Novus Ordo Priest Is Fed Up

[Lamentabili]

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/SummorumPontificum.html

The Tail Just Wagged the Dog
On the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI Given Motu Proprio
(Note: links to the appropriate documents are given at the end of this article.)

        There is much excitement about the wonderful news that the use of the Tridentine Order of the Mass has been liberalized. Now priests all over the world can use it. Really? At least that’s what the news reports said.

        I personally have been hearing the rumor about this permission for years. Long accustomed to be let down and even betrayed by those clergy who claimed to be pastors over me, I said, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Even if the permission were to be given, I discerned that the ever-so-political bishops, who en masse have gone completely out of their way to suppress anything which could remotely remind anyone that the Church existed before 1962, would fight it so strongly that all the teeth would be taken out of it.

        Now, I’m not one of those “anti-Novus Ordo” schismatic types. Indeed, with great effort, and filling in where the Novus Ordo is missing, the new order of Mass can be made sacred, as can the new breviary. (For the breviary, the Church never provided her children with an updated Liber Usualis. Abandoned children once again…) Get Solemnes books for Gregorian Chant, do it in Latin, use a high altar, celebrate ad altarem or towards the “liturgical East,” use only altar boys and not altar girls, employ black cassocks and vestments of a higher quality than potato sack burlap, etc. In other words, things which are done nowhere.

        That said, one would have to be blind to speak well of the results of the Novus Ordo. Kumbaya Masses, Masses with electric guitars and drums, Masses with bar-room piano Music, Masses with the faithful holding hands and swaying, Masses with priests and bishops inventing whatever words they want. Masses where the Gospel is read by the non-ordained. Masses where the texts of the readings, including the Gospel, were altered on the fly by the reader to be made politically correct. Masses with pathetic, erroneous and misleading translations to the vernacular authorized by our bishops. Masses with liturgical dancing. Masses with Homilies against the Holy See, against pro-life, empty of catechesis. Masses where the Eucharist was abused, fragments cast about on the floor falling from patens and corporals and communicants’ hands – often dirty hands at that. Masses with communion for everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics, those in mortal sin and those in public scandal. And all of this is the tip of the iceberg.

        These horrors do not constitute ancient history, but serve as the common experience of the faithful all over the world to this very hour. Can all of this can be described as the new “lex orandi” (the “law of prayer”)? Can all of this be described as the “ordinary expression” of the law of prayer?

        I guess they can, for the results on the faithful have been as catastrophic as is the Novus Ordo liturgy. From bad priests came bad parents. From unchaste priests came unchaste parishes. From bad catechesis in the homilies practically all catechesis was lost. From the disobedience to liturgical norms came disobedience to ecclesial – and sometimes even to natural – law. From the lagoons and contradictions of norms in the liturgy came the creativity for each one to fill in as he saw fit. Again, the list could go on. Indeed, “lex orandi lex credendi”! The law of this bad liturgical prayer spawned bad faith. And the whole situation flowered from this: broken families, empty seminaries, vanishing religious houses, dearth of scholarship, moral confusion, small Mass attendance and countless scandals of the clergy. And our Pastors praise such results.

 

[Lamentabili]

Can the pastors of the Church not see what they have done? Can they fail to see the deep links between this sad situation and the so-called “reform” of the 1960’s and 1970’s? If some or all do not, I think it is through some diabolical influence. It is so flagrantly evident, that nothing can explain their lack of seeing, unless it were insanity or some supernatural influence of evil origin. But yes, they go on singing the praises of the new order of the Mass and all that came with it. How long, oh Lord, how long will the pastors abandon us sheep to the wolves? Have mercy, lord, have mercy.

        No, in principle I am not anti-liturgical reform. It is just as evident where the 1962 Missal could have been improved to make it more accessible and less opaque to those without degrees in the history of the liturgy. But instead of revamping, reordering, amplifying on what we had, which many a Pope has done before to the great glory of God, the Church basically threw out the Old Mass and started from scratch inventing what we now call the “Novus Ordo.” There was a letter accompanying Summorum Pontificum, in which the Pope asserts that there is “no contradiction,” “growth and progress but no rupture.” How this is so is not as obvious. I suppose one would then certainly need not only a degree in the history of the liturgy, but a doctorate. In which case, the Concilium failed to achieve its end, and the whole matter is more opaque than every before.

