Archbishop Lefebrve on Luther's Mass

[stmaria]

=Chuck H;3426933]I am saying that the Hierarchy of the middle Church had gotten to the point where it was inevitable that they would be taken down a peg or two. God had been sealed off from the people inside a rail and the Church did not give freely of the graces of God but doled them out like the rich to beggars

.

This is nonsense. So for thousands of years God has been sealed off from the people by the communion rail? You have a protestant idea of the Mass

The new mass brings us as the laity back to where we are supposed to be, the people of God joined with Jesus in worshiping and giving thanks to the Father, our celebration presided over by a priest to keep it real but full and active participants in the sacrifice of the mass.

The laity is not needed for a priest to say Mass. The priest does not merely “preside” . The priest is acting in persona christi, offering the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father .

.

The tridentine mass however, had nuances in it that subjugated rather than freed and the ceremonies and arrangement of the altar separated us and reinforced the idea that the cleric was special while we were not

.
The cleric are special. Only the priest can consecrate. Only the consecrated hands of the priest should touch the sacred species.

Priests, bishops, cardinals and popes had forgotten that they were servants not masters and as Latin dropped away from the language of commerce for the main mass of the Church it became mumbo jumbo and holy of holies in its missing the whole point of the Church

.
Latin is " mumbo jumbo’? You are ignorant of its history and its value
Pope John XXIII
"Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression… For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws… Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority… There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings… But Latin is indeed such a language…It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use… Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society,** for it was founded by Christ the Lord.It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular…**.In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy”

I am saying that the Holy Spirit cleaned house and gave us a level playing field back.

So for thousands of years the house was " unclean"?

Maybe harsh, but that is my story and I am sticking to it. I don’t condemn anyone but I reserve the right to say that is wrong

.
Not just harsh but ignorant.

 

[LevantCrusader]

I wholeheartedly agree with stmaria above. Thanks for putting it so concisely.

 

[stmaria]

=Lazerlike42;3426829]
The Mass has always been set to complement particular cultures.

Not the Universal Rite, the Latin Rite. Your idea that the Mass should be written for different cultures was condemned by Pius X. Your idea is one espoused by Modernists.
Pascendi on the Doctrine of the Modernists vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

"The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples…. evolution in the Church is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and harmonizing itself with existing societies” ------------This is the worship of modernists

The Pauline rite of Mass is a Mass that was formed in order to reach out to people of today’s culture, just as the other various Liturgies that have been celebrated throughout history were

.

The Pauline rite of Mass was formed as a means to ecumenism. The Latin Mass was offensive to Protestants. This is why the Tabernacle was removed, the communion given in the hand, liturgy all vernacular, statues removed etc Just read the first paragraph of the Constitution, “This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change;** to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ;** The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.”
. .Pope Pius XII was fully aware of what the reform movement was planning on doing to the Mass. He warned about it in Mediator Dei
*MEDIATOR DEI *
Encyclical of His Holiness Pope Pius XII On the Sacred Liturgy
papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12MEDIA.HTM

"The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well.** We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice**; those who **transfer certain feast-days **-- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation – to other dates;

The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth…
.one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; …The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim,** is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. ** .
. They do not hesitate to assert that a change has taken place in the piety of the faithful by dethroning, as it were, Christ from His position; since they say that the glorified Christ, who liveth and reigneth forever and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, has been overshadowed and in His place has been substituted that Christ who lived on earth. For this reason, some have gone so far as to want to remove from the churches images of the divine Redeemer suffering on the cross.
. Above all, do not allow – as some do, who are deceived under the pretext of restoring the liturgy or who idly claim that only liturgical rites are of any real value and dignity – that churches be closed during the hours not appointed for public functions, as has already happened in some places: where the adoration of the august sacrament and visits to our Lord in the tabernacles are neglected; where confession of devotion is discouraged; and devotion to the Virgin Mother of God, a sign of “predestination” according to the opinion of holy men, is so neglected, especially among the young, as to fade away and gradually vanish.

