Latin mass questions

[10thCrusader]

Very true - different Forms, different norms.

 

[floresco]

Here we go again - same posters persisting after the CITH thread was just closed - and spreading the same erroneous arguments, that Pope Paul did not give permission. When does it stop?

Pope Paul VI gave permission for CITH to bishops in 1969 when he gave** further counsel** at the same time in 1969 with regard to his document Memoriale Domini.

I am wondering if this is the correct way to understand the SCDW document that you are quoting. It says:

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.

I do not think this means that the permission was granted at the same time as Memoriale Domini. I think it means that the ideal remains the traditional practice **at the same time ** as the permission is granted. When it says that the Pope “calls attention to the purpose of Memoriale Domini” it sounds like he is talking about something they have already read. Also at the bottom of the document is the dates when the permission went into effect in various places.

Note: The “Summary of Decrees” on confirmation of the decisions of conferences of bishops in Notitiae lists the granting of this faculty to the following English-speaking conferences (as found in AAS and Notitiae):

        South Africa, 3 February 1970
        Canada, 12 February 1970
        Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), 2 October 1971
        Zambia, 11 March 1974
        New Zealand, 24 April 1974
        Australia, 26 September 1975
        England and Wales, 6 March 1976
        Papua and New Guinea, 28 April 1976
        Ireland, 4 September 1976
        Pakistan, 29 October 1976
        United States, 17 June 1977
        Scotland, 7 July 1977
        Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977

I think this letter is the confirmation referred to in MD:

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons.

If so, it could not possibly happen at the same time as the issuing of MD.

 

[Sirach2]

I am wondering if this is the correct way to understand the SCDW document that you are quoting. It says:

I do not think this means that the permission was granted at the same time as Memoriale Domini. I think it means that the ideal remains the traditional practice at the same timeas the permission is granted.

Yes it was, Floresco,
as per this documentation entering it officially into the AAS:
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.

Colin Donovan, who wrote the article, simply added the confirmations that occurred in various countries after 1970, but his comment at the end was not part of the official grant by Paul VI. I have read the response in AAS and I know what I say is true, whereas you are speculating again due to your wish to curtail CITH.

Why do you wish to portray the bishops as being disobedient?

 

[floresco]

Yes it was, Floresco,
as per this documentation entering it officially into the AAS:
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.

Colin Donovan, who wrote the article, simply added the confirmations that occurred in various countries after 1970, but his comment at the end was not part of the official grant by Paul VI. I have read the response in AAS and I know what I say is true, whereas you are speculating again due to your wish to curtail CITH.

Could you please stop making things up about my motives. It really detracts from the discussion.

I am trying to figure out the sequence of events and there is a lot of information to process. Do you know which countries were given the indult to allow CITH in May 1969?

 

[Sirach2]

Could you please stop making things up about my motives. It really detracts from the discussion.

You have stated your longing to eliminate CITH publicly a number of times, except not on CAF. I fail to understand why you hide the fact here and then accuse me of misreading your motives.

I am trying to figure out the sequence of events and there is a lot of information to process. Do you know which countries were given the indult to allow CITH in May 1969?

Not going there. The permission was granted in 1969. Whether certain dioceses participated in using that grant immediately - or not - is beyond our knowledge, and beyond our business or authority to explore that line of thought. I don’t see what that matters.

 

[Esrb99]

You have stated your longing to eliminate CITH publicly a number of times, except not on CAF. I fail to understand why you hide the fact here and then accuse me of misreading your motives.

The OP mentioned communion in the hand and on the tongue, and how/why the change was introduced. Floresco is often on this sub forum, and is active in threads regarding initial experiences of the EF, and questions pertaining to changes. CITH was not the only topic from the OP or from other posters that she has mentioned in this thread. As such, it is a bit far reaching to assume that she is agenda posting.

Furthermore, it seems that a certain collection of posters are all but scanning Floresco’s posts not only on here, but across a library of internet web forums. While this act in and of itself is benign, it seems that the intent behind these internet reconnaissances is to pounce on here when she posts on certain topics with denunciations of her character (claiming that she has an agenda behind her posts). When doing this, these members are actively taking away her right on this forum to a good reputation and name, and that just does not seem right.

