Liturgy A Motu Proprio by any name by Jeffrey Miller July 4, 2007 written by Jeffrey Miller July 4, 2007 Smells just as sweet. 9 comments 0 FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest Jeffrey Miller previous post Immaculate Conception parish in Beijing celebrates 262 baptisms on Sunday 1 July next post Here and there You may also like My Annual Advent Service November 26, 2011 Pitting the Mass September 14, 2007 Enchanting March 7, 2005 Perversion and Iconoclasm July 2, 2007 Mimefield August 2, 2007 Lenten homilies February 22, 2007 Rubric Information System June 14, 2010 Forgiveness of sin December 8, 2006 The Holy Name of Jesus January 3, 2007 Two views? August 16, 2007 9 comments Dave July 4, 2007 - 3:01 pm I’m a former Episcopalian and have only been Catholic for 3 years, so maybe I’m missing the point, but how can the Eucharist ever be considered “ordinary”????????? The main difference I see (the lesson it seems I’m to learn from these photos) is that fancy is better. Me, I like “smells and bells” too, and I can learn a Latin Mass just like I learned a Spanish Mass, but I don’t understand why a plain Eucharist is ordinary and a fancy Eucharist is extraordinary. In faith, Dave Viva Texas Tom July 4, 2007 - 3:13 pm Just like… ordinary minister of Holy Communion… and *extraordinary* minister of Holy Communion. Kristy July 4, 2007 - 4:29 pm Interesting photo essay. However, it failed to display any photos of a holy N.O. Mass, as often seen at the hands of many holy priests. I could cite many examples of such Masses, many of which incorporated Latin with the vernacular. It makes me feel just like I did when some Latin Mass friends asked me condesendingly: “Oh, you go to the ENGLISH Mass?” My statement that I respect people’s preferences, but mine was the N.O. Mass, went unheard. Dave July 4, 2007 - 4:37 pm Well, here in Texas, that means the priest (ordinary) or a lay person (extraordinary). I’m an extraordinary minister of Communion, which means I can bring the Bread of our common Life to people the priest isn’t able for one reason or another to reach. In this case, “ordinary” would be far better than extraordinary, no? In faith, Dave Viva Texas firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com michigancatholic July 4, 2007 - 6:16 pm Dave, I’m a convert too, but I’ve been here 20+ years. There’s a lot more to it than you realize. Hang tight and enjoy both forms. Dean Soto July 4, 2007 - 9:04 pm Who wouldn’t want to get married in front of the altar while sitting in lawn chairs? Oh, and the extraordinary is only extraordinary because the ordinary is out of the ordinary. We’ll get our liturgical beauty back again soon. RichR July 4, 2007 - 10:43 pm Of course, the link Jeff provides confuses the focus of “extraordinary.” In our American, narrow version of English, “extraordinary” is unncessarily accompanied with a positive connotation when, in fact, it merely means “apart from the norm”. Dave July 4, 2007 - 11:32 pm MichiganCatholic, I’ll do that ^_^. Actually, I’ve tried to research google on “why the Latin Mass was so much better than the new Masses”, but haven’t found much of substance. Most of what I do find seems to be either vehement or venomous. If you or someone could point me to a dummies-level (but calm) online source, it would be really helpful. In faith, Dave Viva Texas Ginny July 5, 2007 - 8:27 pm It is also Music to my ears!! Btw, two more days, but who’s counting!!! 😉 Comments are closed.