaiming "Christ will come again" at the very moment he has been made present on the altar. Most Catholics nowadays have little awareness of the doctrine. I have seen teenagers stand for the Consecration at the Novus Ordo with their hands in their pockets. Nor do I falsely set up a dichotomy between meal and sacrifice. The sacrificial structure of the Mass has been deliberately destroyed with the elimination of the Offertory. In its place is the Jewish prayer for thanksgiving before meals. The altar has become a table, the priest a presider. The word sacrifice is here and there sprinkled throughout the text, but never alone and always as a mere sop to outraged traditionalists and always subordinate to the concept of a memorial meal in the fashion of the Protestant Lord's Supper. In addition, the doctrine of expiation for sin has been eliminated wholly. Prayers for the intercession of Mary and the saints on our behalf have been eliminated, as well as emphasis on our sinfulness. The new text is a celebration of our worthiness and thankfulness, not our need for Christ's sacrifice for our sins. As for your notion that because modernism was present in some latent form before Vatican II it somehow indicts the preconciliar Church, I can only say your thinking is peculiar. All revolutions begin in this way. The problem is that revolution and Catholicism are impossible to reconcile--which is what this Pope is trying to do--attempting to "modernize" Catholicism, as if embarrassed by it. This is an assault on Tradition--something the Pope took an oath not to do under pain of excommunication.

[ultima ratio]

I asked you to ignore me, but never promised I would ignore you. You are too easy a target with your vitriolic remarks--which are never less than personal. You will pray for me? LOL. Of all the thousands of words posted on this site, the most offensive are the sanctimonious claims by people like yourself to pray for the souls of those you actually show every sign of hating. You, after all, once called me a "son of Satan." What is this but the purest hatred?

As for what is poisonous--it is only falsehood that is to be shunned, not truth. I simply present the truth from a traditional perspective, not with the self-serving distortions that are daily promulgated by the Novus Ordo Church about so-called "schismatics." There is no schism--only the stubborn survival of traditional Catholicism in the midst of a noxious revolution. In such a climate even the Rosary has become a battleground between those who want to protestantize every last doctrine and practice and those who want to preserve intact their Catholic heritage.

[St.Chuck]

Re your comments on central Catholic doctrines not being present in the New Mass, this refutation by Fr. Most should answer your ignorance.

Thanks for your contribution, but alas, nothing will answer UR's ignorance. Ignorance is a charitable description. Willful deception is at play here.

[St.Chuck]

In such a climate even the Rosary has become a battleground between those who want to protestantize every last doctrine and practice and those who want to preserve intact their Catholic heritage.

You are too funny!

You make up your own battles just like don Quixote. I would love to see a protestant reciting ten Hail Mary's while contemplating The Last Supper, then close with the Regina Coeli. Hmmm. Maybe you you have some common ground with protestants by rejecting it.....to go along with your other protestant tendencies.

[VermiciousKnid]

My son will be making his First Holy Communion next year, and I darn near had to call the Bishop in order to get them to tell the children that it is perfectly acceptable (and IMO preferable; I never receive Communion in my hand) to take the Host on the tongue.

They finally gave in, but I'm tempted to call the Bishop's office anyway to make sure the children are taught properly. Of course, they've done away with the communion rails and kneeling, so I'm still not too happy...

Regards,

[ultima ratio]

No, the hilarious guys are the ones like you with the blinders on. Why, after a thousand years, change the Rosary? Why make it "more Christological" unless it is to make it less Marian and therefore less Catholic, to make it more acceptable to Protestants, to homogenize the two opposing theologies and further water-down Tradition? Of course you've got no answer--except to again insult traditionalists. To you it's all no big deal--because you have been thoroughly protestantized. Your sensibilities are therefore not offended. Neither is your faith (or lack of it).