We desire to commend and urge the adornment of churches and altars.
Let us recall, as well, the decree about “not introducing new forms of worship and devotion.”
As regards music, let the clear and guiding norms of the Apostolic See be scrupulously observed. Gregorian chant, which the Roman Church considers her own as handed down from antiquity and kept under her close tutelage, is proposed to the faithful as belonging to them also. In certain parts of the liturgy the Church definitely prescribes it;[171] it makes the celebration of the sacred mysteries not only more dignified and solemn but helps very much to increase the faith and devotion of the congregation. "

All of the above has either been removed or suppressed in the New Mass.
.

 

[Dioscorus]

.

I don’t kow whether any or all of the above have been removed in the new Mass. So what? The Council, the Holy Father can look at the Church to decide what is best. Do you know what is best for the church? Do you have the responsibility to Jesus Christ to make that decision. Are you the Vicar of Christ on earth? Do you stand in the place of Jesus Christ, and do what Jesus Christ tells us to do. Why do you quote statements about what the Apostolic See should or should not do about historical liturgy. It has decided, here and now in our lifetime, to do what it has done. Enuf said.

PS You post so much that the rules don’t allow us any space to respond so we have to delete your passage. Very windy. Are you in Chicago?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Stmaria,

The key to this discussion lies in your very post. The key is balance, a balance shown by Pius XII in his encylical.

He teaches that the Church - Her Liturgy included - does adapt to the needs of the time and circumstances. Now this cannot be done in opposition to Her doctrine, but where that doctrine is preserved, She does make an ernest effort to “be all things to all people, that by all means [She] may save some.”

Now Pius X did condemn the notion that adapting to the times can be the chief stimulus for Liturgical development, but he doesn’t rule it out altogether. In fact, he isn’t even referring to Liturgical development in Pascendi, but to Liturgical evolution, which is an entirely different matter all together. An infant develops into a grown man, but this does not change the fact that he is still a human being. He is substantially the same person and the same being. A saber toothed land mammal evolves into an orca whale, - or so they say - becoming substantially an entirely different being. This distinction has been made in the growth of Catholic doctrine for at least a century.

I certainly don’t hold to anything Pius X was condemning. I do hold to the legitimate adaptation of the Liturgy to the times and circumstances, an adaptation that has existed for 2,000 years. The Apostles adapted Christ’s Passover Liturgy to better suit the people to whom they were preaching, and the practice has continued from there.

I read over the various items you bolded, and perhaps I will reply in more detail later if I have time, but in general, Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t stipulate any of what Pius XII opposed. That being said, we have to remember that Pius was writing about folks doing this without any authority; he was not writing about a pope doing these things. Nor could he be, and for the very same reason that even if one or two of those items found its way into Sacrosanctum Concilium it wouldn’t matter. This reason is that we owe obedience to all that the magisterium says, even if it is not infallibly defined. However, that which is not infallibly defined can on occasion change. It is our responsibility as laity to submit to whatever the current Church teaches. If Paul VI taught contrary to something spoken on by Pius XII, we owe our submission to Paul VI. That’s the nature of being “not the pope.” We submit to the Church’s authentic Magisterium, and we don’t presume to judge it for ourselves.

I’m not suggesting that Pius XII was wrong, or that he has been contradicted, or that such a thing happens more than a scant frequency, if at all. I am simply asserting the reality that our responsibility before the Lord is to follow the Church. If we do that, we can do no wrong in His eyes, and if we fail to do that, we can do no right.

Peace and God bless

 

[AJV]

Not the Universal Rite, the Latin Rite. Your idea that the Mass should be written for different cultures was condemned by Pius X. Your idea is one espoused by Modernists.
Pascendi on the Doctrine of the Modernists vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

"The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples…. evolution in the Church is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and harmonizing itself with existing societies” ------------This is the worship of modernists

I don’t mean to be pompous, but I think the meaning of St. Pius X was different from the meaning it seems to be given here. To understand what he was condemning, perhaps it might be helpful to read a book entitled “The Gospel and the Church” by Loisy. To somewhat oversimplify one of the central propositions there, Christ did not really institute anything- rather, the reason we have such things as the Eucharist and Baptism is because those things meant something to the respective cultures.

