5 Liturgical Reforms for the Roman Rite: How ordinary parishes can follow Rome
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лют 2024
- This video tackles the topic of liturgical abuse, and hopes to inspire reform in those areas where the everyday parish has fallen short of perfection in its mandate of right worship to God.
Sources:
The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite: www.peterboroughdiocese.org/e...
Catechism of the Catholic Church #1324 (Eucharist as source and summit): www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/13...
Code of Canon Law #230 (Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers): www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iu...
On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful in the Sacred Ministry of Priest: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po...
Redemptionis Sacramentum: www.vatican.va/roman_curia/co...
Tra Le Sollecitudini (Pope Pius X on chant): www.papalencyclicals.net/pius...
Musicae Sacrae (Pope Pius XII on chant): www.vatican.va/content/pius-x...
Sacrosanctum Concilium (Vatican II on the liturgy): www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...
Address of His Holiness Pope Francis to the “Scholae Cantorum” (Pope Francis on chant): www.vatican.va/content/france...
Mediator Dei #60 (Pius XII on Latin): www.vatican.va/content/pius-x...
A quick preemptive note about this video: some Eastern Catholics may object to my classification of all Catholics as "Roman" because they would say that they are not Roman, as they are Eastern. Which seem reasonable enough.
However, this is a common misconception: Roman is both genus and species depending on context. This means that we can accurately say the "Roman Church" and be referring to all those Christians fully united to the body of Christ in allegiance to the Supreme Pontiff, or we can say the Roman Rite and refer to the Latin Rite in particular.
Hence does Pius XII say, "To be Christian one must be Roman; one must recognize the oneness of Christ's Church, that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles"
Also, at 2:35 I said "from" and not "apart from". Please defer to the text.
I know the church has used Roman Catholic in many documents in the past. But was it not first used by the Protestants to highlight and accuse Catholics of allying with a foreign power? I am not sure.
I have had many discussions with my fellow Eastern Catholics on this. Not many here(incl me) are big fans having the prefix. Of course, our allegiance ultimately lies at Rome but we(the Syro Malankara church to be exact) have little to do with the term historically. Much of this hesitancy can be attributed to the forced latinization we were victim to in the past. If I am to describe myself. I am Catholic who follows the West Syriac Rite. Or I am a Malankara Catholic ."Roman"just seems excessive at this point although I am not too bothered if someone uses it.
I can remember one of my Uncles saying that Communion at his parish on Sunday took 15 minutes (3 priests). But he was not complaining. He was bragging!!
Some people argue that Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers of Holy Communion make the distribution of the Holy Communion shorter, but is that really the most important thing? Shouldn't we care more about the quality and reverence of the sacrament than the quantity and speed of the distribution?
Ofc you are absolutely right but the unnecessary installation of Eucharistic ministers is just a symptom of a more general problem of lacking sanctity, catechism (of layman and priests). If even a big portion of those who go to church regularly don't believe in Transubstantiation (as statistics have shown), why should there be a necessity to make liturgy more venerable?
Redemptionis Sacramentum condemns the use of the term eucharistic minister when referring to anyone other than a priest. Extraordinary minister is the proper term, because the role should only be used in extraordinary cases. I think the fact probably 80%+ of parishes refer to them as eucharistic ministers contributes to the novel commonality of this practice
I avoid these issues by going to an aporoved 1962 Missal Mass. Celebrated ad orientem, with a communion rail, and no extraordinary eucharistic ministers (we typically have 1000+ at our services, and the priest gets the Eucharist out in a timely manner).
This isn't a solution, it's avoiding the problem. There's a very real possibility of an outright ban on the missal of 1962 in the next few years, and if it is banned - those who love their liturgy will have to decide if their allegiance lies with the Church irrespective of liturgy, or with their own love of aesthetics. The existence of two missals in what is essentially one rite is mostly a source of division, and one or the other needs to be suppressed at this point.
@@CatechesisVids My allegiance will be to what you mockingly call “love of aesthetics”. I cannot follow this disgrace of a pope.
@@CatechesisVids My take is that Pope Francis needs to ban the 1962 missal asap and put an end to the schismatics. Either fall in line or leave. I say leave, and leave now.
@@amandadelassus2128 Clearly you're a buffet Catholic. Why don't you just leave the church now. Just go. We don't need your hate. Go away.