        I was surprised to see that the document is as indulgent as it is. It confirms that the old missal was never in fact abrogated (cf. art. 1). (I don’t understand how this assertion squares with the document Conferentium Episcopalium (I think 1973; you can find it in the Flannery edition of the Vat. II docs.), which seems to have done just that; but there you have it.)

But the conditions upon which a parish priest can celebrate the old order of Mass are severely limited. First, the pastor (it used to be the bishop) must give permission (art. 5, §1). Good luck with that one! Second, it must be only “in parishes where a group of faithful attached to the previous liturgical tradition exists stably” (again, art. 5, §1). This is a rare thing to find. And the observation, that it is a rare thing to find, is important.

For, the faithful, for the salvation of their souls and holiness of life, receive the sacraments. There are so many impediments to sacredness, catechesis, piety, devotion, doctrine, morality and so forth in the Novus Ordo Mass, and the faithful have been subjected to it for so long, that the children of the Church do not have the habit of wanting what is good for them.

Like children habituated to disobedience, children habituated to doing their schoolwork poorly or not at all, children habituated to candy and junk food… which of these children will hop up to say, “Oh, give me obedience, discipline in my studies, and healthy food in which I take no pleasure!” None, not one. And a parent who governs his home not on the principle, “What is good for the family,” but rather, “What appeases the immediate caprice of the children,” is nothing but a negligent parent. In such a family, it can be said, that the tail is wagging the dog. And the faithful everywhere are often as spoiled children, demanding and getting whatever odd thing hits their fancy in the liturgy.

I think of my own Archdiocese, which just might – I say might – lead the world in corruption, scandals, pro-homosexuality, bad examples, uneducated priests; an Archdiocese whose vast majority of priests are rigid and ruthless in pushing their agenda of dissent and disobedience (also known by the perhaps not too well placed tag of “liberals”). Who in this diocese will offer the faithful the order of the Mass which will more help them attain holiness? Few, very few, I surmise.

The bottom line is that we are almost in the exact same position we were yesterday. I’m thankful to Rome – and happily surprised, honestly – that I can say “almost,” and not “exactly.” For on those rare days when I have a Mass without a congregation, I may offer the Tridentine order of Mass, and if they want the faithful may attend. Or perhaps I can work really, really hard to inspire even a small group of faithful to desire the Tridentine order of Mass. And maybe my pastor will give me permission in that case. But outside of that, same-old-same-old. A liturgy focused on man and not on God, wretched contemporary English hymnody, laughable translations of the Scriptures, a congregation eager to dance and hold hands, disappointing ritual prayers and countless lagoons in the liturgical norms.
And how many sacrileges are done daily worldwide in the name of, and with the blessing of, the Novus Ordo Mass? How long, oh Lord, how long…​

Sources:

1. Latin edition on Vatican web site: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi_motu-proprio_20070707_summorum-pontificum_lt.html
2. Unofficial translation from USCCB: usccb.org/liturgy/bclnewsletterjune07.pdf

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Are you the priest who wrote this article?

 

[bkovacs]

God Bless this priest!.

 

[Lamentabili]

Are you the priest who wrote this article?

No. Incredible article though.

 

[mexilad]

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/SummorumPontificum.html

The Tail Just Wagged the Dog
On the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI Given Motu Proprio
(Note: links to the appropriate documents are given at the end of this article.)

        There is much excitement about the wonderful news that the use of the Tridentine Order of the Mass has been liberalized. Now priests all over the world can use it. Really? At least that’s what the news reports said.

        I personally have been hearing the rumor about this permission for years. Long accustomed to be let down and even betrayed by those clergy who claimed to be pastors over me, I said, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Even if the permission were to be given, I discerned that the ever-so-political bishops, who en masse have gone completely out of their way to suppress anything which could remotely remind anyone that the Church existed before 1962, would fight it so strongly that all the teeth would be taken out of it.

