Vetus Ordo and Going to NO Mass

[Vetus Ordo]

So in these cases, what should I do at NO mass? 1. Should I actively participate or remain silent (like: singing the responsorials/"hymns", shaking hands at sign of peace, praying the Lord's Prayer out loud, etc.)? 2. Additionally, what is the proper way to receive Communion at NO mass since there is no altar rail? Should Communion be received at all? 3. If so, do I need to say amen?

1. You should actively participate in the liturgy. You're not better than anyone else and there's no point in going to mass to be a mere and passive spectator.
2. The proper way to receive communion is usually established by the diocesan bishop. You should be able to receive communion on the tongue standing or kneeling, or on the hand, standing or kneeling. Any of these options is permitted by the Church but you should observe the how the rest of the parish does it.
3. Yes, say amen.

[Ancilla Domini]

1. You should actively participate in the liturgy. You're not better than anyone else and there's no point in going to mass to be a mere and passive spectator.
2. The proper way to receive communion is usually established by the diocesan bishop. You should be able to receive communion on the tongue standing or kneeling, or on the hand, standing or kneeling. Any of these options is permitted by the Church but you should observe the how the rest of the parish does it.
3. Yes, say amen.

I agree.

I have no option but the NO. I do wear a veil, but otherwise I participate according to the local customs. I don't really see the value in going but acting like it's a sort of protest.

[Penelope]

1. You should actively participate in the liturgy. You're not better than anyone else and there's no point in going to mass to be a mere and passive spectator.

Firstly, one doesn't need to respond aloud to participate actively, just to make that point clear. Second, no one claimed any kind of moral or other form of superiority, so for you to insinuate otherwise is unfair.

2. The proper way to receive communion is usually established by the diocesan bishop. You should be able to receive communion on the tongue standing or kneeling, or on the hand, standing or kneeling. Any of these options is permitted by the Church but you should observe the how the rest of the parish does it.

As trads, we know that diocesan bishops are often unwilling to institute or allow orthodox practices, but even assuming that a local bishop has not offered a statement one way or the other, we also know that no priest is allowed to refuse the Eucharist to someone who is kneeling, which was and should remain that standard for reception of Communion.

3. Yes, say amen.

There's really no reason to do this. Reception of the Eucharist is enough of a statement itself that one agrees that he is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

[Vetus Ordo]

Firstly, one doesn't need to respond aloud to participate actively, just to make that point clear. Second, no one claimed any kind of moral or other form of superiority, so for you to insinuate otherwise is unfair.

Firstly, the congregation is supposed to answer aloud in the NO mass. Secondly, to show up at mass and make a point in not conforming to the expected rubrics is, at best, a sign of spiritual immaturity.

As trads, we know that diocesan bishops are often unwilling to institute or allow orthodox practices, but even assuming that a local bishop has not offered a statement one way or the other, we also know that no priest is allowed to refuse the Eucharist to someone who is kneeling, which was and should remain that standard for reception of Communion.

What is the standard for the reception of Communion is not decided by laymen but by their spiritual pastors, the clergy. All the options I listed are permitted by the Church and you can't judge anyone for adopting them.

There's really no reason to do this. Reception of the Eucharist is enough of a statement itself that one agrees that he is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

There's actually a good reason to do it: it's prescribed by the rubrics. As an obedient daughter of the Church, you should do it.

[Penelope]

Firstly, one doesn't need to respond aloud to participate actively, just to make that point clear. Second, no one claimed any kind of moral or other form of superiority, so for you to insinuate otherwise is unfair.

Firstly, the congregation is supposed to answer aloud in the NO mass. Secondly, to show up at mass and make a point in not conforming to the expected rubrics is, at best, a sign of spiritual immaturity.

I do not believe it is required for the congregation to respond aloud at the NO. Can you cite something that proves otherwise? Your opinion may be that choosing not to say the responses aloud is spiritual immaturity, but your opinion holds no weight as far as reality is concerned. The reality is that the Novus Ordo is a protestant-inspired, "banal, on-the-spot production." When the rubrics of that experimental liturgy were created by a committee of protestants and a suspected freemason, and the fruits show an atmosphere of impiety and irreverence, it is a Catholic's duty to participate in a manner that reflects the tradition and wisdom of the Church, in a traditional manner insofar as this is possible.