For you to ignore this and try to justify its sudden appearance is a bigger laugh than I've had all year. An article posted a week or so ago on this site was titled--"Is the Pope Catholic?" The question was timely. JnPII certainly didn't sound Catholic in his most recent letter on the Rosary. Sounded above all else like the phenomenologist-humanist-modernist traditionalists have always suspected he was. It certainly was a letter impossible to reconcile with his supposed devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. But people like you remain clueless. To clue you in, therefore, excerpted herewith are the comments of Father Peter Scott, former district superior of SSPX in the US, on the new changes in the Rosary, as well as on other recent abominations to come out of modernist Rome.
____________________________________________________________

THE ROSARY IS NOW TO BE ECUMENICAL

Suffice it to say here that there is in this letter a manifest re-interpretation of the Rosary in a naturalist sense. "In effect", the Pope writes, "the Rosary is simply a method of contemplation." (As such, he explains, it is not essentially different from non-Christian methods of contemplation, which are likewise aimed "at attaining a high level of spiritual concentration by using techniques of a psychophysical, repetitive and symbolic nature." Consequently, he does not hesitate to state that "the Rosary is situated within this broad gamut of religious phenomena." (This is an incredible betrayal of the truth: to consider that the supernatural prayer given by heaven and recommended so many times by the Blessed Mother and by the Church, is essentially no different than a natural method of centering attention, such as Yoga. Why have the Catholic Faith any more, a person could then ask. Why practice devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary if other "techniques" work just as well? Is it any wonder that John Paul II does not at all consider the Rosary as unecumenical, but much to the contrary declares that "If properly revitalized, the Rosary is an aid and certainly not a hindrance to ecumenism!" ( Any good things that the Pope might otherwise say concerning the Rosary or the Blessed Virgin Mary are by such false assertions reduced to simple platitudes, to calm the Catholic faithful. They really do not mean anything.

If Mary is no longer the Mediatrix of all graces, if she henceforth is not to be honored as the Queen of heaven to whom everyone must submit, then devotion to her is but pious talk. If the Rosary is no longer to be the powerful weapon to conquer heresies and the Church's enemies, then the beads are reduced to an empty symbol of subjective pious feelings, or as John Paul II himself says: "the symbolism of the beads is to let them remind us of our many relationships, of the bond of communion and fraternity which unites us all to Christ." (This is all very human and nice, but it has nothing at all to do with the supernatural order of grace and with the mystery of our Redemption that the Rosary is all about.

Truly the Pope's proposed revitalization of the Rosary is a denial of its supernatural power. All the changes that he recommends, including even in the Hail Mary itself ( - by adding a phrase so as to make it more centered on Christ (and, it is understood, less on Our Lady) - have as their purpose to transform the Rosary into a purely natural "method". The terms Christocentric and Christological which are constantly employed throughout this letter are pseudonyms for naturalism. If he wanted to remain truly Catholic and supernatural he would not be afraid to be entirely focused on the Blessed Mother; he would not be scared of being thoroughly Marian; he would not be hesitant to belong completely to her. Then the Rosary, and his devotion to Our Lady, would most certainly hinder ecumenism.

THE NEW DECADES

However, the greatest shock to the Catholic soul in hearing about this letter is the widely publicized proposal of adding five new decades to the Rosary, the five "luminous moments" or "mysteries of light", as he calls them. What is wrong with the 15 mysteries of the Redemption? Are they not the essential expression not only of our Faith, but also of our Catholic life? How could some episodes from the Gospel, as instructive as they might be otherwise, take the place of the mysteries of our Redemption, upon the meditation of which the whole power of the Rosary rests? This is a denial of ecclesiastical tradition, again in favor of ecumenism with protestants. It is a watering down of the essence of the Rosary, as a meditation of the chief episodes in which Mary was the perfect associate of and cooperator with her Divine Son in the work of our Redemption. Are these not the mysteries that our souls need to be penetrated with in order to be able to go to heaven? I consequently beg of you, if you want to remain Catholic and if you want to have a true, supernatural, interior life, do not dream of adding these new mysteries. Stick to the hallowed mysteries that have been handed down by Tradition, and stand firm against this tyrannical abuse of power, by which the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, is trying to destroy that which is most sacred in our Catholic Faith after the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Reject these novelties, and in particular the omission of the wonderfully supernatural prayer taught to us by Our Lady of Fatima, that we place after every decade of the Rosary, which does not even merit a mention in the Pope's letter. Instead he proposes that the people invent a variety of different formulas, that would somehow express more fully or more perfectly than Our Lady's prayer the fruits to be obtained from the Rosary.

