I’m from Calgary. It is true, and the communication between the FSSP and the Diocese is on our bulletin board in all its glory.
- Status
M
maggiemay2u
Guest
I think it’s the exception, not the rule on the West Coast that a diocese hasn’t suspended the sharing of the Precious Blood, communion on the tongue, shaking hands before Mass (greet your neighbor), shaking hands (apparently once is not enough) at the kiss of peace, and holding hands at the Our Father.
I’m delighted about the last three, and kinda wish there was some kind of virus that could be stopped by suspending the orans posture that is pathologically followed by the vast number of the congregations at the drop of a prayer.
I’m delighted about the last three, and kinda wish there was some kind of virus that could be stopped by suspending the orans posture that is pathologically followed by the vast number of the congregations at the drop of a prayer.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
May I ask which diocese you are in?They have done nothing. People are still holding hands during OF, hugging during the Peace, drinking the Precious Blood. It’s one big germ love fest at my parish!
R
rlg94086
Guest
Here’s what our archdiocese put out (in May…I don’t think there has been any changes since): seattlearch.org/NR/rdonlyres/02E0196C-040F-4BDB-9B7F-0EAFD774D1AB/16376/ABBParishLeadership.pdf
(bolding matches the original document)
We also haven’t stopped shaking hands at the sign of peace or offering the Cup. It is all voluntary, as the letter reads. We don’t hold hands during the Our Father/Pater Noster, so no changes there.
(bolding matches the original document)
Our priest read this aloud at each Mass. At the next Parish Council meeting, we discussed whether we should temporarily end reception on the tongue, but we unanimously rejected the idea. We did have a meeting of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, so Father could instruct everyone on the best techniques to avoid contact with a communicant’s tongue and the proper use of hand sanitizers prior to serving. We have loads of it throughout the parish right now.
We also haven’t stopped shaking hands at the sign of peace or offering the Cup. It is all voluntary, as the letter reads. We don’t hold hands during the Our Father/Pater Noster, so no changes there.
B
Brendan
Guest
Here is what +Vigneron has done in Detroit
aodonline.org/AODOnline/News+++Publications+2203/090430ParishLetter.htm
aodonline.org/AODOnline/News+++Publications+2203/090430ParishLetter.htm
R
rlg94086
Guest
Interesting…with the exception of the first paragraph, it is word-for-word the same as the Seattle Archdiocese. I wonder if the USCCB distributed something to the bishops…
P
Phemie
Guest
Our diocese has not banned anything, just suggested that physical contact at the Sign of Peace be replaced by a bow and that Communion from the Chalice be avoided by those who are sick out of respect for their fellow parishioners. No mention of the Lord’s Prayer since holding hands at that time is unknown in these parts.
Pastor opted to:
Pastor opted to:
- Cease Communion under both species;
- have us bow at the Sign of Peace (which no longer turns into a hug fest and is done with more decorum);
- no longer use EMHCs (except for 1 at the Christmas Eve Children’s Mass & Midnight Mass);
- suggested having no Communion on the tongue or receiving last if you wished to do that. The one person who receives on the tongue presents himself last (though before the choir members).
R
rlg94086
Guest
I had to chuckle when I read this… Cease Communion of the consecrated host and the cup?? :bigyikes:
(Of course, I know what you meant…I just read it funny)
J
JReducation
Guest
I followed all of the links on that aritcle and I believe that there is a lot of misunderstanding. For one thing, the Bishop did not suspend the FSSP as one of the links said. What happened was that the FSSP runs a parish in that diocese. They wrote the bishop and explained that communion in the hand was not possible in the EF. But I did find out from one of our brothers in that diocese, that the bishop did not suspend them. What he told them was that as the primary liturgist of the diocese, he was granting them permission to distribute communion in the hand during the EF. The FSSP declined the offer, which is their right as long as it’s an offer and not a mandate. If it were a mandate it raises things to another level, because it’s the bishop’s parish, but the FSSP are a society, they can decline and respectfully return the parish to the bishop. They have chosen not to do so. They have chosen to suspend the EF mass. This is very different frorm saying that they have been suspended. That never happened and neither the diocese nor the FSSP said this. This was posted on the internet by an organization which is rather extremist. I can’t recall their name. But they have this long article on how it is a sacrilege to touch the Eucharist unless your hands are consecrated, forgetting that deacons’ hands are not consecrated and they have alwasy distributed communion. But that’s another story.