I have never heard of any laity using priestly garments or gestures, have you ever actually experienced any of this occurring?
Yes. I was in Galway, Ireland on my honeymoon last August and the cathedral had eucharist ministers wearing copes (actual name of the garment). This is the garment reserved for the priest when doing adoration, and it's directly associated with a priest glorifying the eucharist. Very odd thing to see. The EM's were women, so definitely not priests.
Lay Choirmasters in ages past wore Copes [over their Surplice], as well as Acolytes assisting a Bishop. It is the sole vestment [aside from an Alb] that could theoretically be worn by a Layman. However we are agreed that it is altogether unsuitable for the distribution of the Eucharist, let alone by women.@@CatechesisVids
Yes, every time I expose the blessed saracment I wear a Humur veil, although technically it’s not a priestly garment.
Incorrect, the Humur veil also.
@weirdschool
Interesting! Certainly it would be more fitting for an acolyte to wear priest-lite garments than an ordinary layman (especially a woman).
When communion is given out on the boat species, which most parishes now do
This becomes necessary to have communion ministers, at least for the cup
Of course, the cup is optional and we don’t have to do it but the full symbolism is good and I’ve not seen any abuse of this option in the 40 years I’ve been assisting at liturgy
From some of the comments it is obvious that an understanding of theGeneral Instruction of the Roman Missal would help.
You forgot one. The priest should celebrate the mass facing The Tabernacle. No where in the CVII documents says that the priest should celebrate the mass facing the people.
But Paul VI allowed xd
I have been a professor in seminaries and have taught theology including liturgy. One problem I have found is that Bishop's Conferences have
overloaded the curriculum with subjects which are secondary or simply should not be taught in a seminary. The seminarians are overloaded with excessive subjects. Why should br taught English or Spanish whilst Latín is given so little time that priests for the most part know no Latín and less Biblical ? Greek. 8:04 8:04
The whole system needs to be
8:04
The 8:04
No he shouldn’t, because the Mass isn’t being offered to the Son and the locus of worship is on the Altar not the tabernacle.
@@michaelspeyrer1264 The priest should have his back turned on the Lord through 95% of the Mass?
@@baldwinthefourth4098 You understand that the altar would be moved so that it is directly in front of the tabernacle and therefore between the priest and the tabernacle.
Fantastic video, though I think it should have certainly included communion on the tongue & ad orientem as the most important changes as these direct reverence and focus to God and not man.
Though I don't receive in the hand, and would prefer an exclusive return to communion on the tongue, there's nothing immoral about reception on the hand - so it didn't belong in this video as it was mostly about liturgical abuse. Communion in the hand is not liturgical abuse as it is formally approved.
Ad Orientum is another thing that's an option and not a command, which doesn't fit with a video about liturgical abuse even though (again) full return to Ad Orientum would be neat and I would definitely support it.
@@CatechesisVidsAh, I see. I thought the video was just about improvements and not necessarily liturgical abuse, thanks for clarifying.
Maybe the topic was a bit nebulous, it could have included other things perhaps.
@@CatechesisVids Dood. You need a time machine so you can go back to medieval times. Don't go wishing the Ad Orientum on those of us who don't need or want it. It wouldn't be "neat". You Rad-Trads can have all the Ad Orientum you want. Quit trying to change the NO mass.
Well I‘m a liberal Catholic so I don’t mind these things too much and think that more integration of lay people is beneficial but some points like including Latin and Gregorian chants would indeed be nice to see more of. As a compromise regarding your first point I would revive and support the anointing of acolytes - it‘s usually always the same lay people helping with distributing the Eucharist and even women can become acolytes, so this would be a good integration of laypeople while also insuring the proper handling of Holy Eucharist.
Any movement toward reintroducing the minor orders or greater solemnity in the rites would be positive I think.
There are many "Latin Rites" including the Ambrosian, Bragan, and Mozarabic. You are really speaking if only the "Roman Rite."
I see you didn't read the pinned comment
Those aren’t Eastern rites.
Please read the pinned comment.
One maybe you aren’t aware of are the absence of communion plates/patents. In the documents the church has given us it clearly states that they should be in the mass as follows:
In the General Instruction of the Roman Missial under The Articles to Be Prepared. In 118 b it says,
"On the credence table: the chalice, a corporal, a purificator, and, if appropriate, the pall; the paten and, if needed, ciboria; bread for the Communion of the priest who presides, the deacon, the ministers, and the people; cruets containing the wine and the water, unless all of these are presented by the faithful in procession at the Offertory; the vessel of water to be blessed, if the asperges occurs; the Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful; and whatever is needed for the washing of hands."