        Now, I’m not one of those “anti-Novus Ordo” schismatic types. Indeed, with great effort, and filling in where the Novus Ordo is missing, the new order of Mass can be made sacred, as can the new breviary. (For the breviary, the Church never provided her children with an updated Liber Usualis. Abandoned children once again…) Get Solemnes books for Gregorian Chant, do it in Latin, use a high altar, celebrate ad altarem or towards the “liturgical East,” use only altar boys and not altar girls, employ black cassocks and vestments of a higher quality than potato sack burlap, etc. In other words, things which are done nowhere.

        That said, one would have to be blind to speak well of the results of the Novus Ordo. Kumbaya Masses, Masses with electric guitars and drums, Masses with bar-room piano Music, Masses with the faithful holding hands and swaying, Masses with priests and bishops inventing whatever words they want. Masses where the Gospel is read by the non-ordained. Masses where the texts of the readings, including the Gospel, were altered on the fly by the reader to be made politically correct. Masses with pathetic, erroneous and misleading translations to the vernacular authorized by our bishops. Masses with liturgical dancing. Masses with Homilies against the Holy See, against pro-life, empty of catechesis. Masses where the Eucharist was abused, fragments cast about on the floor falling from patens and corporals and communicants’ hands – often dirty hands at that. Masses with communion for everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics, those in mortal sin and those in public scandal. And all of this is the tip of the iceberg.

        These horrors do not constitute ancient history, but serve as the common experience of the faithful all over the world to this very hour. Can all of this can be described as the new “lex orandi” (the “law of prayer”)? Can all of this be described as the “ordinary expression” of the law of prayer?

        I guess they can, for the results on the faithful have been as catastrophic as is the Novus Ordo liturgy. From bad priests came bad parents. From unchaste priests came unchaste parishes. From bad catechesis in the homilies practically all catechesis was lost. From the disobedience to liturgical norms came disobedience to ecclesial – and sometimes even to natural – law. From the lagoons and contradictions of norms in the liturgy came the creativity for each one to fill in as he saw fit. Again, the list could go on. Indeed, “lex orandi lex credendi”! The law of this bad liturgical prayer spawned bad faith. And the whole situation flowered from this: broken families, empty seminaries, vanishing religious houses, dearth of scholarship, moral confusion, small Mass attendance and countless scandals of the clergy. And our Pastors praise such results.

Wow! Talk about hitting the nail on the head…

 

[Lamentabili]

The same priest on Communion in the Hand…

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/communion_in_the_hand.html

Recently, someone inquired about communion in the hand. He had a discussion with a friend about whether it was ordinary (his counterpart’s position), or whether it was the exception (his position). This person is a seminarian in a different state, for a different Diocese than my own, but I should keep him anonymous. A seminarian’s doubt on the unquestionable rite of reception in the hand could get him expelled… you know the lines the angry, rigid libs love to use when frying a vocation… “too old school,” “rigid,” “won’t be able to do what this diocese will ask of him (i.e., dissent) later as a priest,” and so on.

        There are plenty of people who, knowing nothing about history, love to shout how in the ancient Church they received in the hand. It’s funny how people who hate tradition appeal to tradition to get tradition-lovers to do untraditional things. (Or how the disobedient demand that the obedient do disobedient things in the name of obedience.) Signs of the times.

        First of all, we know very little about the first few centuries of the Church. They didn’t write a whole lot, because they were in times of intense persecution. Further, few enjoyed the education to read or write, so the ancient times didn’t have piles of libraries, magazines and newspapers documenting things over and over again.

Second of all, there is a true sense of development of doctrine and practice. This should not be mistaken for a substantial change in dogma or discipline, but a development as the Holy Spirit helps the Church, age after age, understand the divine gift she has received from her Divine Founder, Jesus the Word. An example of this is the sacrament of confession, how it seems from some historical studies that it was rarely used until the Irish monks re-evangelized Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire .

        So it is not certain that the ancients received communion in the hand until centuries after Christ, much less universally so, nor is it certain that such is the best way to communicate even if they did. What is best in all moral actions starts from a reflection on the nature of things; and the nature of the Eucharist is that it, in every part, is the full substance of the Incarnate Lord, Jesus son of Mary. The nature of this Sacrament should preclude anyone from even dreaming that communion in the hand would be a good idea.

Incidentally, what is ancient practice is the extreme – and I mean extreme – care priests have taken for centuries of the fingers which touch the host, during the Mass. The priests would not touch anything with those fingers all Mass until they had been purified, washed with wine and water. All the particles of the host on the corporal, paten and purificator were exquisitely cared for. For one particle is Him and enough to redeem the whole world. This element is completely, and offensively, missing from the Novus Ordo. It seems that the Church doesn’t care any more about the particles. In the seminary, the men were taught in my time that the Eucharist is not Eucharist if it is crumbs, as it lacks the appearance of food. See, it has to be food, food we can share, for the symbolism to be present. That, of course, is nothing short of a heresy.

So it is a marvel that from one day to the next, the Church puts the host in people’s hands, as if particles don’t exist, as if they don’t matter, and the laity have no liturgical purification of their hands.

Yet New Theology (i.e., heresy) priests have literally imposed this practice upon the laity. I heard a local priest command the laity to receive in the hand; he said this was the mind of the Church; he said this was the beginning of, and I quote, “putting the sacraments in the hands of the laity”; that no one should receive on the tongue, ever; etc. This imposition was abusive. His other liturgical abuses could be told here, for they are grave and many and amazing, but that would lead us far astray from the topic.

This widespread practice is clearly imprudent, and should offend the sense of anyone who has integral faith in transubstantiation. All priests would do well, any honest person must logically conclude, in abolishing this practice once and for all in their own parishes.

 

[Lamentabili]

But again, the disobedient will claim it’s the new norm, and we obedient ones, who live with the obedience of faith (cf. Rom 1:5), must comply; that the laity have a right; that it is the new “ordinary” (as if they had any respect for what was ordinary). So what does Church law say?

The huge scandal that this practice was already happening before it was legislated, and that Rome simply caved in, making grave sins against the Eucharist more plentiful, is rarely discussed. But it was only in 1985 (an approximate 1,952 years after the last supper) that Rome spoke on this matter (read here). The norms provide indications of how the hands are to be positioned, how clean the hands are to be, the liturgical response and motions, to consume in the presence of the minister, all of which are now completely ignored (naturally). They also state clearly that no one is forced to receive in the hand (7.). Clearly this was an allowance, and only for one Bishops’ Conference (the USA , even if now the practice is more widespread), and since an exception is not the norm, one must logically conclude that communion in the hand is the exception and not the norm.

The fact that the minister of communion is not allowed to exclude the communicant from communion on the tongue was clarified, for the belligerent let’s-sacrilege-the-host-type ministers, in 2003 (read here). Redemptionis Sacramentum dispelled any doubt, referring to communion on the tongue as a “right,” which the communicant “always has” (“ius simper habet”), and not so communion on the hand (read here). So if anyone tries to force you, Gentle Reader, to receive in the hand, you have a right to receive on the tongue, just as you have a right to receive kneeling (cf. here).

The 1983 Document states, at point number 6, that “Care must be taken that fragments of the consecrated host are not lost (cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 2, 1972: Prot: no. 89/71, in Notitiae 1972, p. 227).” Redemptionis Sacramentum – that widely ignored document promulgated to put an end to so many liturgical abuses at Mass – states, in paragraph 92 (read here), that “if there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful,” citing the same norm, promulgated and ignored in 1999.

Can someone please explain to me, how particles will not go astray, and therefore how the Eucharist will not be profaned by communion in the hand? I think it is impossible. But clearly, any priest who sees communion in the hand as the abuse which it is may not offer communion in the hand for this legally stipulated reason.

From this, we can conclude:

1.  Communion in the hand is not mandatory.

2.  Communion on the tongue remains the universal norm, to which all have the right (assuming proper dispositions, etc.).