The other issue is the big question about the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship . . . and teh bishop. The concern voiced by some is that the bishop has overstepped his authority. De facto, he has not. No congregation can overrrule a bishop in matters of health. They can make a public statement, which they have. But such a statement is not policy. Congregations can only make policies when those policies are signed by the the Secretary of the Congregation with the approval of the Apostolic See.
There is another issue at hand, which is a canonical one. There are decisions of urgency that a bishop or majoir superior can make, even if there is a policy in place, because policies are not doctrine. Therefore, they can be suspended by the local bishop. Suspended is not the same as done away with. Even if the statement of the Congregation were a policy, which it is not, because it does not carry the weight of the Secretary and the Apostolic See, it is a statement, that’s it, . . . even if it is policy, a bishop may temporarilly suspend any policy. We have to remember that the bishop, not the Congregation, is the local Ordinary. In religious houses the local ordinary would be the superior. What is required, when a bishop suspends a policy is for him to send a notice to the Congregation X, depending on the policy. If there is a problem they get back to the bishop. If they do not, you can assume permission to proceed.
That takes me to my third and final point. I do agree that the suggestions made by other dioceses are less radical and probably equally safe. But I’m not the bishop of Calgary. I have no idea what the medical officer shared with the chancery. For all I know they may be having a bad flu season. I don’t know. Again, it could have been less intense and effective. But that’s a prudential judgment by those who are there.
In our diocese the bishop did suspend the use of the communion cup. He suggested keeping your hands to yourself. Holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is a parish by parish thing, so that was not a diocesan issue. Because many parishes in our diocese are adminsitered by religious men, the bishop did say that those parishes where religious adminsiter, must adhere to the judgment of the major superiors who oversee the religious in those parishes. Some religious communities have completely suspended communion on the tongue. So it’s not done in those parishes until the major superior gives the go ahead. But that usually happens when you have many religious running parishes. The bishops try to cooperate with the major suepiors who do not want their religious men doing certain things, in this case distributing communion on the tongue. Again, the major superiors do have that authority over their priests. Most of these decrees are written only for diocesan priests, unless they say something to the contrary.
But I rather like the other dioceses guidelines better. But I’m not the bishop. Nonetheless, I believe this has been blown out of proportion. The bishop can make certain judgment calls and the FSSP were not suspended. Whether the FSSP will celebrate the OF until this is over is another question. I know that the Canons of St. John Cantius do both. I don’t know about the FSSP… It all depends on their constitutions. And those the bishop cannot trump. He has to abide by their constitutions. But he does not have to let the celebrate for his people, if they can’t comply with his wishes. It would be understood that it’s not a matter of the FSSP saying that they won’t, but that they can’t because of their constitutions and the bishop saying that he respects their constitution and will not force them to do so, but they can’t celebrate for his people until he resotores communion on the tongue. In such a case, if the society cannot celebrate the OF, then they have to limit themselves to celebrating the EF only for themselves until the restriction is lifted.
One final question. . . does anyone know if there is an end in sigh to this F1N! flu? I have not read any prognoses. By the way, it can be life threatening to seniors, babies, and peopel with HIV or cancer. We have had six deaths in our city or our county. I can’t remember which is which.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The other issue is the big question about the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship . . . and teh bishop. The concern voiced by some is that the bishop has overstepped his authority. De facto, he has not. No congregation can overrrule a bishop in matters of health. They can make a public statement, which they have. But such a statement is not policy. Congregations can only make policies when those policies are signed by the the Secretary of the Congregation with the approval of the Apostolic See.
