I like to argue with myself a lot, and I got into a argument on the Virgin Mary, concerning liturgical matters. Here’s how my self-argument went:
Me: Do you believe Mary received the Eucharist after the Ascension of our Lord?
Myself: Yes, certainly. She loved to be with her Son and she would want to obey Him.
Me: Than in what manner did she receive Him? In the hand or on the tongue?
Myself: She received Jesus in her heart.
Me: Obviously so. But did she receive Him with her hands or with her tongue?
Myself: I imagine…it would be with her tongue.
Me: Aha! But you receive Jesus with your hands. Are you better than Mary?
Myself: I receive Him in my hands because Mother Church permits me to. I don’t know if the Church permitted reception in the hand during Mary’s life, nor do I honestly actually know how she received Him. But I know one thing: she received Him in her heart.
Me: But what IF she received Him on her tongue? How woul that affect your reception?
Myself: At the most, it would remind me to be more reverent. But I would still receieve in the hand. Furthermore, you’re using a speculation to try to justify receving on the tongue; you can only use facts to support something. Speculation is mere smoke.
Me: Very well. Than what facts do you have to support receiving in the hand?
Myself: Mary held Jesus when He was a newborn. And her hands weren’t consecrated.
Me: But she is the Ark of the Covenant.
Myself: That dosen’t mean she is more worthy of Jesus than anyone else. No one is worthy of the Lord. So the facts still support my reception of Holy Communion in hand.
Me: Do you think Mary held her Son when He came down off the Cross?
Myself: It is popular piety, but I do not question it. I leave the matter up to God.
Me: So than you use it as support of reception in the hand? But what if it’s wrong?
Myself: I use the fact that Mary held Jesus in her hands, as the gosepl of Luke tells us, as evidence of my reception. I do not use popular piety, for it could be wrong, as you correctly state. But it is not my place, either, to judge the historicity of a devotion.
Me: Let’s move on. Do you think women should be ordained?
Me: Why not?
Myself: Becuase only men can be ordained. That’s what Mother Church has said.
Me: And you agree with her?
Myself: How can I not? The priest is another Christ. Christ was a man. The conclusion is logical.
Me: It is not as simple as you think. Mary was a woman. Jesus took His Humanity from her. Now than, wouldn’t that be cloning? And, if cloning, than wouldn’t He be a woman?
Myself: Certainly Jesus wasn’t a clone. God assumed all of humanity, not just Mary’s. Jesus is the New Adam. Mary is the New Eve. Jesus came from Mary because Mary came from Jesus. It’s a paradox.
Me: Isn’t that like saying, “Man came from God because God came from man”?
Myself: No. It’s a short saying that shows the connection between Jesus and Mary, the Church and Israel, Adam and Eve, and the Redemption of Man and the Incarnation.
Me: One last question on the Virgin: Do you think she would go to the Tridentine Mass or the New Order Mass?
Myself: She would go to Jesus, and Jesus is present at every Mass.
Me: But what if the New Order Mass was invalid?
Myself: And what if the Tridentine Mass was invalid?
Me: So you think Mary would go to a New Order Mass, even though it is more prone to liturgical absues than the Tridentine Mass?
Myself: No form of the Mass is more or less prone to liturgical abuses than other forms of the Mass. It’s a simple matter of obedience. If the priests and laity are obedient, than there are no abuses. If the priests and laity are disobedient, than there will be abuses. Even the fall of Satan shows this.
Me: What if there was a form of the Mass that was so vague that anything could be put into it?
Myself: No such form can exist. There are strict things in the Mass that cannot be taken out. The Mass is ordered to prevent abuses and to direct the people toward Jesus.
Me: Let’s say a form only said the most essential element of the Mass - the Consecration of the Mass - was only necessary, and everything else was omitted. Would that form be more prone to abuses, and would Mary go to that Mass?
Myself: If the priest celebrated the Consecration of the Mass, there would be no abuses, because he would be obeying Rome, which created the form of the Mass as you just described. But, if the priest added in things which are not a part of the Mass - such as the Rosary - than he would be guilty of disobedient and causing abuse, for, the Rosary is a separate devotion, it is strictly not a part of the Mass. And I think Mary would go to the Consecration of the Mass, out of love for God and in obedience to His Church.