Not going there. The permission was granted in 1969. Whether certain dioceses participated in using that grant immediately - or not - is beyond our knowledge, and beyond our business or authority to explore that line of thought.** I don’t see what that matters.**

You’re obfuscating the issue here. Claiming that understanding a practice’s development does not matter in such a tone tells those who may be reading this thread one of two (or both) things:

1-that understanding how a practice was introduced is unnecessary.

2-that those who want to know how such things are introduced should have their queries brushed aside as they “don’t matter”.

 

[Sirach2]

You’re obfuscating the issue here. Claiming that understanding a practice’s development does not matter in such a tone tells those who may be reading this thread one of two (or both) things:

1-that understanding how a practice was introduced is unnecessary.

2-that those who want to know how such things are introduced should have their queries brushed aside as they “don’t matter”.

Whoa! Kinda long on the paint brush, friend. Possibly you did not read the prolific discussion on this, due to the thread being removed. To keep harping on the matter does seem like agenda posting to others. It simply won’t die.

Nowhere have I said that people should not question.

But was this a question? Or rather a continuing dissertation that others are incorrect with regard to Paul VI giving permission? To wit, we are told that CITH allegedly begun with disobedience on the part of the hierarchy, which is totally disrespective of their motives and authority. It has been disproved a number of times, yet we still find disbelief as two others besides Floresco continue to state the Church never gave permission. These members participated in the closed thread, yet seemingly did not read [or believe] Paul VI’s responsive letter and repeated the error again herein.

You tell me. Do we just let innocent readers be harmed by this without countering?

As to your initial paragraphs, there is a whole lot you do not realize and perhaps it would appear that way to you. Kindly consider that the pendulum swings both ways with regard to people visiting CAF.

 

[ProVobis]

Whatever the origin, here is Cardinal Arinze’s explanation of the permission in English.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ap1KL2D5ae4

 

[Sirach2]

One important point that I think confuses some people is the fact that when Paul VI gave permission, it was to individual bishops for the territory of their particular conference. When we read about the grants of indult some years later, these were for the entire country, rather than an individual diocese or conference.

 

[R_C]

Please watch the masses celebrated by Pope Francis, wherein the communicants receive “standing” and “in the hand” as well as on the tongue.

What exactly would that mean? That it’s valid and licit? We know that. We trust that the Pope won’t allow liturgical abuses in the celebrations he presides.

Why do people feel the need to campaign against CITH? The Church has allowed it. End of story. We have not been asked for our opinions.

We feel the need to point out that in some places CITH has entirely replaced the traditional way to receive communion without valid justification, for (I am making an assumption that I consider to be respectfully valid) the majority of faithful has no special reason to prefer one method to the other, since they either just learned that one way or saw everyone receiving that way and decided to “do as the Romans do”. As for who asked, read OP question #2. No campaign, just answering a question with facts. Sure, the Church allowed it. Nobody questions that. Nobody wants CITH to be forbidden. Just pointing out the way things are.

Pope Paul VI gave permission for CITH to bishops in 1969 when he gave further counsel at the same time in 1969 with regard to his document Memoriale Domini.

I may be wrong, but that does not seem accurate. The “further counsel” was as far as I read on EWTN simply an excerpt from the kind of letter that the Pope would send to the episcopal conference that, after a 2/3 majority vote, would request to and obtain from the Holy See permission to regularize CITH. That sample letter does not seem to be a general permission to all bishops (that would contradict the words of Memoriale Domini…).

Only a limited amount of places as far as I know have been granted permission to introduce CITH. Certainly it is not a universal practice of the Church, and even if it were to become one, it remains something forced into the liturgy the XX century by individual episcopal conferences despite the advice of Paul VI.

Why do you wish to portray the bishops as being disobedient?

They were not disobedient inasmuch as they followed the Pope’s instructions. The issue was that the lay faithful were extensively receiving communion in the hand (why?) and since they couldn’t force them to stop, they had to do something - this is the essence of the provision of Memoriale Domini to allow CITH.

But some or many do find it - as Pope Paul VI wrote - offensive to a lesser or greater degree, and wish at least that the Pope’s direction to retain the distribution of holy communion in the tongue were promoted by providing better cathechesis that teaches both methods and the history and significance of each, rather than adopting the “this is how we do it now” approach.

