Is this the beginning of the end for communion in the hand?

[JReducation]

I don’t really know of any traditionalist that has difficulty separating dogma from discipline or liturgical reform from efficaciousness of the sacrament. Thus almost any traditionalist I will read will state that the Novus Ordo is valid even if they object to aspects of the reform.

I would also assert, if I understand you correctly, that the changes to the liturgy are changes in both form and content. Form as in the rubrics and content in that a quite a number of prayers were dropped, altered, or added. And of course I would assert that authors who write on this subject such as Dietrich von Hildebrand (as in the article in my signature link below), Cardinal Ottaviani, Fr. Brian Harrison, Dom Alcuin Reid, Fr. Aidan Nichols, etc. are doing far more good than harm as they are being honest and accurate about the liturgical reforms. And since the law of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi is still in effect their arguments are quite important.

I would further say that one of the reasons traditionalists (and others) want certain traditions (liturgical and others) restored is precisely so that the beauty of the Church can be made manifest to a seeking world and thus draw in potential converts, and edify the souls of Catholics.

I agree that dialogue is good. I would say that even argument is good, but not quarreling or ad hominem attacks (which you have not engaged in).

God bless.

Thank you for your response. It was well explained. I should have explained more clearly that by content I was referring to the validity of the mass in either form, Tridentine or Novus Ordo. That has remaind untouched. In other words, I was referring to the essential elements necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist: priest, bread, water, wine, words of consecration, etc.

As to the theologians that you refer to in your thread, they make their point in a respectful manner. I don’t get a sense that they are on a campaign to attack anything or anyone. They have a position that they wish to share. They have a right to it. I agree with some things and not with others; but that’s the nature of growth isn’t it. We’re not all going to get what we believe is best. The end is usually somewhere in the middle.

Where that middle is, I have no idea nor do I even want to try to guess.

I thank you for acknowledging that I am not attempting to engage in attacks. I try hard not to do that.

JR

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Thank you for your response. It was well explained. I should have explained more clearly that by content I was referring to the validity of the mass in either form, Tridentine or Novus Ordo. That has remaind untouched. In other words, I was referring to the essential elements necessary for the celebration of the Eucharist: priest, bread, water, wine, words of consecration, etc.

As to the theologians that you refer to in your thread, they make their point in a respectful manner. I don’t get a sense that they are on a campaign to attack anything or anyone. They have a position that they wish to share. They have a right to it. I agree with some things and not with others; but that’s the nature of growth isn’t it. We’re not all going to get what we believe is best. The end is usually somewhere in the middle.

Where that middle is, I have no idea nor do I even want to try to guess.

I thank you for acknowledging that I am not attempting to engage in attacks. I try hard not to do that.

JR

Hi JR,

Thanks for your response. I also would disagree with anyone who disputes the validity of either Mass. God bless.

 

[mgrfin]

JR,

I agree with much of what you say. The only distinction I would make is that the traditionalist authors I read recognize the Pope’s authority to change disciplines. Hence, I don’t think communion in the hand is a good idea, but I recognize the Pope’s authority over the discipline. The same for clerical celibacy and other disciplines, including the liturgy.

Ask the thousands of priests who have resigned in the U.S.: “do you think celibacy and communion in the hand is on the same plane?”

The issues aren’t even on the same planet, let alone in the same level. Communion in the hand is basically as superificial you can get on any issue, excepting maybe tipping your hat to a woman as you pass by.

Thousans upon thousands, maybe 40,000, of the cream of the crop of the Church left over this issue. Posing this question shows how little someone knows what has happened in this country.

Prayer and charity for all who post here.

peace

 

[JReducation]

Ask the thousands of priests who have resigned in the U.S.: “do you think celibacy and communion in the hand is on the same plane?”

The issues aren’t even on the same planet, let alone in the same level. Communion in the hand is basically as superificial you can get on any issue, excepting maybe tipping your hat to a woman as you pass by.

**Thousans upon thousands, maybe 40,000, of the cream of the crop of the Church left over this issue. ** Posing this question shows how little someone knows what has happened in this country.

Prayer and charity for all who post here.

peace

Are you saying that more priests have left the priesthood over communion in the hand than over celibacy or obedience? I’d like to see where those statistics come from.

JR

 

[otjm]

Ask the thousands of priests who have resigned in the U.S.: “do you think celibacy and communion in the hand is on the same plane?”

The issues aren’t even on the same planet, let alone in the same level. Communion in the hand is basically as superificial you can get on any issue, excepting maybe tipping your hat to a woman as you pass by.

