The Liturgy of the Word | Understanding the Mass 

AsmountZion I agree! I love both rites.

yes they should reconsider some aspects and especially listen to the byzantine tradition as they already did. But in general if you celebrate the New Mass with devotion and good taste its wonderful. I myself love the Byzantine tradition even more because of its dynamic and its spiritual expression.

The Church doesn't encourage people to attend a traditional latin mass. As a matter of fact SSPX still aren't in communion and most Bishops only allow the latin mass begrudgingly

The consecration is also scriptural.

Might I recommend seeking this path deeper? There is reason it shines so brilliantly in your soul. Seek the Truth and pray on the matter.

ME TOO

@@itslowkeyroblox Subject: CLE

A few things. 1) The tabernacle does not need to be in the center of the church. In fact, it is recommended by some that it not be in the center at all as it serves as a distraction during mass. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-r3_SHU_n5vg.html 2) The tabernacle in this church is actually directly in the center, right behind the altar. There is a prayer chapel directly behind the presider's chair with doors. During the mass, the doors are closed to keep the focus on the sacrifice on the altar and to allow for people to pray privately without disrupting the mass.

Breaking In The Habit This is a scary response. The tabernacle a “distraction” lord have mercy on you and me. That’s how you refer to God who has given you some talent using a phone and RU-vid. A “distraction” . You do not understand the meaning of the sacrifice . From what comes out of the mouth is what comes out of the heart. Fortunately you or anyone of the HNP can’t fool me. Thank God for the CFRs. God bless you and I forgive you for the heartache you caused me in regards to my Lord Jesus Christ with your heretic comment. I will subscribe to Franciscan of the immaculate or Renewals instead. You’ve lost a subscriber . May the Holy Ghost truly guide you that you may not lead souls astray with your supposed theology when “if” God wills you actually end up becoming a priest because that position isn’t to be taken lightly or a joke.

Brother, I have no intention of fooling you. I'm confused by your anger on this issue. I have no spoken anything but the truth. The purpose of the mass is the sacrifice on the altar, not the remains of a previous sacrifice. This is clearly shown in the teachings of the Church, including the GIRM. The reason for the tabernacle is to hold some extra hosts for the purpose of bringing communion to the sick. It is not to be the centerpiece of the liturgy, and hosts should not be brought from it for the use of the mass. In reality, it plays no part in the mass. But your anger on this issue clearly shows how confused people have become regarding it. I recommend that you watch this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-r3_SHU_n5vg.html

Breaking In The Habit I have shown no anger. I am neither wrathful , uncharitable or anything that you have accused me of being in your heart (by simply not agreeing with YOU) for defending the magisterium and traditional Catholicism. I see that you also disagree with priests and Monsignors around here that have spent their entire lives with their vocations who are also trying to educate you for your success and well being not to “prove” that we are right. I’d suggest to take the advice and wisdom of those older folks, show respect , humility , and apply it someway or another to your future ministry. It brings me great pain in my soul to see the OFMs aren’t what they used to be. Like I said and I will say once again , I do not blame or accuse YOU or accuse YOU of anything that you have accused me with 0 proof. It’s what you’ve been taught . Peace to you brother.

Antonius I don’t think you have all the facts. What we know as the Tridentine Mass was merely codified in the 16th Century; it was not a construct. The point was to unify the various western liturgical traditions into one.

@@andersonbush1130 for that fact only Tridentine is not original and it had two reforms and was a construct out of all of them in 17th century and the 19th century Its not original Besides the Roman liturgy of the 6th century was something totally different. There was no gregorian chant and it was in Greek

I don’t know if you have done so or not, but you should check out some Eastern Liturgies. The Tridentine Mass is closer in spirit to them than the Novus Ordo. And of corse it’s not the original. As far as I know “the original” liturgy doesn’t exist anymore.

@@andersonbush1130 I'm eastern so don't tell me i Know what is the difference. And Tridentine is not even close and in spirit they are very very very far from each other!

@@antonius3745 What different "levels" of Tridentine Mass have you attended?

1. The GIRM says that they do so, but it is not an instruction that they must. When you look at the actual "Order of Mass" found in the Missal, it says nothing of the gesture. Rather, "...at the same time, the he makes the Sign of the Cross on the book and on his forehead, lips, and breast. The people acclaim: 'Glory to you, O Lord.' Then the Deacon, or the Priest, incenses the book, if incense..." It skips over any direct command. Based on the GIRM, yes, it seems to be the best practice, but no such gesture seems required by the actual Missal. 2. It seems like you're really splitting hairs on this one. I would interpret both statements to mean the exact same thing.

@@BreakingInTheHabit As an explanation of how you made a mistake, your reference to the Order of Mass would be have been helpful. But in refusing to accept you have a made a mistake you seem to be making absurd assertions: 1. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal is not part of the “actual Missal”. 2. That when the General Instruction says “which everyone else does as well” that does not mean everyone else must do it. The instructions in the Roman Missal’s Order of Mass are a lot less detailed than those in the Roman Missal’s General Instruction.

