Do you enforce Tradition at Mass?

[thechrismyster]

My point in comparing the two was that these were both illegal and made legal only when people started saying “we’ll do it anyway.” Communion in the hand is nothing more than a legalized abuse, is not encouraged by any Saing, and condemned by several. Now it’s “permitted;” that doesn’t make it right.

“In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction **Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.”

*Sacred Congregation For Divine Worship, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353

---

"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized"

-Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, On The Mystery And Worship Of The Eucharist

** Doesn’t sound like Pope John Paull II had much problem with it or saw it as a ‘licit abuse’ - of course, like most things on Catholic Answers Forums, personal opinion often gets confused with Church teaching…
when will traditionalists get in line with the Roman Catholic Church instead of trying so vainly to steer her where THEY want her to go? The Church has the power to loose and bind, not the folks who are sanctimonius. I’d go on, but words are lost on ears that won’t listen.

 

[Indyann]

“In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction *Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.”

Sacred Congregation For Divine Worship, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353

---

"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized"

-Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae**, On The Mystery And Worship Of The Eucharist

Doesn’t sound like Pope John Paull II had much problem with it or saw it as a ‘licit abuse’ - of course, like most things on Catholic Answers Forums, personal opinion often gets confused with Church teaching…
when will traditionalists get in line with the Roman Catholic Church instead of trying so vainly to steer her where THEY want her to go? The Church has the power to loose and bind, not the folks who are sanctimonius. I’d go on, but words are lost on ears that won’t listen.

Thank you!:tiphat:

 

[Daprato]

“…and I chastise those who receive Communion without prior Confession…I do not chit-chat in the sacristy, and I chastise those who do…I admonish people who go to Mass dressed like they’re going to the beach or a night club”

Anyone as ignorant and as arrogant as you sound might well find themselves in a physical confrontation following Mass in the parking lot.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Catholo-fascism comes to mind reading the OP of this thread.

Jim

 

[m134e5]

I say the “Confiteor” (I confess), even if the priest leaves it out.

I am more likely to think “those people think they know better than the priest and the Church how to celebrate Mass” than to think “they are a good example of how to follow Catholic tradition”.

During the Creed, I genuflect at the words “And He became flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and became Man”

The rubrics of the Mass say to bow at this time- we genuflect on Christmas and on the Annunciation. I am more likely to think those who kneel all the time just want people to notice them.

I kneel at the beginning of the “Sanctus” (Holy, Holy, Holy), even when everyone else is still standing

The Church has said we should kneel after the Sanctus, and so I do. I am inclined to think that those who kneel before think they know better than the Church.

I gently beat my chest as I say the “Non sum dignum” (Lord, I’m not worthy to receive thee)

I always do this, and don’t remember when I started. I don’t know if it is in the rubrics or not, but I mean it to be between me and God.

(Ladies) I wear a mantilla to cover my head at Mass

If the women I see wearing these are humble, reverent, and pious- whenever I see them, I prefer women to wear them. If they use it as a fashion statement, then it is inappropriate.

I only receive Communion if I’ve gone to Confession, and I chastise those who receive Communion without prior Confession

The first is between me and God alone. The second is between the other person and God- ALONE.

I receive Communion on the tongue, not in the hand

Yes. This is one of two areas I absolutely will not bend on. I refuse to receive communion in the hand, and regret the times I have done so.

I arrive early… and I say prayers of thanksgiving after Mass, instead of leaving right away

I am there as early as I can be, and I take my time leaving.

I do not chit-chat in the sacristy, and I chastise those who do

I don’t go into the sacristy unless there is a real reason to go there, and if I hear someone talking too loudly in there, they are probably in there when they don’t need to be- I will say something. I will talk quietly in the vestibule of the church, and outside- I like to talk and my church is a very social parish- we know where it belongs though.

I admonish people who go to Mass dressed like they’re going to the beach or a night club

I find it offensive, but it is the pastor’s job- not mine- to admonish people for that.