 

[stmaria]

=Lazerlike42;3430010]Stmaria,
Now Pius X did condemn the notion that adapting to the times can be the chief stimulus for Liturgical development, but he doesn’t rule it out altogether. In fact, he isn’t even referring to Liturgical development in Pascendi, but to Liturgical evolution, which is an entirely different matter all together. An infant develops into a grown man, but this does not change the fact that he is still a human being. He is substantially the same person and the same being. A saber toothed land mammal evolves into an orca whale, - or so they say - becoming substantially an entirely different being. This distinction has been made in the growth of Catholic doctrine for at least a century

.

Before Vatican II the Latin rite was the same all over the world. This was unity in worship. Those that reformed the Mass wanted the Mass to be influenced by culture and language. The goal of Father Bugnini was for each individual parish to have her own liturgy. Parishes within a few miles of each other could be totally different in their rubrics and liturgy. He was removed by Pope Paul VI , in 1975, before he could implement this final phase of his plan.

I certainly don’t hold to anything Pius X was condemning. I do hold to the legitimate adaptation of the Liturgy to the times and

Of course, a organic developement of the Mass. Not a radical developement.

I read over the various items you bolded, and perhaps I will reply in more detail later if I have time, but in general, Sacrosanctum Concilium didn’t stipulate any of what Pius XII opposed

That is the whole point. *Sacrosanctum Concilium *says nothing about priest facing the people, communion in the hand, all vernacular Mass, optional Eucharistic prayers, removal of the Tabernacle, removal of statues, replacing altars with tables etc. Even Archbishop Lefebvre voted for it. And why not. It did not call for any radical changes.

It is our responsibility as laity to submit to whatever the current Church teaches. If Paul VI taught contrary to something spoken on by Pius XII, we owe our submission to Paul VI. That’s the nature of being “not the pope.” We submit to the Church’s authentic Magisterium, and we don’t presume to judge it for ourselves.

Pope Paul had the authority to make changes to the Mass but was it wise to allow a handful of reformers to ignore the Constitution and write a Mass to their liking?
Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166

Here I believe is where the Church is headed.The Mass of Benedict XVI. Which, by the way, would be fine with me.
Symptom crisis
wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/important-2003-letter-of-card-ratzinger-about-the-older-rite-of-mass/

“The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, an expanded lectionary – more choice than earlier, but not too much, – an “oratio fidelium”, i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier”

 

[Chuck_H]

.

This is nonsense. So for thousands of years God has been sealed off from the people by the communion rail? You have a protestant idea of the Mass

The laity is not needed for a priest to say Mass. The priest does not merely “preside” . The priest is acting in persona christi, offering the Sacrifice of Christ to the Father .

…
The cleric are special. Only the priest can consecrate. Only the consecrated hands of the priest should touch the sacred species.

Luther did indeed have some honest criticisms. Most historians that are neutral have indicated that if Rome had answered Luther’s theses and engaged in scholarly debate, which is what he originally intended, the Lutheran church might not exist at all.
The last line would come as a shock to the early Church where the faithful were sent home with the Eucharist regularly since priests were rare and the mass might not be celebrated again for some time.

. Latin is " mumbo jumbo’? You are ignorant of its history and its value.
Pope John XXIII
"Nor must we overlook the characteristic nobility of Latin formal structure. Its “concise, varied and harmonious style, full of majesty and dignity” makes for singular clarity and impressiveness of expression… For these reasons the Apostolic See has always been at pains to preserve Latin, deeming it worthy of being used in the exercise of her teaching authority “as the splendid vesture of her heavenly doctrine and sacred laws… Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority… There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings… But Latin is indeed such a language…It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use… Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society,** for it was founded by Christ the Lord.It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular…**.In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, eager for revolutionary changes, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy”

So for thousands of years the house was " unclean"?