Truly, this letter is beyond the limit of what Catholics can bear, and the destruction that will be wrought if anybody takes it seriously is distressing in the extreme. The only consolation is that finally many folks who are not traditional have seen through this attempt to use our heavenly Mother and her Holy Rosary to bring about the modernist work of destruction. May it open their eyes. Already attempts are being made to apply his ideas to various ecumenical experiments, such as the Ecumenical Miraculous Rosary put together by a Lutheran "to share the rosary with non-Catholic Christians in order to achieve greater unity between all Christian denominations", and in which the Hail Mary has been exchanged for a prayer called the Greatest Commandment, and the 15 mysteries have been exchanged for the 15 miracles, taken out of the Bible.(www.ecumenicalrosary.org). Can we blame him taking his cue in this way?

THE "SAINTHOOD" OF JOSEMARIA ESCRIVA

Numerous other issues presently demonstrate the rapid progression of the "auto-destruction" foreseen even by the liberal Pope Paul VI thirty years ago. The worst is that it is becoming increasingly more obvious that this destruction is coming from the top down, from the Pope himself. A typical example of this was the shameful and highly questionable canonization of Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer last October 6. For due process was not followed. Not only was there no devil’s advocate, but the former members of Opus Dei who personally knew Msgr. Escriva and who attempt to register their objections, were not allowed to express their opinion. As a last resort, last September they were forced to write an open letter to the Pope, stating their position before the Truth Himself, Our Lord Jesus Christ: "...It is because we believe that the truth has been in large part hidden that we now give our testimony in order to avoid a danger for the Faith brought about by the unjustifiable reverence for the man that you have the intention of canonizing soon..." They went on to explain that they include "people who have intimately known Msgr. Escriva and who can testify to his arrogance, to his evil character, to his improper seeking of a title(Marquise of Peralta), to his dishonesty, to his indifference towards the poor, to his love of luxury and ostentation, to his lack of compassion and to his idolatrous devotion towards Opus Dei(DICI, No. 61)

After having pointed out that the process was uncanonical and dishonest, they had this to say: "It (the canonization) will offend God. It will stain the Church forever. It will take away from the saints their special holiness. It will call into question the credibility of all the canonizations made during your Papacy. It will undermine the future authority of the Papacy". They were not traditionalists, and they were former members of his organization, but their supplication was not heard, and the ceremony took place as arranged on October 6. Their letter will certainly turn out to be prophetic, for in time they will be proven to be right in their assessment concerning Escriva as well as concerning Opus Dei that they so aptly compare to the liberal Sillon movement, rightly condemned by St. Pius X in 1910. This kind of last minute objection is unheard of in the history of the Church. How could Catholics possibly regard such a man as heroic in virtue, as an extraordinary model of Catholic spirituality, as a saint must be? For all the reasons that they give, we cannot possibly consider this "canonization" as a valid, infallible Papal pronouncement. We trust that he is in heaven, but we cannot possibly regard as a Saint this herald of Vatican II, who preached naturalism and indifferentism as early as 1928.