The second reference of communion plates are mentioned in Instruction Redemptionis Sacrementum. In paragraph 93 it states,
"The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling."
I have been talking about priests about this in the archdiocese I got to school in, and we are going to take it to the bishop. Hopefully something fruitful will come to bare.
I really enjoyed the video!
Thanks for watching! I've pretty much always gone to traditional parishes that had patents, but I never realized there was legislation on them. I certainly hope they become more widely used to avoid danger of dropping or losing fragments of the eucharist.
The official name of the Church is Catholic not , Roman Catholic. The term Roman was applied to the Church by Henry VIII to distinguish between the Church in England from the Church headed by the Pope.
See my pinned comment.
@@CatechesisVids yes, I originally saw your comments. I wasn't necessarily disagreeing. In places which are former British colonies it is common to see a parish with a sign that says: Roman Catholic Church. I'm simply pointing out that this is an anomaly created by Henry VIII. Having debated many protestants they know almost nothing about Church history, not to mention Scripture. Common usage of the term "Roman Catholic" reinforces the misconception that the Catholic Church that St Ignatius of Antioch spoke of in 107 is a different Church than the Church of today. Protestants claim, wrongly, that the Roman Catholic Church was created by Constantine. I understand the nuances of the Church of Rome as the Chair of Peter. However, a typical protestant will not. Using the official name Catholic Church in a public forum like this avoids problems. Bottom line is you can't go wrong by simply calling it the Catholic Church. This doesn't ruffle the East and doesn't give fodder to the heretics. Thanks for a great video
@@CatechesisVids I saw your comments before I commented. I understand what you mean. However, protestants don't know Church history or Scripture. They think the Catholic Church that St Ignatius of Antioch spoke of in 107 is a different Church than the Church of today. They think Constantine created the "Roman Catholic Church". Using the official name Catholic Church doesn't ruffle the East and doesn't give fodder to the heretics. Thanks for a great video!
By any chances this an Opus Dei clip??
Huh?
In no way does this video give Opus Dei-vibes, whatever you mean by that.
Since the video shows most of the pictures in the old rite.=, I ventrured to write. Vatican Council 11 was mentioned only once. Not that I agree with all that Vatican Coucil dictates, but I thought of asking. Anway my apologois if I asked to wrong question.
@@vincentciliberti5026Good observation but i must clarify that Opus Dei is definitely not known to be a traditionalist group and usually doesn't celebrate the Old Rite nor holds the rite or traditionalist communities in general in high esteem. They are very conservative for sure but are as such still under the superstructure of the "ideas of Vat II". Neoconservatives =/ Traditionalists.
Thank you. To my knowlege the present Pontiff has curtailed masses said by Opus Dei, to the extent that in the country where I live Opus Dei can only say mass at a particular church and thus Opus Dei is not allowed to say mass wherever they may wish as days gone by..@@atherdain4913
I agree 100%.The mass should also be offered Ad Orientem.
Your information at the beginning of the video is outdated. We now use the Roman Missal 3rd Edition from 2011. Also... many times in the Roman Missal III the presider is instructed, "Using these or similar words..." Please stop presenting yourself as an authority in liturgical matters when you are clearly not.
Yes, I'm aware that the 1969 missal has been revised a number of times since the 60's. That doesn't contradict what was said in the video. I do not deny that there are points in the Mass where a priest is given license to use his own words, if I did I would have to deny the use of a homily. What is condemned is adapting those words which are specifically prescribed (of which there are many). For example, a priest who changes the words of institution in any way.
@@CatechesisVids But you are not clear in your original post. You come across as someone with an agenda rather than a true educator of church teachings and documents.
Kind of like a fundamentalist pastor taking scripture out of context to support his own agenda.
I don't think his argument was that priests cannot modify texts they have faculty to modify. I've watched a priest ad lib the Eucharistic Prayer. That is not something he can modify.
Just come back to the old ordo. No need to reform the reform when the traditional rite was the greatest.
You do realize that all religious rites and ceremonies are completely invented by humans. They can also be altered as well by humans.