.
Not just harsh but ignorant.

If you don’t speak it, no matter how noble and majestic it is mumbo jumbo. and since latin is not a doctrine I would answer it is a language like any other and has no mystical power. To assign it religious significance is not defensible. why use a dead language to describe and relate a living way to God?

and finally, use of the vernacular to say the Holy Spirit cleaned house is translated “shake things up”, “clear out the cobwebs”. Perhaps if I had used latin it might have been clearer.

 

[SFD]

Sounds pretty Pharisaic to me. That damnable Nazarene is shaking things up something awful, we gotta crucify Him.

There is no heresy in the Pauline mass and if Traditionalists were the true reformers, you would still be kissing the feet of a king or sucking up to an duke.

Chuck,

Christ came to fulfill the law. He obeyed many laws that he did not need to obey…because He was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He was not a revolutionary.

38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten.

Btw, your claim that there is no heresy in the Pauline Mass is interesting…why would anyone need to prove that anyway? The liturgy is protected from doctrinal error…isn’t it? Error isn’t always heresy.

SFD

 

[SFD]

Lazerlike42:

Yes, it is. The modern west is a new culture that requires evangelization in a particular way. The west has changed more in the past 50 years alone than it did in the 2000 before that. Whereas the difference between 1500 and 1600 was relatively small in many ways, the difference between 1930 and 1970 was enourmous.

Why don’t you explain some of those changes that we needed to adapt and innovate for so we could “reach out” to those “new civilizations”?

What were the big changes from 1930 to 1970?

SFD

 

[SFD]

I don’t kow whether any or all of the above have been removed in the new Mass. So what? The Council, the Holy Father can look at the Church to decide what is best. Do you know what is best for the church? Do you have the responsibility to Jesus Christ to make that decision. Are you the Vicar of Christ on earth? Do you stand in the place of Jesus Christ, and do what Jesus Christ tells us to do. Why do you quote statements about what the Apostolic See should or should not do about historical liturgy. It has decided, here and now in our lifetime, to do what it has done. Enuf said.

PS You post so much that the rules don’t allow us any space to respond so we have to delete your passage. Very windy. Are you in Chicago?

Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

SFD

 

[Chuck_H]

Chuck,

Christ came to fulfill the law. He obeyed many laws that he did not need to obey…because He was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He was not a revolutionary.

Btw, your claim that there is no heresy in the Pauline Mass is interesting…why would anyone need to prove that anyway? The liturgy is protected from doctrinal error…isn’t it? Error isn’t always heresy.

SFD

If the New Testament on New Advent is valid then a quick reading (even a quick reading) shows that the Pharisees plotted to Kill Jesus because of His acts and teachings that contradicted lesser Jewish laws or teachings. The curing of the hand on the sabbath, the declaration that there were no unclean foods. Of course he was a revolutionary. God has always been a revolutionary when it came to truth.

If you wish to claim error go ahead. Error is always a topic that can supported by some kind of claim. My belief is that the Holy Spirit shook up the Church in Vatican II. The Spirit moves in conjunction with the father and the Son and even Holy Mother Church needs a shake up now and then. The fruits of Vatican II have proven to be good overall which is the best that can be expected considering human free will.

 

[Dioscorus]

Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

SFD

Yea, I read it in old Coptic. And your point?

 

[Dioscorus]

If the New Testament on New Advent is valid then a quick reading (even a quick reading) shows that the Pharisees plotted to Kill Jesus because of His acts and teachings that contradicted lesser Jewish laws or teachings. The curing of the hand on the sabbath, the declaration that there were no unclean foods. Of course he was a revolutionary. God has always been a revolutionary when it came to truth.

If you wish to claim error go ahead. Error is always a topic that can supported by some kind of claim. My belief is that the Holy Spirit shook up the Church in Vatican II. The Spirit moves in conjunction with the father and the Son and even Holy Mother Church needs a shake up now and then. The fruits of Vatican II have proven to be good overall which is the best that can be expected considering human free will.