Another example of the ongoing destruction of Faith, is the letter of the US Episcopal Conference from last August (Reflections on Covenant and Mission) which quite explicitly stated, without any contradiction from Rome, that nowadays Jews do not have to convert to be saved: "A deeper appreciation of the eternal Alliance between God and the Jewish people...has brought about the conclusion that campaigns that would want to convert Jews to Christianity are not theologically acceptable in the Catholic Church". Of course they were doing nothing more than drawing the logical conclusion from the Pope’s 1980 statement that the Jews are "the people of God of the Old Covenant, which has never been revoked by God" (Mayence, November 17, 1980, in DICI No. 60). Truly the modern Church has lost the sense of the truth, and demonstrates very clearly that its only interest is unity, and this regardless of the truth.

Let this awareness fill us with determination to follow our traditional convictions, for the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is "the Way, the Truth and the Life" (Jn 14:6), that we might truly be faithful to the Church "the pillar and mainstay of the truth" (I Tim 3:15). Let us strive to make the Blessed Virgin Mary known and loved for herself, to whom alone it is given to crush the serpent’s head, that heretics might once again be converted, the Church exalted, and that the true Mass and sacraments be returned to Catholics everywhere.

Father Peter R. Scott

[St.Chuck]

Why make it "more Christological" unless it is to make it less Marian and therefore less Catholic, to make it more acceptable to Protestants, to homogenize the two opposing theologies and further water-down Tradition? Of course you've got no answer--except to again insult traditionalists.

My understanding of the church's role in the world is to lead souls to Christ. Marian devotion has always been a conduit (or should be )to Jesus. I would strongly disagree that "more Christological" is less Catholic if my understanding of the term is accurate.

I will not read anything by Peter Scott as he believe's that the N.O. mass is evil. Kind of a custody of the eyes thing with me.

[ultima ratio]

As I say, you've got your blinders on. The use of the term "Christological" is mere trickery--like the excuses used to shunt the tabernacles aside or to prohibit Catholics from kneeling for Communion. There is always a high-sounding reason given for everything. Look at the bottom line: it is to make the Rosary less Marian. But what is the Rosary without Mary for a true Catholic? As I say, it's to make us all Protestants--like yourself.

If you won't read Father Scott, by the way, you needn't read anything I write either. I also think the Novus Ordo is harmful, though it is a valid Mass. It is harmful because it destroys the Catholic faith. You are a good example, I think, of what it does: it makes Protestants of Catholics. You are quite content to see the whole of Catholic culture, together with its doctrines, go down the drain--so long as John Paul II is guiding the general wreckage. You don't much mind a rosary without Mary. You don't quite see the need for her intercession anyway. --What is this but the Protestant perspective?

[St.Chuck]

If you won't read Father Scott, by the way, you needn't read anything I write either.

I think that a good idea. I will be joining a long list of others. May God bless you and your family, and all those that share your point of view regarding the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Be assured that I will continue to pray for the SSPX to reach some kind of accomodation with the Supreme Pontiff. Pax et bonum.

[ultima ratio]

And I will continue to pray that Rome comes to its senses. But if it does not, the last thing in the world I would want is for a reconciliation with SSPX. This would put the last bastion of Catholic Tradition under the control of its mortal enemies. Not a good idea. Right now the ancient faith of the apostles only survives through a remnant.

Goodbye--and the Lord's blessings on you and your family in the coming year.

[saradippity]

I haven't been able to keep up with all the posts but I was about to invite some of the more contentious nonCatholics over to this thread to learn about the new Maryless addition to the Rosary when I had a horrible thought. I don't know what prayer we are using to replace the fifty Hail Mary's.

Since many have great animose to our repetitive requests for Mary's intercession,I know they will be happy they are gone but I do need to tell them what we are using. Your answer ASAP will be much appreciated.

[ultima ratio]

The proposal includes breaking-up of the traditional Hail Mary to include a prayer to Jesus after the words of the Annunciation. In other words, the wrecking ball is hard at work to do to the Rosary what has already been done to the Mass. But hey, give Rome time. It's only a first step. It has decades and generations to complete what it starts. Before long the Rosary will go the way of private devotion to the Sacred Heart and saying the Stations of the Cross. Few "Catholics" bother with either of these devotions anymore.