News from Diocese of Saginaw, MI

[MrS]

You’re right…it’s not off track…but the letter writer did not find fault with communion on the tongue…he found fault with being told that something that is (by your own admission) allowed is somehow ‘deficient’.

As an example, the Tridentine form of the mass is the ‘extraordinary’ form, allowed under certain conditions, etc. Would those who attend be accepting of someone calling it ‘deficient’ because it is not the ordinary form? No they wouldnt.

As far as you suggesting a priest ‘retire’. First of all, retirement doesn’t scrape away ordination. Secondly, why is that even a necessary statement?

At least that pastor is engaging with his fellow Catholics in a relatively constructive way. He has a right and a duty to defend Catholic teaching, even if the person who is acting in an unchristian manner is a bishop.

And if you know how the NO is supposed to be celebrated (certain conditions) you might see more of the problems (not just in your diocese) that these good bishops are trying to address (including the Bishop of Rome - even celebrating the NO by leading the people, not facing them)

But then that is what the bishops are supposed to do for us and for any letter writer.

 

[frommi]

And if you know how the NO is supposed to be celebrated (certain conditions) you might see more of the problems (not just in your diocese) that these good bishops are trying to address (including the Bishop of Rome - even celebrating the NO by leading the people, not facing them)

But then that is what the bishops are supposed to do for us and for any letter writer.

Have you had an experience with this priest-celebrant where the NO was celebrated incorrectly that has caused a loss of credibility in your opinion?

Otherwise…what does that have to do with anything regarding this letter?

 

[MrS]

Dear Editor:
…
I don’t get it.
I don’t know what upsets me more: the bishop’s misplaced logic, or its front page promulgation in the newspaper.
…
What’s going on in our Church? The permission for the Tridentine Latin Mass confuses me. Decades of liturgical scholarship and 40 years of liturgical conversion are now suddenly made optional with one “delete” click from Rome.
…
For decades the authorities in Rome have been reprimanding theologians and pastors for “causing confusion and upsetting the fatih of the people.”
I find the news coming from the Vatican upsetting and causing much confusion.
Perhaps we should all practice silince for a while.
To be honest, the springtime of Vatican II appears to be turning into a cold, dark January freeze. And that leaves me very cold.
Fr. Fred Kawka
Frankenmuth

.

Frommi… your letter writer expresses his position, and horizontal version of the liturgy quite well.

We should all pray that he wakes up soon.

We (I) rarely have a chance to see the NO celebrated correctly… unless you happen to visit Grotto or other such sanctuaries of vertical liturgy.

Valid?..perhaps yes in most instances.

Correct?.. usually not

Loss of credibility?.. in the priest, often, but not in the sacrifice.

 

[frommi]

Frommi… your letter writer expresses his position, and horizontal version of the liturgy quite well.

We should all pray that he wakes up soon.

We (I) rarely have a chance to see the NO celebrated correctly… unless you happen to visit Grotto or other such sanctuaries of vertical liturgy.

Valid?..perhaps yes in most instances.

Correct?.. usually not

Loss of credibility?.. in the priest, often, but not in the sacrifice.

Ahhh…sanctuaries of vertical liturgy…I might use that as a name for my next rock band…

Again, I’d point out where in the same letter the writer VERY clearly talks about the reverence required to receive the body and blood of Christ. This does not sound horizontal, vertical, circular, triangular, or rectangular to me.

You’re spectacular inability to see the mass as something other than a rote exercise in mumbled prayer and insipid preaching is astounding.

 

[MrS]

Thanks frommi

Glad to see you are at least consistent. You still don’t get it.

.

 

[frommi]

Thanks frommi

Glad to see you are at least consistent. You still don’t get it.

.

What don’t I get?

A poster puts a letter to the editor from a priest in this forum.

Says to basically pray for Bob Carlson because he has to deal with unenlightened members of his presbyerate like Fred Kawka.

I object to that.

And the only explanation I can get is something about horizontal and vertical liturgy.