There is another issue at hand, which is a canonical one. There are decisions of urgency that a bishop or majoir superior can make, even if there is a policy in place, because policies are not doctrine. Therefore, they can be suspended by the local bishop. Suspended is not the same as done away with. Even if the statement of the Congregation were a policy, which it is not, because it does not carry the weight of the Secretary and the Apostolic See, it is a statement, that’s it, . . . even if it is policy, a bishop may temporarilly suspend any policy. We have to remember that the bishop, not the Congregation, is the local Ordinary. In religious houses the local ordinary would be the superior. What is required, when a bishop suspends a policy is for him to send a notice to the Congregation X, depending on the policy. If there is a problem they get back to the bishop. If they do not, you can assume permission to proceed.
That takes me to my third and final point. I do agree that the suggestions made by other dioceses are less radical and probably equally safe. But I’m not the bishop of Calgary. I have no idea what the medical officer shared with the chancery. For all I know they may be having a bad flu season. I don’t know. Again, it could have been less intense and effective. But that’s a prudential judgment by those who are there.
In our diocese the bishop did suspend the use of the communion cup. He suggested keeping your hands to yourself. Holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer is a parish by parish thing, so that was not a diocesan issue. Because many parishes in our diocese are adminsitered by religious men, the bishop did say that those parishes where religious adminsiter, must adhere to the judgment of the major superiors who oversee the religious in those parishes. Some religious communities have completely suspended communion on the tongue. So it’s not done in those parishes until the major superior gives the go ahead. But that usually happens when you have many religious running parishes. The bishops try to cooperate with the major suepiors who do not want their religious men doing certain things, in this case distributing communion on the tongue. Again, the major superiors do have that authority over their priests. Most of these decrees are written only for diocesan priests, unless they say something to the contrary.
But I rather like the other dioceses guidelines better. But I’m not the bishop. Nonetheless, I believe this has been blown out of proportion. The bishop can make certain judgment calls and the FSSP were not suspended. Whether the FSSP will celebrate the OF until this is over is another question. I know that the Canons of St. John Cantius do both. I don’t know about the FSSP… It all depends on their constitutions. And those the bishop cannot trump. He has to abide by their constitutions. But he does not have to let the celebrate for his people, if they can’t comply with his wishes. It would be understood that it’s not a matter of the FSSP saying that they won’t, but that they can’t because of their constitutions and the bishop saying that he respects their constitution and will not force them to do so, but they can’t celebrate for his people until he resotores communion on the tongue. In such a case, if the society cannot celebrate the OF, then they have to limit themselves to celebrating the EF only for themselves until the restriction is lifted.
One final question. . . does anyone know if there is an end in sigh to this F1N! flu? I have not read any prognoses. By the way, it can be life threatening to seniors, babies, and peopel with HIV or cancer. We have had six deaths in our city or our county. I can’t remember which is which.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
O
Ockham
Guest
Thanks for the info JR. There is no flu epidemic in Calgary or any other city on the continent. The seasonal flu has killed more people this year as it does every year. Nor I have seen any evidence suggesting the virus can be spread more easily with COTT than CITH.
O
Ockham
Guest
"The way I understand it, the Holy Father is the Supreme Legislator in the Church. He has delegated his authority to govern matters liturgical, the “discipline of the sacraments” to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. After the Holy Father, this Congregation is the highest authority when it comes to Latin Rite worship and discipline of the sacraments. A local priest in a parish, or bishop in a diocese might be able to set aside something from the territorial conference of bishops, but they cannot ignore what a Congregation does. When the Congregation determines something, it is no longer anyone else’s call (except the Holy Father).
Redemptionis Sacramentum is a juridical document of the CDWDS which had the approval of the Roman Pontiff. The same Congregation has reaffirmed with specific reference to H1N1 what RS said."