Many of us have a similar issue when we read in Sacrosanctum Concilium that “the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rite” all the while granting to “the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority mentioned in Art. 22, 2, to decide whether, and to what extent, the vernacular language is to be used”…resulting in the entirety of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite currently being celebrated all over the world solely and exclusively in the vernacular. Sure, “the Church has allowed it”. But did the Conciliar Fathers wish for the entire Mass to be in the vernacular? Some of us don’t think so. It’s not a matter of making a campaign - at least for me - but of explaining how things are.

Thus the Church does allow these things (meaning: they can be licit), the Pope did authorize some places to adopt these practices (meaning: in those places they are definitely licit), but they are something (to respond to the OP) that developed after the liturgical reform of the Roman Rite and that (correct me if I am wrong) is currently found solely in the context of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite in certain countries.

 

[R_C]

I wanted to point to this nice article from Adoremus that hopefully expresses with greater tact and charity what some of us try to voice here. Please note this is a good-standing Catholic source referred to even by Catholic Answers apologists (example).

The Day the Mass Changed (part 1, part 2)

 

[Sirach2]

I may be wrong, but that does not seem accurate. The “further counsel” was as far as I read on EWTN simply an excerpt from the kind of letter that the Pope would send to the episcopal conference that, after a 2/3 majority vote, would request to and obtain from the Holy See permission to regularize CITH. That sample letter does not seem to be a general permission to all bishops (that would contradict the words of Memoriale Domini…)

Well, R.C., I don’t know any clearer way to say it other than read the AAS yourself and you will find that you are mistaken. If you persist in stating otherwise, I will persist in correcting, for the sake of this who are being misinformed. The **letter **does not stipulate that there be a 2/3 vote anywhere. Only in M.D. which is a separate issue.

As a lay person, we have to be careful not to be overt in teaching others what seems clear in our eyes, lest we lead them astray. We must understand how the bishops understood the Pope’s direction in a matter that was never addressed to laity.

 

[R_C]

Well, R.C., I don’t know any clearer way to say it other than read the AAS yourself and you will find that you are mistaken. If you persist in stating otherwise, I will persist in correcting, for the sake of this who are being misinformed. The **letter **does not stipulate that there be a 2/3 vote anywhere. Only in M.D. which is a separate issue.

As a lay person, we have to be careful not to be overt in teaching others what seems clear in our eyes, lest we lead them astray. We must understand how the bishops understood the Pope’s direction in a matter that was never addressed to laity.

Dear Sirach2, I am the last person who wants to lead others astray. I am also very much displeased by the idea that I have to defend being right, because honestly I was one of those kids that always enjoyed to let others win to make them happy (well, sometimes they’d simply defeat me, but that’s beyond the point ).

What that I see is that the letter "En reponse a la demande and the Instruction Memoriale Domini are not separate issues, but in fact one. From what I read here, Memoriale Domini was written and published (establishing that communion in the mouth was to be retained and enforced as much as possible, and making provisions for the local episcopal conferences - two-thirds majority, etc - in those places where, as the Pope kindly wrote, “a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails”); when the Instruction was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, it was “accompanied by a sample of the letter (in French) which is sent to hierarchies who ask for and are granted permission to introduce the practice of holy communion on the hand”.

The letter, then, was neither a universal grant of permission, nor a “separate issue”, but a sample that gave an idea of how was the Pope to grant permission to those who found themselves in the exceptional circumstance of having to request special permission for regularization of Communion in the hand.

Mind you, I am not questioning the work of the bishops, nor am I questioning that the Holy See and specifically the Pope granted to some countries/episcopal commissions by a personal letter authorization to regularize CITH. In those places where CITH has been authorized, it is perfectly licit and anyone can receive it.

All I am questioning is the application of this special permission. When I go to the parrish by my house and I see everyone except myself and a couple others receive communion in the hand, and when I assist to an RCIA class and in a few minutes I am taught that we receive communion “by placing our hands like this”, period, I can’t help but wonder if some of us are not disregarding the Pope’s directive that “the custom…of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant…must be retained…not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist”.