John Lilburne I’m sorry that you feel like I’ve made a mistake and refuse to admit it. Is it possible that there has simply been a miscommunication? You have clearly interpreted the text in one way, but that does not mean that what I have said is wrong.

Wow... I'm going to be honest, I'm really confused by your statement. I've never been to Switzerland so I can't go off of experience, but I'm just really surprised to hear what you're saying. I guess a bishops conference could, potentially, make adaptations, but I've never heard of one removing the psalm and procession. They're pretty integral parts of the liturgy. That said, I want to focus on your last statement: "church is a sober experience and has nothing to do with fun or dancing." I think that this is a very culturally conditioned statement, and the people of Latin America and Africa would definitely disagree with you. The Mass is about worshipping God and coming together as a community to share a meal. I guess if you live in a society that is more on the stoic side then these two things are going to be expressed in a very serious way, but in many other cultures (including my own in the United States), Mass is a loud, joyful, and exciting experience. When we're celebrating (yes, "celebrating") our salvation, dance, laughter, smiling, and movement is all appropriate (as long as it is down of our joy of our celebration and not as an end in itself.)

@@BreakingInTheHabit thank you for ypur response. I'm sorry if my comment in amyway implied that those cultures such as yours are not reverent or anything. I've been to a mass celebrated by an American priest recently and it was indeed a different and uplifting experience. I simply wanted to describe what my experience of mass has mostly been so far. Here in Switzerland we have other elements in the liturgy that are against the rules and often are done against the wishes of the bishops. So i was wondering if this only one reading and no psalm was a valid cultural diversity or just good old "rome is far away we do what we want"

I did not take offense at your words, they were just a bit surprising as I have not experienced Swiss culture. I cannot speak to whether or not these adaptations are valid. The General Instruction seems to indicate that those sorts of things are not recommended, but I do not know what a bishops conference might choose to do.

"Within the assembly the Book of Gospels, solemnly carried in both the Entrance and Gospel Processions, became the first object to mirror the presence of Christ to the liturgical assembly. This predates the use of the processional cross" (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops). The Gospel procession also reminds me of the weekly Shabbat Morning Service in synagogues where the handwritten Torah scrolls are carried throughout the congregation once taken from the Ark, as well as the annual Jewish feast of Simchat Torah (Sept/Oct), which means Rejoice in the Pentateuch [first five books of the Old Testament, the holiest books of Judaism]. A simple celebration can be seen here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-0FkKuNAhKIg.html A preparation video for the feast can be seen here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5k1uTc0C7mU.html

Immaculate Conception Church in Durham, NC. It’s where I’ll be ordained a priest.

@@BreakingInTheHabit Wow, what a beautiful church to be ordained in. Love the style. Where is the tabernacle in the church, as the celebrant's chair is placed where usually a tabernacle in a Catholic church would be?

Yes, everything you said is correct. My apologies for the ambiguous language. I was not saying that it was secondary or optional in the liturgy itself, but that it was often treated that way by the faithful (and even by those presiding), in that it was very clearly not the primary function of the mass.

@@BreakingInTheHabit you are committing a secundum quid logical fallicy brother, a hasty generalization. You can find examples of priests today who rush through Mass... the recently removed pastor of a nearby parish was very popular for his 20 minute Sunday "golfers" Mass which I am told is much missed. Even if you had evidence, not opinion, that the Word was not central in practice everywhere in the Catholic world, an opinion that is often suggested but which has no statistical proof that I know of, in Catholicism the ideal of the Mass is defined by the magisterium not practice which may fail to meet the idea. So if you are saying the Word was often ( #notalways) not given sufficient prominence prior to 68, which was contrary to the actual Liturgical Theology of the Mass of 62... although still lacking evidence even for the word "often" you are more likely correct. That said, even if you made this more percise point are you not creating a straw man/false equivalency fallacy here? You are comparing the 68 ideal to the 62 abuse. Wouldn't it be better to compare ideal to ideal? The fact is, having experienced both done well and poorly your statement is just not true in general.

Officially, no. But people were almost universally taught that they could still receive the Eucharist even if they missed all or most of the readings, there was little or no reverence given to the word, the readings were shorter and less varied, and overall, it was clearly secondary to the Eucharistic prayer. So, no, it is not patently false to say, "While the proclamation of the word was treated as having a secondary or even optional role in the previous Tridentine liturgy, the current rite restores the Word to its rightfully prominent place."