 

[joanofarc3]

…
when will traditionalists get in line with the Roman Catholic Church instead of trying so vainly to steer her where THEY want her to go? The Church has the power to loose and bind, not the folks who are sanctimonius. I’d go on, but words are lost on ears that won’t listen.
*

The Pope approved of dancing during Mass, you agree with that as well? Please stop trying to separate “trads” from the Church. They never left! Upholding reverence when the hierarchy fails (some, and at times) isn’t disobedience, isn’t schism, isn’t sinful. The bishops need to quit kissing up with the world and start tending their own flock. Communion in the hand has been condemned already, I don’t see any point on going back to it when the only reason it was revived is because Paul VI (God rest his soul) was weak. Rather than discipline the bishops who refused to obey he gave in; that doesn’t make it right. All Rome has showed over the last 40+ years is that if you continue to disobey then you will be given into. Not a responsible Parent, but then, Jesus Christ did warn that this would happen. No point in trying to cover it up as that only makes the situation worse.

 

[thechrismyster]

The Pope approved of dancing during Mass, you agree with that as well? Please stop trying to separate “trads” from the Church. .

exactly. Thank you for saving me the time having to refute you. you’ve given wordy evidence to your position.

I don’t separate the ‘trads’ from the Church. They accomplish that task quite successfully without my help.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

joanofarc

The Pope approved of dancing during Mass, you agree with that as well?

I thought the Popes prohibited liturgical dance?

Please stop trying to separate “trads” from the Church. They never left!

I think trads separate themselves by not accepting the majority of other Catholics. Heck, most trads I know, drive miles out of their way, bypassing parishes in their own towns, to attend Masses which suits their sensibilities.

Upholding reverence when the hierarchy fails (some, and at times) isn’t disobedience, isn’t schism, isn’t sinful.

It can be sinful if its false piety from pride. It can be sinful if your preceived reverence, lacks love for your neighbor.

Communion in the hand has been condemned already,

no it hasn’t.

I don’t see any point on going back to it when the only reason it was revived is because Paul VI (God rest his soul) was weak.

He was a lot stronger than you can comprehend.

Rather than discipline the bishops who refused to obey he gave in

;

Maybe you misunderstand the relationship a Pope has with his fellow Bishops? Perhaps he didn’t give in, as much as you think.

. All Rome has showed over the last 40+ years is that if you continue to disobey then you will be given into.

You made this up, right?

Not a responsible Parent, but then, Jesus Christ did warn that this would happen.

What did Jesus warn?

Jim

 

[joanofarc3]

joanofarc

I thought the Popes prohibited liturgical dance?

I think trads separate themselves by not accepting the majority of other Catholics. Heck, most trads I know, drive miles out of their way, bypassing parishes in their own towns, to attend Masses which suits their sensibilities.

It can be sinful if its false piety from pride. It can be sinful if your preceived reverence, lacks love for your neighbor.

no it hasn’t.

He was a lot stronger than you can comprehend.

Maybe you misunderstand the relationship a Pope has with his fellow Bishops? Perhaps he didn’t give in, as much as you think.

You made this up, right?

What did Jesus warn?

Jim

Dancing- what’s been done about it recently?

Mass- something wrong with going out of the way to attend a reverent Mass?

Prideful piety and reverential lack of charity- I think many Catholics assume it’s pride on the part of the “trads” just because they disagree with the pope, which it’s not. lack of charity seems to be a common factor, but I think in most cases it’s not intentional. True charity hasn’t been practiced in the Church very well, and I think that most “trads” simply overcompensate in this area, not wanting to be liberal by sacrificing the truth for the sake of being “nce.”

Communion in the hand has been condemned. I do not have the sources on me at the moment, but I’ll have them by tonight or tomorrow morning.

No disrespect intended toward Paul VI, but he was weak and indecisive; many non-traditional conservative Catholics admit to this.

Disobedience =legalization- no, I did not make that up, it should be obvious. The entire Mass in the venacular, altar girls and women lectors, numerous EOEMHC, lack of altar rails, Communion in the hand…I could go on, but these happen to be the most noticable. Does Rome buckle down on the liturgical abuses? No. Discipline the Bishops that allow it? I would like examples if it’s done.

Jesus warned about a coming apostasy, a major one. Not total, as the Mormons believe, but great. A great falling away, so great that even the elect would be deceived (if that were possible). This is not to say that non-“trads” are falling for the deception. I know many non-“trads” who are very faithful, God fearing people. My own confessor loves John Paul II, regards him as a saint, and isn’t fond of Archbishop Lefebvre, but even he doesn’t deny the garbage that some conservatives try to defend only because “the pope says so.” His every word and decision is not right. This is a point every Catholic apologist emphasizes with Protestants and non-Christians, yet when talking with “trads” it seems as though this point is forgotten. Some do go overboard, I’m not denying that, but it’s unfair to judge a “trad” harshly simply because they disagree with debatable issues.