Of course, Jesus was a religious revolutionary. He came to fulfill the Law. Eventually with his Crucifixion and death, he abrogated the Old Law, and gave us a New Covenant. He gave us two new commandments. He instituted a new sacrifice, and a new rite of initiation, baptism. He formed a new Church which destroyed the old religion. He preached forgiveness for all manking, which he redeemed with his blood, not just the Jews, not just the Samaritans.

I know SFD would call that the dumbest statement he ever heard if someone else made it. It is incomprehendible for him to say that Jesus wasn’t a revolutionary.

 

[Dioscorus]

Why don’t you explain some of those changes that we needed to adapt and innovate for so we could “reach out” to those “new civilizations”?

What were the big changes from 1930 to 1970?

War. WWII, Korea, Vietnam. Before your time, I guess.

SFD

 

[Dioscorus]

.

Before Vatican II the Latin rite was the same all over the world. This was unity in worship. Those that reformed the Mass wanted the Mass to be influenced by culture and language. The goal of Father Bugnini was for each individual parish to have her own liturgy. Parishes within a few miles of each other could be totally different in their rubrics and liturgy. He was removed by Pope Paul VI , in 1975, before he could implement this final phase of his plan.

Of course, a organic developement of the Mass. Not a radical developement.

That is the whole point. *Sacrosanctum Concilium *says nothing about priest facing the people, communion in the hand, all vernacular Mass, optional Eucharistic prayers, removal of the Tabernacle, removal of statues, replacing altars with tables etc. Even Archbishop Lefebvre voted for it. And why not. It did not call for any radical changes.

Pope Paul had the authority to make changes to the Mass but was it wise to allow a handful of reformers to ignore the Constitution and write a Mass to their liking?
Cardinal Ratzinger: “After the Second Vatican Council, the impression arose that the pope really could do anything in liturgical matters, especially if he were acting on the mandate of an ecumenical council. Eventually, the idea of the givenness of the liturgy, the fact that one cannot do with it what one will, faded from the public consciousness of the West. In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word. The pope’s authority is bound to the Tradition of faith, and that also applies to the liturgy. It is not “manufactured” by the authorities. Even the pope can only be a humble servant of its lawful development and abiding integrity and identity. . . . The authority of the pope is not unlimited; it is at the service of Sacred Tradition. . . .” (The Spirit of the Liturgy, pg 165-166

Here I believe is where the Church is headed.The Mass of Benedict XVI. Which, by the way, would be fine with me.
Symptom crisis
wdtprs.com/blog/2008/02/important-2003-letter-of-card-ratzinger-about-the-older-rite-of-mass/

“The Roman rite of the future should be a single rite, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular, but standing completely in the tradition of the rite that has been handed down. It could take up some new elements which have proven themselves, like new feasts, some new prefaces in the Mass, an expanded lectionary – more choice than earlier, but not too much, – an “oratio fidelium”, i.e., a fixed litany of intercessions following the Oremus before the offertory where it had its place earlier”

Everything you have written is based on a false premise:
. . “The authority of the pope is not unlimited”
This is false.

“The Pope 'possesses supreme, full, immediate, ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely”

He is the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is not limited by any real or fictional power, by bishops, councils, tradition, law, clergy, etc.
CANON 331. He is guided by the Holy Spirit, in a way none of us can imagine, for he is the head of His Church.

 

[bear06]

Chuck,

Christ came to fulfill the law. He obeyed many laws that he did not need to obey…because He was the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. He was not a revolutionary.

Btw, your claim that there is no heresy in the Pauline Mass is interesting…why would anyone need to prove that anyway? The liturgy is protected from doctrinal error…isn’t it? Error isn’t always heresy.

SFD

Then we go back to the fact that the pope cannot promote a discipline that is harmful to the faith and you say “That’s right” since you’re a sedevacantist.

 

[Lazerlike42]

What Bear mentioned is really the key, here.