Thousans upon thousands, maybe 40,000, of the cream of the crop of the Church left over this issue. Posing this question shows how little someone knows what has happened in this country.

Prayer and charity for all who post here.

peace

According to CARA, these are the following statistics concerning priests:

1965: Diocesan, 35,925 Order, 22,707
1975: Diocesan, 36,005 Order, 22,904
1985: Diocesan, 35,052 Order, 22,265
1995: Diocesan, 32,349 Order, 16,705
2000: Diocesan, 30,607 Order, 15,092
2005: Diocesan, 28,702 Order, 14,137
2006: Diocesan, 28,299 Order, 13,495

Since 1975 was the peak: total, 58,909; 2006 the low: 41,794.

The difference between the high and the low: 17,115.

Given that we have an aging priesthood, and the biggest problem has been the fall off in vocations, a goodly percentage of the 17,115 has to be due to deaths and retirments. However, the statistics do not break the numbers down.

What also needs to be said is that the statistics do not show the number of priests that have been laicized or have simply left the priesthood without laicization.

Itr is entirely possible that we had something in the range of 25,000 vocations replacing the alleged 40,000 who have quit due to either issues of celibacy or Communion in the hand; on the other hand, there have been reports for the last 30 years or so of the drop off in vocations; I would tend to believe that the latter is true, and there simply have not been as many leaving as is posited. If you have other statistics, we would certainly like to be informed of them.

 

[JReducation]

According to CARA, these are the following statistics concerning priests:

1965: Diocesan, 35,925 Order, 22,707
1975: Diocesan, 36,005 Order, 22,904
1985: Diocesan, 35,052 Order, 22,265
1995: Diocesan, 32,349 Order, 16,705
2000: Diocesan, 30,607 Order, 15,092
2005: Diocesan, 28,702 Order, 14,137
2006: Diocesan, 28,299 Order, 13,495

Since 1975 was the peak: total, 58,909; 2006 the low: 41,794.

The difference between the high and the low: 17,115.

Given that we have an aging priesthood, and the biggest problem has been the fall off in vocations, a goodly percentage of the 17,115 has to be due to deaths and retirments. However, the statistics do not break the numbers down.

What also needs to be said is that the statistics do not show the number of priests that have been laicized or have simply left the priesthood without laicization.

Itr is entirely possible that we had something in the range of 25,000 vocations replacing the alleged 40,000 who have quit due to either issues of celibacy or Communion in the hand; on the other hand, there have been reports for the last 30 years or so of the drop off in vocations; I would tend to believe that the latter is true, and there simply have not been as many leaving as is posited. If you have other statistics, we would certainly like to be informed of them.

But these statistics are public information. However, they don’t specify why these priests have left.

By the way, you can’t laicize a priest. You can dispense a priest from his ministry and his obedience to his bishop. If he is a religious, you can dispense him from his bonds to the congregation or order. In return the Church requires that he cease all priestly functions. If he is widowed, he may not remarry without another dispensation. If the widowed priest was a member of an order with solemn vows, the vows kick in again. In this case he remains exclaustrated, but he is bound by the vows unless he is dispensed with due process. It’s a double “whammy” for lack of a better term.

A priest will never again be a lay person. He will always be a priest and will always have his priestly powers. A few years ago a group of us were playing tennis. A man had a heart attack on the court. One of the players, who was there with his wife and kids went over and gave him absolution. I’m not sure if he heard his confession or not. He was a former Benedictine monk and priest who had been dispensed. This is perfectly valid and licit.

I’d like to know if somewhere there is a more detailed breakdown of why these men have left. Most the priests with whom I have worked have been Brothers. The ones that have left have done so because of difficulties with obedience, community life or celibacy. I have seen many of the Brothers leave, but never any because of communion. I worked with the Capuchin-Francisan Brothers for 14 years.

JR

 

[Aramis]

But these statistics are public information. However, they don’t specify why these priests have left.

By the way, you can’t laicize a priest.
JR

I’ve known several men released fro their vows; Rome referred to the process as laicization. Current canon law recognizes only three states: Cleric, Layman, and those not united to the church by baptism nor intent. (See section one of the CIC…)

A man becomes, according to canon 266 of the CIC a cleric by ordination to the deaconate. The loss of the clerical state is covered in canons 290-293 of the CIC.

 

[dixieagle]

JReducation -

I just wanted to say that your posts are about the most well-reasoned, clear and thoughtful I have seen on these boards. Beautiful!

God bless!

 

[mgrfin]

But these statistics are public information. However, they don’t specify why these priests have left.