St. Peter was not the one Jesus revealed the betrayer to. St. Peter was used by Satan to try to turn the Lord away from His passion. St. Peter denied Christ, THREE times in one night, even though he was forewarned (one would think he’d be more on guard against doing that). St. Peter caused a great scandal that required a public rebuke from a subordinate bishop. St. Peter acknowledged his mistakes and corrected them. Not every pope has done this. Popes can make mistakes, they often do. They’re still human, with weaknesses. We, of course, shouldn’t bash him for mistakes, but we also are not expected by God to go along with bad choices just because a pope thinks there’s nothing wrong. Previous popes have condemned things that have been allowed recently. Who’s right? Personally, I side with the Popes who weren’t known to cave in on the little but significant details.

 

[joanofarc3]

I don’t separate the ‘trads’ from the Church. They accomplish that task quite successfully without my help.

Because they disagree with you?

 

[lak611]

Communion in the hand has been condemned.

Not by our Holy Father.

http://www.decaturdaily.com/decaturdaily/religion/060603/vatican.jpg

 

[Pug]

The Pope approved of dancing during Mass, you agree with that as well?

Are you talking about in the West and in some document?

 

[benedictgal]

Given that I am a layperson, and that I am the only one upon whom I can “enforce” anything, I conduct myself according to canon law as much as I am able.

I attended a Newman Center for many years that has become increasingly more progressive. The Blessed Sacrament was removed, the kneelers were removed, and the last straw was when the confiteor was removed from the liturgy. I have not returned since. Canon Law states that the faithful will kneel during the consecration. I know that the local bishop can make exceptions to this, but the service seems to me more Protestant than Catholic. Perhaps I am demonstrating my prejudice.

Actually Redemptionis Sacramentum empowers us to address these abuses with the priest. If he ignores, then go to the bishop. If that doesn’t work, then write a letter to Cardinal Arinze. The document (as reaffirmed by Cardinal Arinze) tells us that we do have the right to have the Mass celebrated according to the rubrics of the Church.

Now, I admit that I don’t wear the mantilla. No one of us has the right to judge the person’s worthiness for communion (unless he causes a scandal like John Kerry did during the last election). The issue of dress is also delicate, although I’ve seen my share of mini-skirts, tube tops and lowrise jeans in my parish. Some judiciously chosen words from the priest (either spoken or written in the builletin, may help out).

 

[benedictgal]

Dancing- what’s been done about it recently?

.

I think that my city is due for a huge rainstorm or snowstorm, but this is the one time that I think I can actually agree with one thing Jim has said in answer to a poster’s question. Liturgical Dance is a reprobated practice, condemned as recently as last year by Francis Cardinal Arinze, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It is a practice that is supposed to cease and desist immediately.

Unfortunately, a certain religious order in my hometown likes to practice it with the schoolchildren because they believe that children’s liturgies have their own leeway. This is also the same order that promotes Protestant praise worship (complete with a quasi-rock band) during school Masses. I am afraid that if Don Bosco were to suddenly appear, he would not be pleased with what his spiritual descendants are doing.

That is why I do thank God that we were blessed with Joseph Ratzinger as our Pope. Oh, BTW, Jim, my weather bug icon is turning red. I think a storm is coming.

 

[Red_Meg]

I just have to ask–

How is that chastising thing working out for you, anyway?

I’m guessing (can’t read souls, can only guess) it probably gives you some sense of vindication, or satisfaction, or something, but in terms of actually helping a fellow sinner realize his fault, open himself to God’s grace, repent of his fault and resolve to amend in the future-- do you really find chastisement to be the most effective way to do accomplish this??

Margaret

 

[benedictgal]

The Pope approved of dancing during Mass, you agree with that as well? Please stop trying to separate “trads” from the Church. They never left! Upholding reverence when the hierarchy fails (some, and at times) isn’t disobedience, isn’t schism, isn’t sinful. The bishops need to quit kissing up with the world and start tending their own flock. Communion in the hand has been condemned already, I don’t see any point on going back to it when the only reason it was revived is because Paul VI (God rest his soul) was weak. Rather than discipline the bishops who refused to obey he gave in; that doesn’t make it right. All Rome has showed over the last 40+ years is that if you continue to disobey then you will be given into. Not a responsible Parent, but then, Jesus Christ did warn that this would happen. No point in trying to cover it up as that only makes the situation worse.