Father Z
wdtprs.com/blog/
Redemptionis Sacramentum is a juridical document of the CDWDS which had the approval of the Roman Pontiff. The same Congregation has reaffirmed with specific reference to H1N1 what RS said."
Father Z
wdtprs.com/blog/
I
ibkc
Guest
You are charitable as always, JR, but a very close reading of the bishop’s letter to the FSSP shows that he did give them a mandate: communion in the hand or nothing else. He even went as far as to say that they couldn’t have the Extraordinary Form masses without communion.
“the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion.”
In other words, you MUST receive communion and you MUST receive it in the hand. Seems highly punitive to me and if the bishop has a good reason for it, he certainly failed to explain it adequately.
“the current pandemic circumstances do not warrant the non-reception of the Body and Blood of the Lord in favour of a spiritual communion.”
In other words, you MUST receive communion and you MUST receive it in the hand. Seems highly punitive to me and if the bishop has a good reason for it, he certainly failed to explain it adequately.
C
CDNowak
Guest
J
John_Larocque
Guest
This was on the Rorate Coeli comment page:
I
ibkc
Guest
That is heartbreaking. 
L
Layman
Guest
This is just the latest in a long line of media medical scare stories.
After the bird flu, salmonella, MMR vaccine, mad cow disease, swine flu etc. scares we’ve had in the UK, I think I’m now immune … to media scare stories!
After the bird flu, salmonella, MMR vaccine, mad cow disease, swine flu etc. scares we’ve had in the UK, I think I’m now immune … to media scare stories!
J
JReducation
Guest
I read the entire article and there ae several points that are not quite kosher. No one ever said that the FSSP is guilty of anything, not even the bishop.
The second point that requires some legaal clarification is the statement that the bishop does not have the authority to modify the way that communion is distributed in the EF… This is inaccuarate. The bishop is the supreme liturgist in his diocese. He has the athority to grant dispensations as logn as they are not from the matter and form. Receptiion of communioin on the tongue is neither matter nor form. It is part of the Extraordinary Form, but if you suspend it for a time, you are not changing the Extraordinary Form. You are changing the manner of distributing communion, not the form of the mass. It is the form of the mass that no bishop can change Of course, a major religious superior can permanently change how you receive communion in the Tridentine or the Ordinary forms. Even there, he can ony make that permanent change in his jurisdictioin, not in the diocese. Just as the indult to receive communion in the hand has been granted to those who attend the OF, there is nothing is law that says that it cannot be extended to those who attend the EF. It must be understood that an indult is not pa erment change and is subject to review by the proper authorities. Often the laity don’t know that the bishops do have the authority to make temporary exceptions. All long term-changes must come from the USCCB and approved by Rome.
Even when a Roman Congregation has issued a decree, bishops, abbots, and major supeiors of men have the authority to grand dispensations from their excecution. They may not make general policy that is in conflct with the decree, unless they are exempt from it by canon law or what is also known as common law. Common law would be the rule and constitutions of a religious order of pontifical right. These writings always trump the decrees of the congregations, unless the Holy Father personally intervenes and abrogates the article in thje rule or the constitution that is in conflict with the decree. Most peple don’t know this. That’s why Summorum Pontificum made explicit mention of regular priests needing to take up the issue of the EF with their major superiors according to the norm of particular law, meaning the common law of the religious order. Pope Benedict did not authorize to have Summorum Pontificum applied over the desires of the major superiors or the rules of the founders. No Sacred Congregation has authority over a religious founder.