3.  Communion in the hand is not to be done where there is risk of particles being lost or profanation happening (i.e., everywhere).

4.  There is a many, many century practice, full of wisdom and experience, in contra of communion in the hands.

In my Diocese, two parishes, one in Detroit , one in Capac north of the city, were ravished, and had the hosts stolen. Communion in the hand only facilitates the crime for those who desire to do black masses, for money sell the host to those who do, or perpetrate other such sins. These things are far worse than the habitual sacrilege of the lost particles of the transubstantiated bread of life, but one and the other are matters of mortal sin.

May God in his mercy spare the Church and the world the horrible stain of communion in the hand

 

[Lamentabili]

Another gem…

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/sacraments/eucharist/GoAheadAndPray.html

Praying at Mass: Go Right Ahead

        It isn’t rare to find the lib (ah yes, a term diverging sharply from all that is politically correct) who will ridicule all things that seem, in his magisterial snootiness, “old Church.” I think it is probable that the Gentle Reader, at one time or another, has heard a priest reproach a parishioner who was caught praying a rosary during Mass; or maybe Father simply ridicules said practice regularly from the pulpit.

        Before getting on with today's point - that the rosary and other prayers are perfectly fine at Mass - I should point out that ridicule of authentic piety is evidence of what Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange calls “spiritual retardation.” So if you pray the rosary at Mass, Gentle Reader, and your parish priest reduces you to ridicule because of it, and if you say to him, “Dear Father, you are retarded,” let it be known that you are slinging no insult, but simply making a statement of fact backed by the most profoundly researched spiritual theology known in our day.

        My gut reaction to a priest ridiculing a parishioner who prays the rosary at Mass is simply, “How could a priest have a problem with that?” But gut reactions require analysis and discernment.

        Now, the best place to go, where to find criteria for discernment, is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

        It just so happens that there is, in fact, a Papal declaration precisely on the matter we are addressing in today’s article. A member of the clergy, a friend of mine, found this passage for me. It is paragraph 108 of Mediator Dei, an encyclical written by Pius XII about the treasures of the sacred liturgy of the Catholic Church. He writes (emphasis mine):

Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men’s talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services. Moreover, the needs and inclinations of all are not the same, nor are they always constant in the same individual. Who, then, would say, on account of such a prejudice, that all these Christians cannot participate in the Mass nor share its fruits? On the contrary, they can adopt some other method which proves easier for certain people; for instance, they can lovingly meditate on the mysteries of Jesus Christ or perform other exercises of piety or recite prayers which, though they differ from the sacred rites, are still essentially in harmony with them.

        I could hardly think of a better way than the rosary for “meditating on the mysteries of Jesus Christ.”

        Part of the problem is that the New Mass, or Novus Ordo, or Paul VI Mass, or whatever you want to call that new post-Vatican II ritual for the Mass, doesn’t necessarily express explicit heresies, but it confuses things which should be clear. One thing clearly unclear in the New Mass is the distinction of the action of the priest celebrant and all those who are in attendance, laity or clergy, who are not celebrating the sacrament. The “we celebrate” attitude pervades so many spaces and corners of Catholic life, to really the detriment of the whole Church. Christ is no longer the victim, priest and altar… "we all are"… and so we, mortal and sinful men, become our own Saviors. Who needs Christ? Who needs that "other Christ," that "alter Christus," which is every Catholic priest?

        If “we celebrate,” then clearly “we” need to pay attention to rubrics and each word prescribed in the liturgical books like any celebrant can and should. But the “we celebrate” mentality seems to have convinced the clergy that the rubrics and prescribed words are up for grabs, and the laity that they have to get every word right in the Mass for it to be “valid” (that is, “experienced,” in their lingo).

        In summary, there is one Mass, in which the one flesh of the Son of Mary is sacrificed and offered to the Father through the Spirit, and clergy and laity participate in the mystery of the Mass in different ways. That's simply obvious. But really, the Trinity is the agent of the liturgy. The priest manifests externally the priesthood of Christ in the Church, and the laity live Christ’s priesthood in an interior way. So let the priests do what priest do at Mass, and let them do it well; and let all priests stop pestering the faithful if they actually find them – shocking, I know, brothers – praying things at the Mass, like rosaries.