By the way, you can’t laicize a priest. You can dispense a priest from his ministry and his obedience to his bishop. If he is a religious, you can dispense him from his bonds to the congregation or order. In return the Church requires that he cease all priestly functions. If he is widowed, he may not remarry without another dispensation. If the widowed priest was a member of an order with solemn vows, the vows kick in again. In this case he remains exclaustrated, but he is bound by the vows unless he is dispensed with due process. It’s a double “whammy” for lack of a better term.

A priest will never again be a lay person. He will always be a priest and will always have his priestly powers. . A few years ago a group of us were playing tennis. A man had a heart attack on the court. One of the players, who was there with his wife and kids went over and gave him absolution. I’m not sure if he heard his confession or not. He was a former Benedictine monk and priest who had been dispensed. This is perfectly valid and licit.

I’d like to know if somewhere there is a more detailed breakdown of why these men have left. Most the priests with whom I have worked have been Brothers. The ones that have left have done so because of difficulties with obedience, community life or celibacy. I have seen many of the Brothers leave, but never any because of communion. I worked with the Capuchin-Francisan Brothers for 14 years.

JR

I believe my estimate of 40,000 priests who have left the active ministry is way too high. I certainly would argue for half of that.

The stats you put forth show an increase of 80 priests who left between 1965 and 1975. That’s impossible. I know over 100 priests who left from one place in that period. The figure from the Eastern seaboard alone was in area of several hundred.

Yes, ‘tu es sacerdos in aeternum’ is true -that is the sacramental situation, but we are talking of the canonical situation. Under canon law a priest can be returned to the lay state (laitization), and this is covered under Canons 290-92. Canon 293 involves “return to the clerical state”, after he has left. This can be accomplished also only through a rescript from the Holy Father. He has to be free of any commitments, and have to find another bishop to accept him - lots of luck on that. Converted Anglican ministers have been taken into the Catholic priesthood (wife and all). I have yet to hear of someone accepted back under canon 293.

BTW you can laicize a priest. That is how it is called in all canon law books and related articles on this. “Resigned priests” is a kinder title. A dispensation from celibacy also must include a reduction to the lay state, and it is done only via a rescript from the Holy Father.

And to answer a question that was asked, all this concern about taking communion in the hand, language, and other liturgical changes of Vatican 2 pales when considering the question of departure from the clerical state of so many good and decent men, who made a decision that was so difficult for them - departure from the priesthood. The hundreds that I knew - diocesan priests - involved the issue of celibacy, never obedience, or other issues.

Let us pray for those who have left, and remember them in charity.

peace

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Ask the thousands of priests who have resigned in the U.S.: “do you think celibacy and communion in the hand is on the same plane?”

The issues aren’t even on the same planet, let alone in the same level. Communion in the hand is basically as superificial you can get on any issue, excepting maybe tipping your hat to a woman as you pass by.

Thousans upon thousands, maybe 40,000, of the cream of the crop of the Church left over this issue. Posing this question shows how little someone knows what has happened in this country.

Prayer and charity for all who post here.

peace

What are you talking about? I was merely listing examples of disciplines of the Church which can be changed and are not infallible, not rating them in importance or naming one or the other as the cause of Priests abandoning their vocations.

But hey, since you say communion in the hand is about as superficial as you can get on any issue, maybe you can write Pope Benedict and have him replace the Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship since apparently he’s kind of dense regarding the relative importance of some issues:

Vatican official suggests reconsidering Communion in the hand cwnews.com/images/optimized/rss_bug.gif

Vatican, Feb. 1, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship has called for reconsideration of the practice of Communion in the hand.

In the preface to a new Italian-language book on the Eucharist, written by a bishop from Kazakhstan and released in January by the Vatican’s official publishing house, Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don suggests that the reception of Communion in the hand has contributed to a general sense of “carelessness” about the Eucharist, as well as some flagrant abuses. The archbishop makes his remarks in the preface to Dominus Est, by Bishop Athanasisus Schneider.

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not mandated by Vatican II, nor was it introduced in response to calls from the laity, Archbishop Ranjith writes. Instead, he argues, an established practice of piety-- receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue-- was changed “improperly and hurriedly,” and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican.

In light of a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist, the archbishop suggests that it is “high time to review” the policy. While he does not condemn the practice of Communion in the hand, the Vatican official praises Bishop Schneider for arguing in favor of the older practice, saying that it helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56354

God bless.

 

[mgrfin]

What are you talking about? I was merely listing examples of disciplines of the Church which can be changed and are not infallible, not rating them in importance or naming one or the other as the cause of Priests abandoning their vocations.