As trads, we know that diocesan bishops are often unwilling to institute or allow orthodox practices, but even assuming that a local bishop has not offered a statement one way or the other, we also know that no priest is allowed to refuse the Eucharist to someone who is kneeling, which was and should remain that standard for reception of Communion.

What is the standard for the reception of Communion is not decided by laymen but by their spiritual pastors, the clergy. All the options I listed are permitted by the Church and you can't judge anyone for adopting them.

Considering that the various members of the clergy disagree on what the standard ought to be, who do you then suggest we follow? Far be it for me to consider those who are simply following the current customs out of ignorance to be committing sacrilege, but for those who know better, when they actively choose to receive the Eucharist standing or in the hand, then yes, I think it is fair to call that sacrilege.

There's really no reason to do this. Reception of the Eucharist is enough of a statement itself that one agrees that he is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

There's actually a good reason to do it: it's prescribed by the rubrics. As an obedient daughter of the Church, you should do it.

What the laity do or do not do during a Mass has no bearing on the Mass's validity. As an obedient daughter of the Church, in all of its rich traditions, I do not receive Communion in the NO, so your statement does not apply to me.

Edited for grammar.

[Vetus Ordo]

I do not believe it is required for the congregation to respond aloud at the NO. Can you cite something that proves otherwise?

It's a given. But since you demand proof of the obvious, perhaps this part in the GIRM will help clear it up:

34. Since the celebration of Mass by its nature has a "communitarian" character, both the dialogues between the priest and the faithful gathered together, and the acclamations are of great significance; in fact, they are not simply outward signs of communal celebration but foster and bring about communion between priest and people.

35. The acclamations and the responses of the faithful to the priest's greetings and prayers constitute that level of active participation that the gathered faithful are to contribute in every form of the Mass, so that the action of the entire community may be clearly expressed and fostered

(...)

38. In texts that are to be spoken in a loud and clear voice, whether by the priest or the deacon, or by the lector, or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text itself, that is, depending upon whether it is a reading, a prayer, a commentary, an acclamation, or a sung text; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering. Consideration should also be given to the idiom of different languages and the culture of different peoples.

In the rubrics and in the norms that follow, words such as "say" and "proclaim" are to be understood of both singing and reciting, according to the principles just stated above.

Your opinion may be that choosing not to say the responses aloud is spiritual immaturity, but your opinion holds no weight as far as reality is concerned.

I think a simple reading of the GIRM should be enough of a reality-check. If you go the NO, it is expected and required to say the responses, not to remain silent.

The reality is that the Novus Ordo is a protestant-inspired, "banal, on-the-spot production." When the rubrics of that experimental liturgy were created by a committee of protestants and a suspected freemason, and the fruits show an atmosphere of impiety and irreverence, it is a Catholic's duty to participate in a manner that reflects the tradition and wisdom of the Church, in a traditional manner insofar as this is possible.

The reality is that the NO is an official liturgy of the Roman Church, approved and regulated by her. You may try to weasel out of it but you can't.

Considering that the various members of the clergy disagree on what the standard ought to be, who do you then suggest we follow?

Follow the diocesan bishop's instructions. He's in charge, not you. Again from the GIRM: "For the diocesan Bishop, the chief steward of the mysteries of God in the particular Church entrusted to his care, is the moderator, promoter, and guardian of the whole of its liturgical life." This, of course, is in itself taken from Vatican II's Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops, Christus Dominus and also from the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium.

but for those who know better, when they actively choose to receive the Eucharist standing or in the hand, then yes, I think it is fair to call that sacrilege.

The Church, including the pope, disagrees with your assessment.

What the laity do or do not do during a Mass has no bearing on the Mass's validity. As an obedient daughter of the Church, in all of its rich traditions, I do not receive Communion in the NO, so your statement does not apply to me.

It applies to Lirael and all those who in good conscience choose to communicate at a NO mass.

[tmw89]

Vetus, the conduct of a Trad at the NO - if that Trad feels they must attend the NO - should not conform to the GIRM.

Please do not accuse someone of trying to "weasel out" of something, it is not charitable and so far as I can see there is no reason for use of such language here, given the context.

Finally, please remember:  this is a Trad forum.

[Vetus Ordo]

Vetus, the conduct of a Trad at the NO - if that Trad feels they must attend the NO - should not conform to the GIRM.

Says who?

The GIRM is the product of the same Church who made the Novus Ordo. I gather that Traditional Catholics, of all people, aren't to make up rules as they go along.