@Iliaz Kharbouch In the Tridentine rite, there are only two readings in a one-year cycle--usually an epistle and a gospel (often Matthew). Between the readings a couple of verses of a psalm (Gradual) are read or sung by the choir. Then the Alleluia (or Tract, during Lent) follows, usually with another verse of a psalm, often the same psalm used as the Introit, particularly during the "green Sundays" after Epiphany and Pentecost. But then again, only those who follow in their Missal know these things. Does anyone remember "the Dialog Mass" of the 1950s when the congregation responded (in Latin) to the priest's prayers, with the parts marked "Server" in their hand-missals?

@@BreakingInTheHabit are people not taught the same thing in the new Mass? Are you saying that its your communities practice to deny people communion if they come late? The ideal in the past as today was total participation in the liturgy, an ideal which we are told would be better attained with vernacular liturgy, however saying its so doesn't make it the case. People today come in late and leave early, often they don't pay attention to the Word, this doesn't make the Word less central to the Mass today just as abuses did not make the word less central in the Mass of the Ages.

@IllPadre4103 The difference is that the Council made it a point of emphasis that the full, conscious, and active participation of the congregation was essential to the liturgy. This was most certainly not the case for the previous liturgy. As I have said in a previous video, there was never an official cutoff for showing up late to mass, but the point remains that most people thought there was, and that it was at the Gospel. There was clearly something in the imagination of Catholics prior to the council, for whatever reason, that the opening rites, hymns, prayers, and reading were not essential.

@@BreakingInTheHabit people prior to 68 were clearly more conscientious about sin, which manefests itself in a desire to objectivize their minimal duty. This scholastic post-Thomistic tendency may have been wrong headed but was not primarily a matter of Liturgical Theology. I don't think you will find a statement from Trent to Vatican II that argues against "full, conscious, and ACTUAL" participation (actuosa is often translated active incorrectly). Councils, insofar as they teach authoritatively, remind or clarify what Christ taught and what the Church has taught, if only in a seminal way, always and everywhere, as St. Vincent of Lerin reminds us. And so the 2nd Vatican Council may have been correcting an abuse (which still goes on today and still needs correcting) but it was doing so to reaffirm what the Church had always believed not to change what it had believed. To suggest otherwise is the hermenuitic of discontinuity.

Monsignor Jerome Lloyd OSJV Monsignor Casey here is spreading heresy . Supposedly knows more than you too and any diocese priest. That lacks a lot of humility. But it isn’t his fault, it’s what the holy name province teaches these young friars and we know it’s been infiltrated with modernism for decades. Like mother Angelica says” I’m sick and tired of you liberals trying to destroy the church” She was talking of liberals outside and within the church.

Wow, Daniel, your words have been so uncharitable on this channel. Why so much anger? Why jump to such hurtful accusations. I have made no claim that has come close to heresy. (Also, you are using the word heresy too liberally.) Why do you feel a need to attack my humility? All I am trying to do is take what the Church has taught and present it to others. I see no place where you have asked a question about these videos, looking for clarification, nor have you even brought up a specific instance of where you think I'm wrong. Jumping right to calling me a heretic and a deceiver of the Church is hurtful and far from how Christians treat one another. As for Mother Angelica, I stopped listening to her long ago for I found her approach too liberal. Anyone who challenges the authority of a bishop and believes that they have the authority to determine what is true and what is not is way too liberal for me. I respect Church authority and the magisterium too much to listen to people like that.

Breaking In The Habit You have much to learn. Mother Angelica spoke tough and was the voice speaking from the desert and did not care what anyone thought of her. This convo isn’t going anywhere as I now see you disagree with anything or anyone that goes and defends tradition no matter what. You probably disagree with her Franciscan order and the priests in there as well for being too traditional or any other traditional Franciscan order that speaks the truth and corrects our leaders. It wasn’t an OFM I saw praying outside an abortion center risking persecution , it was a CFR. But hey too much bluntness isn’t the way Christians are supposed to treat each other right ? God bless you and I hope the Holy Spirit will truly guide you to be a great priest for the sake of his flock. I am still a fan of your other videos for your enthusiasm even though you probably are calling me rad trad, young trad, rigid, I really don’t care what people within the church think about me anymore. I do not have to please everyone just like Jesus Christ and John the Baptist didn’t care whether he was liked or pleased by everyone for speaking Truth. Rest assured you will be in my prayers brother in Christ I also ask for the same. Pax et bonum.

@@christophergros9884 Once again, you speak very uncharitable words to me, assuming much about me, projecting motivation, and putting words in my mouth. Why do you see me an enemy?

Breaking In The Habit brother, you are not my enemy . I apologize. I love you and I send you a big hug. Keep it up you are doing a great job. We might disagree in regards to the tabernacle but it shouldn’t have us in discord . Satan always trying to sow discord among brethrens.

lmao same

@@mal4148 subscribe to me now or else i wont finish the ravour animatic

@@em.b3rr BAHAHAH OK

@@mal4148 >:3

same bruh💀

Yes. It's called the "Franciscan Crown."