So?
What should happen is a complete renunciation of Paul VI’s missal, and a complete restoration of the missal previously known as ordinary
This will never happen, and should not happen as it would cause immense confusion to the everyday Christian in his pew who knows nothing of liturgy. Certainly clarifying or improving reforms can be made to the current rite, but no sincere Catholic should reject it.
@@CatechesisVids it should never have happened to begin with because that did happen when Paul 6th issues his novus ordo missae
A neo-conservative rendition of the novus ordo will not save the Church, for It is in the texts of this new, concocted rite that the battle is lost. Only a full return to the Tradition of the Church liturgically and in faith and morals will rescue the current situation..
That is ignorant and heretical .
@@michaelspeyrer1264 Explain your comment or delete it.
I'm not sure how one can describe following the rubrics as neocon.
The current missal is the ordinary form of the Roman Rite now, and if everyone who cares about liturgy flees to the missal of 1962 that leaves few to defend against liturgical abuse in their home parish. Maybe someday there will be a larger overhaul of the missal that more clearly links the 1962 and current missal to one another, but until that time we should uphold and glorify the Mass as it is presented to us for the greater glory of Christ.
@@michaelspeyrer1264😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@michaelspeyrer1264Paul VI was tricked into the Novus Ordo by Cardinal Annibale Bugnini who was a free Mason. When it was discovered that Bugnini lied to the Pope by claiming that most of the bishops liked the new Mass, when exactly the opposite was true, Bugnini was exiled to Iran! Since the new Mass had already been published to the Council Paul VI being, reportedly, a weak administrator let it stand. His aides said Paul VI wept the first time he said the new Mass
I totally agree with these reforms in order to keep the sacredness of the Mass.🎚🙏🎚 8:04
Bring back altar rails and Ad Orientum!
Or we could just go to the TLM. Problem solved. The novus ordo is bad for the faith
It is a disgrace to say that going to the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is bad for your faith.
@@CatechesisVids francis said that there is only 1 form of the Roman rite (the novus ordo). So apparently the church was mistaken for the past 1900 or so years. The novus ordo is not from the apostles and is not an organic development of the TLM. It was jammed down the faithfuls throats in the 1970s. The TLM along with the other legitimate rites is of apostolic origin. Yes Christ is there in the novus ordo mass if it is validly conducted. And despite the destruction to the mass and the other sacraments we still could be saved. When the great apostasy comes what do you think it will look like? Do you think the sacraments and mass won’t be messed with by the enemies of the faith?
The only people who believe this are too young to remember when there was no Novus Ordo.
The only reason the EF sees less abuse these days is that you have to go out of your way to find it. They had bad priests before Vatican II.
@@Runsfrombears There is greater disparity between 1st century liturgy and the TLM than there is between the TLM and the Missal of Paul 6. To argue the Church could bind 99% of its faithful to a rite that is harmful to the soul is to say the Holy Spirit has failed St. Peter. Abuses will always be there, and they will be bad at the end of time, but the Church will never endorse the abuse because it is guided by the Spirit.
It's "Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion." There are no extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, only priests can do this. It's also not up to us to determine necessity.
In cases of obvious lack of necessity, like a parish of 30 people, layity can decide not to volunteer as em's. This is one practical thing they can do.
@@CatechesisVids You may determine that you are not comfortable serving in that capacity. You are not entitled to look down on others who serve when requested. The determination of necessity is not at our level, so good news: one less thing you need to worry about.
Novas ordo was the worst thing to happen to the church since the great schism
>Most reasonable radtrad
Tell me you know nothing about Church history without using those words.
Just another Rad-Trad Catholic trying to force his opinions on those of us who attend and prefer the NO Mass. He clearly attends TLM and has no clue about the NO Mass other than what his Rad-Trad buddies tell him. I find this type of video to be overly schismatic. But that's just my opinion. Sadly, like most Rad-Trad Catholics, this guy thinks he's got all the answers and we need to do exactly as he says. His words are not opinions, they're facts!
While I love the Church's liturgical traditions, I don't normally attend the Latin Mass.
Everything in this video is about the legislative demands the Church makes of the entire ordinary form of the Roman Rite; the points in this video are not optional or merely "my take", but applicable to every diocese that uses the Novus Ordo.
Best Liturgical Reform: Restore the Ancient and Apostolic Catholic Mass.