Please…let me know more.

 

[MICATH]

Please…let me know more.

Had the front page article been a theological discussion by Ken Untener on returning to the ancient order of the sacraments or the ancient tradition of receiving Communion in the hand or referring to God as “She”, would the letter writer have objected to that? Or is he only objecting to the possible return of something that may take away Saginaw’s liberal interpretation of what being Catholic is?

I find it amazing that a priest, a pastor, would find such objection to the direction the Pope is leading the Church that he would call him out in public. That after years of working for a Bishop who relished the return to the ancient customs of the Church, this letter writer would object to the return of the not so ancient custom of receiving Communion on your tongue while on your knees. My theory is, the letter writer is objecting to anything that might take away the liberal Church in Saginaw he spent so many years building.

I suspect (read: My opinion is that) the letter is written out of the fear that we, the Catholics in the pews (sorry, no pews left in Saginaw), the Catholics in the folding chairs, might catch on that there is another way to worship, that Mass isn’t all about hugging and kissing and singing sappy songs, it is about bearing witness to the sacrifice on the cross, being reenacted in front of very eyes. Falling down on our knees hardly seems out of place. Supporting the pope hardly seems out of place. Calling out Bishops seems out of place. If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

[frommi]

Had the front page article been a theological discussion by Ken Untener on returning to the ancient order of the sacraments or the ancient tradition of receiving Communion in the hand or referring to God as “She”, would the letter writer have objected to that? Or is he only objecting to the possible return of something that may take away Saginaw’s liberal interpretation of what being Catholic is?

I find it amazing that a priest, a pastor, would find such objection to the direction the Pope is leading the Church that he would call him out in public. That after years of working for a Bishop who relished the return to the ancient customs of the Church, this letter writer would object to the return of the not so ancient custom of receiving Communion on your tongue while on your knees. My theory is, the letter writer is objecting to anything that might take away the liberal Church in Saginaw he spent so many years building.

I suspect (read: My opinion is that) the letter is written out of the fear that we, the Catholics in the pews (sorry, no pews left in Saginaw), the Catholics in the folding chairs, might catch on that there is another way to worship, that Mass isn’t all about hugging and kissing and singing sappy songs, it is about bearing witness to the sacrifice on the cross, being reenacted in front of very eyes. Falling down on our knees hardly seems out of place. Supporting the pope hardly seems out of place. Calling out Bishops seems out of place. If you don’t like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

And again…it seems your missing the point…the letter writer objects to being called (more or less) deficient for receiving communion in the hand. Nowhere is there a statement that one should be denied receiving communion on the tongue.

Additionally, I don’t recall any front page articles from Ken Untener in the Catholic Weekly that purported a “liberal” point of view while bashing a “conservative” point of view.

Considering that communion in the hand is the ‘ancient’ practice, and communion kneeling on the tongue the more ‘medevial’…I don’t know what you’re referring to.

You are making inferences that are unnecessary in the dialogue.

Frankly, the quality of your the dialogue that you and Mr. S are providing around this letter rates about a “D+”. You are claiming some sort of high ground that isn’t in question. Nowhere can you say that the letter writer is suggesting a sappy “im ok youre ok” format of worship. Then you interject personal opinons about music that are not even part of the initial conversation.

The letter writer objects to an article being on the front page of the diocesean newspaper which more or less calls the method that about 95% of Catholics receive communion in ‘deficient’. Thus calling into question their reverence for the sacrament. That is something that should be ‘called out’. I don’t know why this is such an issue for you.

 

[Lepanto]

Considering that communion in the hand is the ‘ancient’ practice, and communion kneeling on the tongue the more ‘medevial’…I don’t know what you’re referring to.

Hmmm…doesn’t sound so medieval to me.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

"Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.

These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries."

 

[MrS]

The letter writer objects to an article being on the front page of the diocesean newspaper which more or less calls the method that about 95% of Catholics receive communion in ‘deficient’. Thus calling into question their reverence for the sacrament. That is something that should be ‘called out’. I don’t know why this is such an issue for you.