I also can’t help it but notice that it is not to our shepherds alone, but to us laity as well that Pope Paul VI writes, when he says: “the Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed” - that is, communion on the mouth.

I do not wish to open or continue a discussion on this topic, but only to clarify the facts, for my own sake - lest I were to express erroneous ideas in good faith - and for the benefit of those who wonder where does communion in the hand in modern times come from. I am not denying that there is some degree of evidence that this practice could have been present in the Church at some point, but at the same time we also know that at some point the faithful would even take the Blessed Sacrament to their homes or upon long journeys and give Communion to themselves by their own hand (cf. Tertullian, Ambrose) and s. Basil the Great wrote in 378 AD that “at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes”. What are we to say, then, if we follow this logic? That we should all be allowed to have our own little tabernacle at home?

What I am saying is that for some reason, communion in the tongue eventually grew within the Church as the affirmed practice, and that even the Pope who opened the door to CITH as we see it today did not do so other than indirectly and underscoring that the traditional method was to be retained in the places where the “new” method would be authorized.

 

[latin_masser]

Anyway, lot of differences, but it seemed more symbolic to me. I wouldn’t mind visiting there every so often. The archdioceses approves the latin mass there, so I suppose it’s fully legal for a good-standing Catholic to go to? Although I enjoy both forms of mass equally, I’m surprised some of these things didn’t make their way to the ordinary mass.

How we pray reveals what we believe. We need to live what we believe. Otherwise we tend to believe only what we live.

 

[Sirach2]

Dear Sirach2, I am the last person who wants to lead others astray. I am also very much displeased by the idea that I have to defend being right, because honestly I was one of those kids that always enjoyed to let others win to make them happy (well, sometimes they’d simply defeat me, but that’s beyond the point ).

It has been forever since I saw such persistence in winning a point in a discussion. Not even sure I want to follow through on this, cuz my poor head is very sore from all the wall-banging.

The letter, then, was neither a universal grant of permission, nor a “separate issue”, but a sample that gave an idea of how was the Pope to grant permission to those who found themselves in the exceptional circumstance of having to request special permission for regularization of Communion in the hand.

First, I’ve seen the document in your link from EWTN which omitted completely the version posted from EWTN’s Colin Donovan, containing Paul VI’s permission granting individual Bishops’ Conferences to use CITH. It was negligent of the author who wrote your link, and it left you with the impression that it was simply a ‘sample letter’ - just in case. Do popes put sample letters in AAS?
I really doubt it. Nevertheless, since you have not looked it up, I will provide the official language from AAS 61, pgs. 546-47.

Second, the M.D. was in latin, as was this introduction but the balance was in French.

Acta Apostolicae Sedis Commentarium Officiale Instructio completur, in re pastorali, Epistula qua conceditur Conferentiis Episcopalibus indultum distribuendi fidelibus sacram Communionem in manu, cum omnes condiciones requisitae habeantur.

Translated: {sorry, it is google’s, but very close in meaning to Colin Donovan’s.

The instruction [Memoriale Domini] is completed, in a pastoral letter which granted Conferences Bishop has been allowed to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful in his hand, with all the conditions required are to be held.

REVERENDISSIME *
En réponse à la demande présentée par Votre Conférence Episcopale
sur la permission de distribuer la Communion en déposant l’hostie
dans la main des fidèles, je suis en mesure de vous transmettre la
communication suivante :
Tout en rappellant ce qui fait l’objet de l’Instruction ci-jointe, en
date du 29 mai 1969, sur le maintien en vigueur de l’usage traditionnel,
le Saint-Père a pris en considération les motifs invoqués à l’appui
de Votre demande et les résultats du vote qui est intervenu à ce
sujet. Il accorde que, sur le territoire de Votre Conférence Episcopale,
chaque Evêque, selon sa prudence et sa conscience, puisse autoriser
dans son diocèse l’introduction du nouveau rite pour distribuer la Communion,
à condition que soient évités toute occasion de surprise de la
part des fidèles et tout danger d’irrévérence envers l’Eucharistie.

Translated: [again, google, but it’s close - try it if you doubt me.]

