Lay Person Distributing Ashes
#21
matthew_talbot Wrote:Perhaps not. But it is part of the abuse that happens daily in Novus Ordo churches due to the ambiguity of the protestantized "Pauline Mass."
There are some places where the Pauline mass is said without any of those problems.

Quote: If my children were to walk into a N.O Mass, or their "Ash Wednesday Lite" ceremony, they would not even recognize it as Catholic
It would depend on which church. Unless your children speak Latin well and know the in depth design of the masses, they may not even know the difference between a TLM and a NO when both are strictly adhering to the rubrics.

Reply
#22
ONeill Wrote:
matthew_talbot Wrote:Perhaps not. But it is part of the abuse that happens daily in Novus Ordo churches due to the ambiguity of the protestantized "Pauline Mass."
There are some places where the Pauline mass is said without any of those problems.

Quote: If my children were to walk into a N.O Mass, or their "Ash Wednesday Lite" ceremony, they would not even recognize it as Catholic
It would depend on which church. Unless your children speak Latin well and know the in depth design of the masses, they may not even know the difference between a TLM and a NO when both are strictly adhering to the rubrics.

and therein lies the difference - when both are adhering to the rubrics.

In my experience most NO do not - which causes the difference.
Reply
#23
I think some of us are a bit spoiled. Becuase it often takes extra effort to assist at one and to offer it, generally the only priests and people you'll find at a TLM have a deep appreciation and devotion to the liturgy.
Times of irreverence towards the Sacred are not limited to those predominated by the novus Ordo. For a really drastic example, just read the lamentations of some 14th century saints (Sts. Catherine of Siena and Bridget of Sweden come to mind) and the liturgy at that time would be practically the same as the TLM. You can find the same problems in other periods too.

Irreverence towards the sacred is usually accompanied by other problems among both clergy and the faithful--neglect of the truths of the faith, extreme and abject worldliness (placing the respect of the world above salvation), crisis in morals, and corruption of religious houses. It's a vicious circle as these vices lead to abuse of the liturgy which itself contrubutes to those vices and so on and so forth. Historically it has taken extraordinary intervention by God with some sort of chastising "shock" to the system and drastic "pruning" to break the cycle. The times shortly preceding and accompanying the Great Schism, the Great Western Schism, and the Reformation are all examples of this.

The "signs of the times" do seem to be pointing to something similar...



Reply
#24
On topic, perhaps you might enjoy an article I posted a few years ago:

http://stlouiscatholic.blogspot.com/2007...toral.html

Top Ten Examples of Genuine Pastoral Necessity...
[Image: ashforehead.jpg]




...for allowing "Lay Ministers" to administer ashes to the faithful on Ash Wednesday:

I read in our diocesan newspaper, among the general announcements about Lent and the related regulations, that in the case of "genuine pastoral necessity" lay ministers have permission to distribute ashes.

I'm fairly naive, I guess, but that got me to wondering what exactly would constitute a genuine pastoral necessity to allow lay ministers to distribute ashes. I mean, it's not like viaticum or last rites, where danger of death would be a problem to avoid. As a service to you, the reader, I have compiled my own top ten list, with apologies to David Letterman.

Top Ten Examples of Genuine Pastoral Necessity for Allowing Lay Ministers to Distribute Ashes:

10. The ashes to be distributed come from the still-burning structure of the Church in which it takes place.

9. Want to finish ceremony in time to catch Regis and Kelly.

8. All of the 10,000 members of the parish showed up for this Ash Wednesday Mass.

7. Want to finish ceremony before the release of the universal indult, which we understand is to happen Subito.

6. When allowing them to do so gives them a feeling of empowerment and self-realization.

5. One of the lay ministers is wanted by the police in connection with a crime, and they don't yet have a set of fingerprints.

4. Every one of the faithful is in full blown labor and 8cm dilated.

3. The parish has been slated for closure and the wrecking ball is outside, beginning to swing.

2. Parishioners are so used to receiving communion from these people that the sight of a Priest freaks them out.

1. Since the lay ministers themselves choose to receive ashes in the hand, they already have the supplies-- so why not?
Reply
#25
ONeill Wrote:
matthew_talbot Wrote:Perhaps not. But it is part of the abuse that happens daily in Novus Ordo churches due to the ambiguity of the Protestantiszed "Pauline Mass."
There are some places where the Pauline mass is said without any of those problems.

Quote:If my children were to walk into a N.O Mass, or their "Ash Wednesday Lite" ceremony, they would not even recognize it as Catholic
It would depend on which church. Unless your children speak Latin well and know the in depth design of the masses, they may not even know the difference between a TLM and a NO when both are strictly adhering to the rubrics.




My children know their ecclesiastical Latin well and my older ones would certainly know the difference. We pray many of our prayers at home (Rosary, grace, Angelus, Regina Coeli, morning and evening prayers. etc) in Latin. As for knowing the difference between a "reverently said" N.O mass, scrupulously sticking to the rubrics, and the T.L.M they attend, that is not germane to the question since most of the N.O masses out there do not do this. Engaging instead in the Protestant drivel you so frequently find.


 
 


Reply
#26
 A correction and addendum to my post above: a Novus Ordo mass said according to the rubrics is still Protestant drivel. A quote from The Ottaviani Intervention, said about the Novus Ordo when the only "version out there"   WAS the rubriclly correct version:

" The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent."

Perhaps some of you would now like to argue with His Emminence Cardinal Ottaviani?? 
Reply
#27
I think his point was that if the Novus Ordo Mass was said versus orientem and in Latin, the average guy in the pew -- without a missal -- wouldn't know the difference.
 
- Lisa


Reply
#28
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:I think his point was that if the Novus Ordo Mass was said versus orientem and in Latin, the average guy in the pew -- without a missal -- wouldn't know the difference.
 
- Lisa


Than the "average guy" should invest a bit more time to learn about and understand the differences. The Novus Ordo is full of "sheeple;" We should not as "Trads" allow ourselves to get this way. You do not a Doctorate to understand these issues. I am a man of average formal education and understand them quite well. Others could do the same.



 
Reply
#29
matthew_talbot Wrote:The Novus Ordo is full of "sheeple." 

What's that supposed to mean? Didn't Jesus Himself describe us as sheep?

- Lisa

Reply
#30
StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
matthew_talbot Wrote:The Novus Ordo is full of "sheeple." 

What's that supposed to mean? Didn't Jesus Himself describe us as sheep?

- Lisa

Although I generally do not like to use "Wikipedia" as a source, this is actually a very good definition, Lisa (although I suspect you were writing "tounge in cheek" concerning your not understanding the word in question). 
Sheeple is a term of disparagement, a portmanteau created by combining the words "sheep" and "people."
It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived authority, or suggestion without sufficient research to fully understand the scope of the ramifications involved in that decision, and thus undermine their own human individuality or in other cases give up certain rights. The implication of sheeple is that as a collective, people believe whatever they are told, especially if told so by a perceived authority figure believed to be trustworthy, without processing it or doing adequate research to be sure that it is an accurate representation of the real world around them. The term is generally used in a political and sometimes in a religious sense.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)