But, Jesus also promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Even though, as the late Pope Paul VI lamented, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church”, a good, solid and holy Pope like Benedict XVI is trying to clear the air out. Pope Benedict is still very much Joseph Ratzinger and he has remained consistent. Just read his books on the liturgy. There’s your blueprint for things to come in our Church. Maybe he’s not cleaning out the thrashing floor with his “winnowing fan”, but, he is methodical and very astute. He has the courage to say things that no one wants to hear, but needs to hear.

Don’t be so quick to discout the present administration. By the way, you are in error about the popes and liturgical dance. Just because it happened during one of John Paul’s Masses doesn’t mean that he entirely condoned it. Cardinal Arinze said that sometimes things like that happened without any advnce notice. I’m inclined to believe Cardinal Arinze on this one. To my knowledge (and I’ve seen just about every B-16 Mass, nothing strange has happened under the good pope’s watch. The music has much improved and the liturgies are certainly more prayerful than they’ve been in quite a long while. Don’t get me wrong. I love JPII, but, I think his charisma overwhelmed the liturgies and we all lost focus as to why we were there (wheter in person or on TV).

 

[Kathrin]

“I kneel at the beginning of the “Sanctus” (Holy, Holy, Holy), even when everyone else is still standing”

Not always - and maybe not if EVERYONE else is still standing. Well, I chose to mark that one anyway, since I am clarifying here… often I am one of the very first to kneel, and since I tend to sit rather in the front I often notice people start to kneel after me, behind me, too .
Ok, probably if NOONE else kneels, I might remain standing as well. It really depends.

Kathrin

 

[Cat]

No wonder people quit the Catholic Church.

Question: if a self-appointed liturgical policeperson gravely offends a “weaker” Catholic, and that weaker Catholic leaves the Church over the perceived insult, which of these has committed the greater sin?

I think a good dose of Imitation of Christ is in order here. Try Book Two, Chapter 19 “On Supporting Injuries and Who Is Proved to be Truly Patient,” or Book Two, Chapter 25, “In What Things Firm Peace of Heart and True Progress Consist?”

 

[Kathrin]

I replied before realiting that the conversation here had taken on a different course from just specifying about the different points…

Generally speaking… well, I have said in other posts that I am from Switzerland and it seems to me that here things are being done more “liberally” than in the US. For example, there are not always three readings. Sometimes they do stuff with children, sometimes they do a role play… and yes, I think there has been dancing.

I must say I kind of like the colorful services and masses.

I like the more traditional ones too.

But I don’t quite see what can be wrong about not doing the exact same thing (well, liturgy wise) every time?

I do understand that it has to be reverent. But if it comes from the heart, out of love… isn’t that the important thing?

Just as dressing… the poor man from the street is just as accepted as the guy who shows up in a suit, right?

This is a really interesting thread. I CAN kind of see both sides.

Kathrin

 

[dixieagle]

Communion in the hand has been condemned. I do not have the sources on me at the moment, but I’ll have them by tonight or tomorrow morning.

Bunk.

"*GIRM 160. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. **The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. *When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood."

That’s pretty much all we need to know on this, no matter what your personal preference is.

Disobedience =legalization- no, I did not make that up, it should be obvious. The entire Mass in the venacular, altar girls and women lectors, numerous EOEMHC, lack of altar rails, Communion in the hand…I could go on, but these happen to be the most noticable. Does Rome buckle down on the liturgical abuses? No. Discipline the Bishops that allow it? I would like examples if it’s done.

If Rome allows what you term “abuses” as cited above…then, they are not abuses.

Latin was initially used because it was the “vernacular” of the time; the first Christians certainly received the Precious Body with their hands, and not while kneeling at rails. Though clearly women cannot be priests (this does not in the least bother me), I imagine that Jesus is perfectly delighted that women and girls want to serve him at the altar and as lectors. I think a lot of people waste too much time getting their knickers in a twist about peripheral issues. Increased catechesis so that reverence is maintained is not a bad idea, however, and is often sorely needed.