Please do not accuse someone of trying to "weasel out" of something, it is not charitable and so far as I can see there is no reason for use of such language here, given the context.

It is not meant as an uncharitable accusation but as a statement of fact. The Novus Ordo is an official liturgy of the Church. She makes the rules, as far as Roman Catholics are concerned. Either you obey them or not. To say one hasn't to obey the GIRM because it was made by Protestants and Freemasons is to try to weasel out of something you can't really weasel out from.

Finally, please remember:  this is a Trad forum.

Yes, and I was answering Lirael's concerns about how to attend the ordinary liturgy of the Roman Church. I think I have.

[LouisIX]

Vetus, please keep in mind that this forum is a traditional Catholic one.  You know the arguments against the Novus Ordo and the shortcomings of the simple assertion that trads are disobedient.  This forum is not for arguing against traditional Catholicism.

[Vetus Ordo]

Vetus, please keep in mind that this forum is a traditional Catholic one.  You know the arguments against the Novus Ordo and the shortcomings of the simple assertion that trads are disobedient.  This forum is not for arguing against traditional Catholicism.

Lirael asked how to act in a NO mass regarding certain specific points. I told her how.

Some people questioned my advice and I logically defended it. I'm not the one having knee-jerk reactions.

[TerrorDæmonum]

Lirael asked how to act in a NO mass regarding certain specific points. I told her how.

You made your suggestion seem like a moral imperative.

Some people questioned my advice and I logically defended it. I'm not the one having knee-jerk reactions.

The NO has many doctrinal and particular concerns, and one cannot wholeheartedly "participate" in any given NO celebration due to the irregularities which may be present.

If they follow the rubrics only, then perhaps one can make a case for following them closely, however, if that is the case, it will be in Latin only, etc.

[LouisIX]

Vetus, please keep in mind that this forum is a traditional Catholic one.  You know the arguments against the Novus Ordo and the shortcomings of the simple assertion that trads are disobedient.  This forum is not for arguing against traditional Catholicism.

Lirael asked how to act in a NO mass regarding certain specific points. I told her how.

Some people questioned my advice and I logically defended it. I'm not the one having knee-jerk reactions.

There's no problem with logically defending yourself, but just be careful not to flirt too close to arguing against traditionalism.  Assertions, for example, about the Novus Ordo Missal (which you made above) contradict the normal trad line and thus should be avoided per forum rules.

[Vetus Ordo]

Vetus, please keep in mind that this forum is a traditional Catholic one.  You know the arguments against the Novus Ordo and the shortcomings of the simple assertion that trads are disobedient.  This forum is not for arguing against traditional Catholicism.

Lirael asked how to act in a NO mass regarding certain specific points. I told her how.

Some people questioned my advice and I logically defended it. I'm not the one having knee-jerk reactions.

There's no problem with logically defending yourself, but just be careful not to flirt too close to arguing against traditionalism.  Assertions, for example, about the Novus Ordo Missal (which you made above) contradict the normal trad line and thus should be avoided per forum rules.

Which?

That it is an official liturgy of the Roman Church? That the Church and the pope approve it? Isn't that just a statement of fact?

[LouisIX]

Vetus, please keep in mind that this forum is a traditional Catholic one.  You know the arguments against the Novus Ordo and the shortcomings of the simple assertion that trads are disobedient.  This forum is not for arguing against traditional Catholicism.

Lirael asked how to act in a NO mass regarding certain specific points. I told her how.

Some people questioned my advice and I logically defended it. I'm not the one having knee-jerk reactions.

There's no problem with logically defending yourself, but just be careful not to flirt too close to arguing against traditionalism.  Assertions, for example, about the Novus Ordo Missal (which you made above) contradict the normal trad line and thus should be avoided per forum rules.

Which?

That it is an official liturgy of the Roman Church? That the Church and the pope approve it? Isn't that just a statement of fact?

"To say one hasn't to obey the GIRM because it was made by Protestants and Freemasons is to try to weasel out of something you can't really weasel out from."

Isn't that a strawman against typical trad concerns with the Novus Ordo Missae?

[Vetus Ordo]

If they follow the rubrics only, then perhaps one can make a case for following them closely, however, if that is the case, it will be in Latin only, etc.

Not it won't. Latin is permitted but not required. Using the vernacular is not an "abuse," that is just a trad myth.

Furthermore, it is the diocesan bishop and then the Episcopal Conference of any given place that interpret the GIRM and how to act in the liturgy, not the laity.