If the question about this bishop and the communion in the hand were taken up in an ecclesial court, the canon lawyers would be able to prove, without a doubut, that there have been and are currently presedents that grange bishops, abbots and male religious superiors the authority to make temporary changes in the manner of distributing communion, despite the decrees of the Sacred Congregation. It would then be up to the Sacred Congregation to defend itself by proving that its decree trumps precedence. This can be done if they have a bull on their decree. Without a bull, even with the pope’s signature, the decree does not trump practice. The rule of the Church is that if something has been in practice for 100 years or more, the practice becomes a rule until it is abrogated by canon law or the pope. So, if it has been practice for bishops, abbots, and religious superiors to grant dispensations from certain regularions in the liturgy for 100 years or more, then it is defensible in a court of law. The fact is that bishops, abbots, and major superiors of men have been making exceptions and granting indults on how communion is received for hundreds of years. The Benedictine abbots, Franciscan ministers, and Carmelite priors have been granting dispensations and indjults, unchallenged, on the manner that the Eucharist is received since the Middle Ages.
Finally, the argument that receiving the Eucharist in the hand is a sacrilege is not valid. It is not. It’s not even a sin. This argument comes from a mistaken statement made by Thomas Aquinas. He made it with good intentions. But he was mistaken. He said that only the consecrated hands of the priest could touch the host. This was only the case for a short time in the history of the Western Church and only in some palces. Deacons have always been one of the three normal ministers of holy communion. Deacons are not consecrated persons. Most of them are secular men. The deacon’s hands are not consecrated.
Among Franciscans, where the number of ordained friars is deliberately kept smaller than that of lay brothers and permanetn deacons are only allowed by permission fomr the Minister General for very good reasons, our lay brothers and cloistered nuns (going back to Clare) have always taken care to take communion to the sick members of the community whould could not attend mass at the local parish. Only when a house had an ordained friar, did they have mass at the house. Therefore, there is no such sacrilege. Carmelites and Benedictines have had the same practice, although less frequent among the Carmelites, because they are a clerical order.
Clarity is important in understanding any situation. Otherwise we may find outselves in a position of reacting, rather than looking for solutions. Reacting is the furthest form of behavior from good Catholic mystical theology. Mystics do not react. Like Mary, the msytic stands at the foot of the cross and ponders. Like Mary, the msytic growths in self-control, dignity and charity in the face of perceived sins and errors. That is our universal call to holiness.
Let us discuss this situation as if we were Mary, with a contemplative attitude and behavior, not a reactionary or emotional one.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
Seamus_L
Guest
The SSPX has a Chapel in Calgary. I’d go there until this is resolved.
J
JReducation
Guest
Slow down. We cannot encourage people to attend an illicit celebration of the mass when they have the choice of attending a licit celebration. The mass celebrated at the SSPX chapel is valid, but it remains illegal for them to celebrate it, because the priests are suspended.
Our call is not to step away from the Church as if we were not a part of it. Our call is to be part of the cross and deal with the pain and difficulties as on Mystical Body. To say that we’re going to an illegal mass, because the bishop and the FSSP have not reached a solution to a situation is to place ourselves outside of the situation as if we were not part of it. If we are part of the Church, then we must be part of the cross. It’s too easy to find a place where we can go and let others struggle with the problem and feel the pain, while we’re warm and snug elsehwere. But this is not the example of Christ or his mother.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I
ibkc
Guest
In this long-running thread up in Liturgy and Sacraments: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=401196
the consensus is that you are incorrect on this point. A bishop cannot overrule the CDW on matters of liturgy.
Father Zuhlsdorf writes,
the Holy Father is the Supreme Legislator in the Church. He has delegated his authority to govern matters liturgical, the “discipline of the sacraments” to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. After the Holy Father, this Congregation is the highest authority when it comes to Latin Rite worship and discipline of the sacraments. A local priest in a parish, or bishop in a diocese might be able to set aside something from the territorial conference of bishops, but they cannot ignore what a Congregation does. When the Congregation determines something, it is no longer anyone else’s call (except the Holy Father).
Redemptionis Sacramentum is a juridical document of the CDWDS which had the approval of the Roman Pontiff. The same Congregation has reaffirmed with specific reference to H1N1 what RS said.
- Status