Reverend * In response to the request made by your Episcopal Conference the permission to distribute Communion depositing the host in the hands of the faithful, I am able to transmit the following communication: While recalling that the subject of the statement attached and dated 29 May 1969 on the continuation in force of the traditional use. The Holy Father has considered the reasons in support Your application and the results of the vote which was made to subject. It provides that, in the territory of your Episcopal Conference, each Bishop in his prudence and conscience, to authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite to distribute Communion provided that are avoided every opportunity to surprise the faithful and all danger of irreverence towards the Eucharist.

And the specific conditions are outlined from there. This was far more than just a ‘sample.’ The words “each bishop” does not delimit to a particular nation, country, or conference. So without knowing what transpired between the pope and his bishops, which we laity have no way of knowing by a scant reading of official communications, I think it’s time to back off from spreading one’s private version to others without knowing Paul VI’s true intent. It is entirely possible the bishops had further communications asking for clarification on this, as well – as laity, we just don’t know.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a whopper headache, and I’m really not able to offer you any additional help beyond this.

 

[Sirach2]

My time for editing is past, but one last thought on your comment, “The letter, then, was neither a universal grant of permission, nor a “separate issue” …”

That may be true in some respect. After reading Colin Donovan’s link again, note these words:
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.

So in petitioning for CITH, we do not know who those bishops were, how many there were, or which countries were included in the statement. All we know is that the permission was granted. I agree with you that perhaps it was not a blanket or universal grant, unless the Pope received additional requests after issuing this document. Again, we can only speculate, and we have no answers, given the status of laity. But this initial permission was given in 1969, without a doubt.

 

[floresco]

Why do you wish to portray the bishops as being disobedient?

I do not wish to portray bishops as being disobedient. I wish to know the truth. I am the sort of person who takes university courses as a hobby. I like learning and understanding things. I want to get my head around how CITH was introduced because it bothers me when I cannot make sense of things.

Please stop questioning and maligning my motives.

 

[Sirach2]

I do not wish to portray bishops as being disobedient. I wish to know the truth.
Please stop questioning and maligning my motives.

I would be happy to apologize, but I believe your own words justified my impression. I distinctly read from your previously-referenced post at FE [pg. 117] that you indicated the practice was begun by “dissidents”.

The discussion had pretty much conclusively proved that CITH was started by dissidents. I cannot help suspecting that this is why the thread was removed.

Maybe you just meant “priests” in your newly referenced quote below, and not bishops?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10630616&postcount=8

Receiving in the hand was not permitted by Vatican II. There were documents forbidding it issued even after V2, but people were doing it without permission. **It was eventually allowed because it became impractical to stop the “disobedience.” **

I’m beginning to wonder what happened to your letting go of hostilties between us, and why you persist with inferences that I am “maligning” your motives.

 

[floresco]

I would be happy to apologize, but I believe your own words justified my impression. I distinctly read from your previously-referenced post at FE [pg. 117] that you indicated the practice was begun by “dissidents”.

Maybe you just meant “priests” in your newly referenced quote below, and not bishops?

I try really hard to follow the rules of this forum. On other forums with different rules, I speak more freely on certain subjects. It is unfair to repeatedly make references to comments I have made elsewhere that sound like they violate the rules here. Nor should I be asked to explain comments that I have made on other forums.

I’m beginning to wonder what happened to your letting go of hostilties between us, and why you persist with inferences that I am “maligning” your motives.

I do not know what else to think when you say something like “Why do you wish to portray the bishops as being disobedient?”

 

[floresco]

What that I see is that the letter "En reponse a la demande and the Instruction Memoriale Domini are not separate issues, but in fact one. From what I read here, Memoriale Domini was written and published (establishing that communion in the mouth was to be retained and enforced as much as possible, and making provisions for the local episcopal conferences - two-thirds majority, etc - in those places where, as the Pope kindly wrote, “a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails”); when the Instruction was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, it was “accompanied by a sample of the letter (in French) which is sent to hierarchies who ask for and are granted permission to introduce the practice of holy communion on the hand”.

The letter, then, was neither a universal grant of permission, nor a “separate issue”, but a sample that gave an idea of how was the Pope to grant permission to those who found themselves in the exceptional circumstance of having to request special permission for regularization of Communion in the hand.

This makes a lot of sense to me and explains the discrepancies in timeline and wording left by Sirach’s interpretation of the letter.