Whatever our own personal feelings about the Pauline Missal, the Pian Missal, or anything else, as faithful Catholics we are bound to believe, as taught by Pius VI, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, and many others that the Church is protected from promoting a discipline, including Liturgy, which is harmful to the faith. So we can’t say that the Pauline Mass is harmful to the faith. If we do, we are rejecting the teaching of the Church on Her ecclesial disciplinary infallibility.

We have to, as faithful Catholics, submit our intellect and our own judgments to the authoritative teaching of the Church and recognize that our judgment is only human, not Divine. God had a plan for the Pauline Liturgy, a plan to benefit the Church. Many of us may see only harm having come from it, but God has promised that His Church will not harm us with Her discipline, and so we know that if we think She has, we are wrong, just as we know that if we think the Eucharist is just bread because it sure seems to be, we are wrong.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Lazerlike,

You better send a letter to Archbishop, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, to let him know that he is in serious error by claiming that communion in the hand “has contributed to a gradual weakening of the attitude of reverence towards the sacred Eucharistic species…”.

He said that about a discipline approved by Rome.

Archibshop Ranjith: "speaking of communion in the hand, it must be recognized that the practice was improperly and quickly introduced in some quarters of the Church shortly after the Council, changing the age-old practice and becoming regular practice for the whole Church. They justified the change saying that it better reflected the Gospel or the ancient practice of the Church… Some, to justify this practice referred to the words of Jesus: “Take and eat” (Mk 14, 22; Mt 26, 26).

"Whatever the reasons for this practice, we cannot ignore what is happening worldwide where this practice has been implemented. This gesture has contributed to a gradual weakening of the attitude of reverence towards the sacred Eucharistic species whereas the previous practice had better safeguarded that sense of reverence. There instead arose an alarming lack of recollection and a general spirit of carelessness. We see communicants who often return to their seats as if nothing extraordinary has happened… In many cases, one cannot discern that sense of seriousness and inner silence that must signal the presence of God in the soul.

"Then there are those who take away the sacred species to keep them as souvenirs, those who sell, or worse yet, who take them away to desecrate it in Satanic rituals. Even in large concelebrations, also in Rome, several times the sacred species has been found thrown onto the ground.

"This situation not only leads us to reflect upon a serious loss of faith, but also on outrageous offenses…

"Now I think it is high time to review and re-evaluate such good practices and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice that was not called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor by Fathers, but was only accepted after its illegitimate introduction in some countries. Now, more than ever, we must help the faithful to renew a deep faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in order to strengthen the life of the Church and defend it in the midst of dangerous distortions of ]the faith that this situation continues to cause.

MALCOLM RANJITH
Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship

 

[Lazerlike42]

Lazerlike,

You better send a letter to Archbishop, the Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, to let him know that he is in serious error by claiming that communion in the hand “has contributed to a gradual weakening of the attitude of reverence towards the sacred Eucharistic species…”.

He said that about a discipline approved by Rome.

Two important points:

First, the discipline was not approved by Rome for the entire Latin rite, a very important disctintion. Reverse Ecclesial Infallibility has nothing to do with indults granted to a diocese here or a bishop’s conference there.

Second, the claim of the bishop does not mean that Communion in the hand is intrinsically irreverant or bad. It can’t be, given that it was the norm for receiving Communion in the early Church. As Jimmy Akin said on a recent broadcast of Catholic Answers Live, a practice can be harmful to some individuals without being generally harmful or harmful in and of itself. In fact, a practice - like Communion in the hand - can harm the faith accidentally, as opposed to substantially. For example, it may be that Communion in the hand has harmed the faith because of its use of external factors. In other words, it may be that liberal forces in the Church have taken the practice and turned it toward their own ends, just as they took Vatican II and turned it toward their own ends.

Third, it’s possible that the good Archbishop is simply mistaken. I don’t have the answers for everything every bishop has ever said. What I do know is that the popes have taught that the Church cannot present a Liturgy to the faithful which is harmful to them. That’s the clear teaching of the Magisterium, period, end of story, case closed, last nail in the coffin. Everything else has to be interpreted in light of that teaching, a teaching that nobody has any freedom to reject.