We agree. We just don’t agree as to why.

IMHO, in the hand and standing is deficient. If more reverence is possible, why not show it happily and sincerely.

I bet the letter writer would much prefer that the bishop’s words be tucked into the sports page, or more likely the OBs. Maybe you should contact him and invite him to come on the forum and express his views… but I think we already know them

As for the frommi “…And the only explanation I can get is something about horizontal and vertical liturgy.”

… don’t ask Fr Kawka… he obviously doesn’t get it either.

.

 

[MrS]

Hmmm…doesn’t sound so medieval to me.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

"Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.

These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries."

Thanks for repeating the link I suggested frommi read. He won’t. And neither will the good father.

oh well.

.

 

[MICATH]

What precisely do you object to in Fr. Kawka’s letter?

No, you missed the point, I answered your question. No need to to be snotty. You asked what I thought; I told you. If you didn’t care, why ask.

No need to grade my opinions — I wasn’t looking for a passing grade from you.

 

[Lepanto]

Kneeling and receiving are gestures of humility before Almighty God, whereas standing and taking are not.

Bottom line: too many people are filled with PRIDE.

 

[frommi]

Bottom line: too many people are filled with PRIDE.

And that’s just in this thread

 

[bakhita]

Had the front page article been a theological discussion by Ken Untener on returning to the ancient order of the sacraments or the ancient tradition of receiving Communion in the hand or referring to God as “She”, would the letter writer have objected to that? Or is he only objecting to the possible return of something that may take away Saginaw’s liberal interpretation of what being Catholic is?

Sad to say, there are still a lot of people who think Untener’s way was the orthodox way. There is still so much confusion in the Saginaw diocese, even nearly 4 years after Untener’s death. The damage that was done in this diocese is hard to calculate.

 

[frommi]

Sad to say, there are still a lot of people who think Untener’s way was the orthodox way. There is still so much confusion in the Saginaw diocese, even nearly 4 years after Untener’s death. The damage that was done in this diocese is hard to calculate.

Oh brother…enough with dramatic unprovable sayings

 

[Lepanto]

Sad to say, there are still a lot of people who think Untener’s way was the orthodox way. There is still so much confusion in the Saginaw diocese, even nearly 4 years after Untener’s death. The damage that was done in this diocese is hard to calculate.

What do you think it will take to eliminate the confusion and the damage?

 

[MrS]

What do you think it will take to eliminate the confusion and the damage?

Well, the list would include:

[1] Getting a strong bishop in charge… done

[2] Getting a foundation for future priests and seminarians…done

[3] Slow and charitable instruction of the clergy… doing (with much resistance, sad to say)

[4] Slow and charitable instruction of the laity… doing (and facing much simple ignorance)

[5] Much prayer from the Catholic communities, not just in Saginaw, but also Lansing and Detroit, and beyound.

 

[Lepanto]

Well, the list would include:
[3] Slow and charitable instruction of the clergy… doing (with much resistance, sad to say)

[4] Slow and charitable instruction of the laity… doing (and facing much simple ignorance)

I don’t doubt your words, MrS, but I’m curious how you know that there is much resistance within the clergy and much simple ignorance among the laity.

And a followup question: is there also resistance (not just ignorance) within the laity?

 

[frommi]

Well, the list would include:

[1] Getting a strong bishop in charge… done

[2] Getting a foundation for future priests and seminarians…done

[3] Slow and charitable instruction of the clergy… doing (with much resistance, sad to say)

[4] Slow and charitable instruction of the laity… doing (and facing much simple ignorance)

[5] Much prayer from the Catholic communities, not just in Saginaw, but also Lansing and Detroit, and beyound.

What’s the view like from the cheapseats in Brighton?

Where do you get so full of yourself being able to make statements like this about a presbyerate and a people?

Perhaps you need slow and charitable instruction on how to live out certain new testament injunctions.