But hey, since you say communion in the hand is about as superficial as you can get on any issue, maybe you can write Pope Benedict and have him replace the Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship since apparently he’s kind of dense regarding the relative importance of some issues:

Vatican official suggests reconsidering Communion in the hand cwnews.com/images/optimized/rss_bug.gif

Vatican, Feb. 1, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship has called for reconsideration of the practice of Communion in the hand.

In the preface to a new Italian-language book on the Eucharist, written by a bishop from Kazakhstan and released in January by the Vatican’s official publishing house, Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don suggests that the reception of Communion in the hand has contributed to a general sense of “carelessness” about the Eucharist, as well as some flagrant abuses. The archbishop makes his remarks in the preface to Dominus Est, by Bishop Athanasisus Schneider.

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not mandated by Vatican II, nor was it introduced in response to calls from the laity, Archbishop Ranjith writes. Instead, he argues, an established practice of piety-- receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue-- was changed “improperly and hurriedly,” and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican.

In light of a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist, the archbishop suggests that it is “high time to review” the policy. While he does not condemn the practice of Communion in the hand, the Vatican official praises Bishop Schneider for arguing in favor of the older practice, saying that it helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56354

God bless.

Please don’t tell the Bishop of Orange about the change. He told everyone who knelt that they were committing a mortal sin.

If we have no altar rail, would these people suggest re-installing them.

I am sure any changes that occur, the Holy Father will have to approve. Anything he wants done, I am sure the Catholic faithful will do according to his will, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Is this statement available on the Vatican site? (from Cardinal Arize - I haven’t been able to find it, and, as a general rule you have to be skeptical of anything appearing on the Internet).

We pray and ask for charity for all who post here.

peace

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

Please don’t tell the Bishop of Orange about the change. He told everyone who knelt that they were committing a mortal sin.

If we have no altar rail, would these people suggest re-installing them.

I am sure any changes that occur, the Holy Father will have to approve. Anything he wants done, I am sure the Catholic faithful will do according to his will, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Is this statement available on the Vatican site? (from Cardinal Arize - I haven’t been able to find it, and, as a general rule you have to be skeptical of anything appearing on the Internet).

We pray and ask for charity for all who post here.

peace

Well, I can only hope and pray for the reinstallation of altar rails.

The statement was by Archbishop Ramjith, not Cardinal Arinze in case there is any confusion on the matter.

It was carried in a number of news stories and came originally from "the preface to a new Italian-language book on the Eucharist, written by a bishop from Kazakhstan and released in January by the Vatican’s official publishing house, Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don suggests that the reception of Communion in the hand has contributed to a general sense of “carelessness” about the Eucharist, as well as some flagrant abuses. The archbishop makes his remarks in the preface to Dominus Est, by Bishop Athanasisus Schneider.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56354

It’s not an encyclical so I wouldn’t expect it to be on the Vatican website.

 

[MrS]

I am sure any changes that occur, the Holy Father will have to approve. Anything he wants done, I am sure the Catholic faithful will do according to his will, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth.

‘’

This is true… for some Catholics (kind of a “traditional” thing)

However, many laity, and way too many priests and bishops have have “a better idea” since Vat II… and have implemented their own changes (abuses) without approval.

We will see how and who will conform to B16’s changes… like the Extraordinary Form for a start.

 

[sloanp2]

Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

What the Councel of Trent Really says at Session 13 Chaper 8:

"CHAPTER VIII.
On the use of this admirable Sacrament.
Now as to the use of this holy sacrament, our Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners: others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof: whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment. Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained. And finally this holy Synod with true fatherly affection admonishes, exhorts, begs, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that all and each of those who bear the Christian name would now at length agree and be of one mind in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and that mindful of the so great majesty, and the so [Page 82] exceeding love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave His own beloved soul as the price of our salvation, and gave us His own flesh to eat, they would believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His body and blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, with such devotion of soul, with such piety and worship as to be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be to them truly the life of the soul, and the perpetual health of their mind; that being invigorated by the strength thereof, they may, after the journeying of this miserable pilgrimage, be able to arrive at their heavenly country, there to eat, without any veil, that same bread of angels which they now eat under the sacred veils.

But forasmuch as it is not enough to declare the truth, if errors be not laid bare and repudiated, it hath seemed good to the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, that all, -the Catholic doctrine being already recognised,-may now also understand what are the heresies which they ought to guard against and avoid. "

See history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html

for the Catechism of Trent see: catholicprimer.org/trent/catechism_of_trent.pdf

Hope you find this as useful as I did.