Well played Jimbo. It's a bad habit of mine to call it the 'old' Mass. It is like the Church herself, ever ancient, ever new. Peace.
If all those who loved the 1962 missal would work instead to reform their local Roman Rite using the normative missal, we would not have such crappy liturgy.
@@CatechesisVids
CV, I appreciate that what you're suggesting is pragmatic and deals with the situation "on the ground", but the 1969 Mass is, and will always be the offspring of Bugnini. "Crappy liturgy" was his intended outcome. It's more logical to begin with the ancient Apostolic rite and perhaps make some reforms to it (if they are in fact necessary), than to try and Rube Goldberg our way from his mess to something like the Apostolic Mass. Opposition or hostility to it lasts as long as the current crop of Baby Boomer Bishops still hold office. The JPII priests will be more open to restoring the '62 missal, and the Benedict ordinands all the more so.
...and watch attendance at mass to become TOTALLY non-exhistant.
Thank you for your comment@@CatechesisVids I frankly disagree. The NO is a major departure from the Catholic Mass. Reading the Short Critical Study of the New Mass published by Cardinal Ottaviani and a few other cardinals and bishops before the official promulgation of the Novus Ordo is what lead me to think this way. All the best. God Bless and Ave Maria
One thing that should never change no female priest
I agree, but more than simply being unwise - the Church regards it as impossible: ua-cam.com/video/WCMK7RsSP24/v-deo.html
That can't change apart from new public revelation.
Best Liturgical Reform: restore the old Mass.
The missal of 1962 will never become the norm again, and it is fruitless to try to make it so. Perhaps someday the missal of 1969 will be made more explicitly similar to earlier liturgies, but as things are now - these are the reforms needed for the Mass we actually have.
Wrong distribution of the Eucharist isn’t
tied to ordination as a priest. Deacons are also ordinary ministers of the sacrament.
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion aren’t used to give lay people something to do. That is simply ignorant.
Perhaps I should have been more precise in my language - it is tied to holy orders, especially to priests and bishops, who confect the eucharist. Certainly (as I said elsewhere) it is more fitting that a deacon distribute the eucharist than a layman.
The position of the "Eucharistic minister" is an indult which is being abused. It was introduced for "situations" when the congregation exceeded the normal capacity of available priests to distributecommunion. Back in the 1970's all of the priests would appear at Mass to distribute communion. Now only the celebrant is present and the other parish priests are absent. I've seen the priest sit down while only the ministers distribute communion. The practice has been distorted to make the laymen more involved. I have never seen when an indult hasn't been abused.
Your last point is wishful thinking. In the vast majority of parishes, EMHC are used to give old people something to do. For example, I teach faith formation, and our textbook included a photo of a EMHC in a wheelchair. If it really was about using the ministry as intended, they wouldn't use a disabled person (no offense to them). The exception to this I would say is communion to the sick/homebound. That actually serves a supplementary purpose. In the mass though, rarely is even 1 actually needed, let alone the platoon than many parishes use.
Wrong It isn’t emergency situations. It’s on a basis of need. And in a Church with several hundred people and one priest there is a consolidating basis of need. The document you are butchering qualifies the rational prohibiting their use with the intention of making them equal to the priest, not based on a consistent need of use and not in an emergency situation. You are purposely distorting the meaning of their use and the grounds of their prohibition out of a false ideological premise.
An unusually large number of faithful is an emergency situation. It may be that there are parishes where there is habitual need for ministers of communion other than priests (particularly in mission areas), but a) there are degradations of semi-ordained and ordained roles that are more fitting for eucharistic minister that the Church prescribes (such as acolytes or deacons) well before we should consider an ordinary layperson, and b) your average western parish where communion might take 20 minutes instead of 10 isn't an emergency situation. Just wait a bit longer for coffee and donuts and (as the document prescribes) pray for more priests.
I've seen daily masses where there's ten people in attendance and they still use extraordinary eucharistic ministers. This is a tragedy.
If they are offering Communion under both kinds that FORCES the priest to use EME!
@@ryanscottlogan8459someone could stand next to the priest with the chalice and the priest could intinct the Eucharist. That, however, would necessitate reception on the tongue....we certainly don't want that! Right?😢 Way too respectful to our Lord
@@ryanscottlogan8459 Technically no, not if there is a deacon available.