 

[jbelokur]

It might well be the end, but the process of changing traditions that people are accustomed to takes a pretty long time.

Even if your assessment is correct, we probably won’t be around to see the end of communion in the hand as it is entrenched.

It didn’t take that long to change things post VII. Al it takes is well motivated Bishops.

 

[thecross]

What are you talking about? I was merely listing examples of disciplines of the Church which can be changed and are not infallible, not rating them in importance or naming one or the other as the cause of Priests abandoning their vocations.

But hey, since you say communion in the hand is about as superficial as you can get on any issue, maybe you can write Pope Benedict and have him replace the Secretary for the Congregation for Divine Worship since apparently he’s kind of dense regarding the relative importance of some issues:

Vatican official suggests reconsidering Communion in the hand cwnews.com/images/optimized/rss_bug.gif

Vatican, Feb. 1, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship has called for reconsideration of the practice of Communion in the hand.

In the preface to a new Italian-language book on the Eucharist, written by a bishop from Kazakhstan and released in January by the Vatican’s official publishing house, Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don suggests that the reception of Communion in the hand has contributed to a general sense of “carelessness” about the Eucharist, as well as some flagrant abuses. The archbishop makes his remarks in the preface to Dominus Est, by Bishop Athanasisus Schneider.

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not mandated by Vatican II, nor was it introduced in response to calls from the laity, Archbishop Ranjith writes. Instead, he argues, an established practice of piety-- receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue-- was changed “improperly and hurriedly,” and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican.

In light of a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist, the archbishop suggests that it is “high time to review” the policy. While he does not condemn the practice of Communion in the hand, the Vatican official praises Bishop Schneider for arguing in favor of the older practice, saying that it helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety.

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=56354

God bless.

Of course if you attend a Latin Mass, you kneel at the altar rail and recieve the Eucharist in your mouth. In the Roman Catholic Mass here in America, you may stand and receive the Eucharist in your mouth or in your hand. Its usually under the direction of the local Bishop. Most of the altar rail have been removed in Catholic Churches in America. We love our Mass i our own language.
The Archbishop in the article may change or add or not change anything in his archdiecies
That’s how its done here in America anyway.
We do have some communicants kneel at the time of communion and recieve the Eucharist in the mouth from the Eucharistic Minister or the priest at Mass.

Ten years ago while were vacationing in Rome, the Mass’ we attended at Saint Peter’s at the Vatican, the Eucharist was offered to us standing and on the tongue.
We do have several Latin Mass Catholic Churches in our area and if we do happen to attend, we will do it their way. I still love the latin songs.
Just, please don;t change my Mass to the way it was before, Its just fine now, thank you.

If you do change back or try, you will lose more priests and paying catholics in the pews.

 

[jbelokur]

If you do change back or try, you will lose more priests and paying catholics in the pews.

Can youexplain why you think this? Paying Catholics!?! What!?!

 

[weepixie71]

It might well be the end, but the process of changing traditions that people are accustomed to takes a pretty long time.

Even if your assessment is correct, we probably won’t be around to see the end of communion in the hand as it is entrenched.

Latin was entrenched.
Headcovering was entrenched.
Confession at least once a month was entrenched.
Fasting 3hrs before communion was entrenched.
Kneeling to receive communion at the communion rail was entrenched.

the list goes on…

 

[I_Believe]

Great news ! The Prefect of Divine Worship, Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, wants Archbishop Ranjith to stay in Rome !

"There are some who mention days or weeks [for the nomination], some even of some months. Certainly, some arm wrestling is taking place regarding the nomination of the new Secretary, considering the key role of that Dicastery in promoting reconciliation in the 'battlefield' of the liturgy and in trying to put forward that 'reform of the reform' hoped for many years ago by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Cañizares, the former Archbishop of Toledo, nicknamed 'the small Ratzinger', **wished that Ranjith would remain in Rome. And in the probable case that he does not succeed in keeping him, he would like as his number two a collaborator who follows the same line [of thought].** The only certainty is that it will be an Anglophone. But at this moment, it is useless to mention names (that do however exist), because the situation is in constant development."

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/ (Thursday May 7th)

 

[jbelokur]

Latin was entrenched.
Headcovering was entrenched.
Confession at least once a month was entrenched.
Fasting 3hrs before communion was entrenched.
Kneeling to receive communion at the communion rail was entrenched.

the list goes on…

I totally agree, and how long did it take for all of the changes that have now taken hold? In some places over night. Like I said above, all it would take is motivated Bishops to see the change takes hold and it would be over in a few months. Thankfully we have a Holy Father that is setting the example for His fellow Bishops.