 

[Shin]

This is worth reading… When a priest says it, the faithful listen more than it’s just another layperson saying it, however true it is.

 

[Lamentabili]

This site is a goldmine!

Here’s another gem…

fatherpaul.org/didaskalos/editorials_answers/liturgy/Trent_salus.html

Q: Why have people been leaving the Church in droves, especially since Vatican II? Would returning to the old rites of the Tridentine Mass solve the problem?

A: The assertion that people are leaving the Church “in droves” does remain to be proven, yet we can all observe some facts which are widely publicized and easily confirmed.

For example, the seminaries are empty, families are falling apart, religious houses are closing, the clergy and religious are very aged, the Church is taken ever less seriously in the popular eye, the Muslims recently were counted to outnumber Catholics worldwide, every parish shows huge discrepancies between the number of those who show up on Sunday and those who claim to be “registered” (or again, compare Mass attendance on a Sunday and on Christmas).

The list of bad news goes on and on. Oh, wait, I forgot… it’s the “new springtime” in the Church. And the Bishops love to tout hoorahs at the success of Vatican II. Whatever.

        But to the point. The reason people are leaving the Church in droves is easy: mortal sin.

        The solution to the problems of the Church and the world is equally

easy: it is grace. It is not the Tridentine Mass, but abolishing the Novus Ordo completely and restoring the Tridentine Mass, or a reform of that Mass which would leave it still Catholic, would be a crucial step.

Why do I assert this? Because the rites of the Tridentine Mass are infinitely superior to the Novus Ordo Mass. Catholic rites are in some sense are a means to an end; yet this “ritual means” is willed by God. God gave us a ritual Church, and obliged us to worship him ritually. Most of the sacraments (the Eucharist excluded) are similarly a means to an end, and the end is sanctifying grace in this life and heaven in the next.

        Yet some means are more efficacious than others. I have no doubt that the rites of the Tridentine Mass are more powerful, beautiful, and conducive to everything Catholic than are the rites of the “Novus Ordo.” But if a means is not used, it is not used, even if it is the best of means.

        I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I find these authors of “letters to editors” or small articles in petty journals, who decry the Tridentine Mass, pointing out how poorly the priests celebrated it. See, they say, even with the Tridentine Mass the Church had pathetic priests. Yet there are three errors in this sort of thinking.

        First, the hate filled disgust such Catholics have for their priests is an equal if not worse crime than the priest’s sloppy signs of the cross over the chalice which forms the substance of their accusations. Second, it is an attack “ad hominem” which proves nothing and is a fallacy. Third, it is a petitio principii, or begging the question, because the premise is that the priest in question was a “bad” priest to begin with! Yet, what about those countless priests who celebrated the Tridentine Mass worthily and as fervently as they could? Ah, how logical thought would solve so many of the world’s problems…

        Yet a grain of truth can be found in the complaint of such Disgusted-with-priests-self-righteous Authors of such letters. For not everyone before 1962 were saints. The wicked fruit of the post-conciliar years was attributable not to the Council but to the scandalous moral lives and ignorance of many clergy and bishops in the 1950’s and earlier. It is clear that they were not holy just because they were celebrating the Tridentine Mass. But I think it would be, well, overly-optimistic to say that we have more saints after 1962 than before 1962; and as we must judge trees by fruits, it is my hope that the pastors of the Church wake up and admit the catastrophic decline of the Church in the last fifty years.

        But still, all of this is neither an argument for or against the old rites or the new ones. Picking old rites or new rites because of this person’s holiness or that person’s sinfulness is what Aristotle would call the fallacy “ad hominem.” This fallacy attempts to prove the truth of something or the consequence of an argument based on the virtue of one or more individual persons. All cops are bad, for example, because I met one who was a jerk. Or the Catholic Church should be abandoned because I knew a priest who gambled. Ad hominem proves nothing, and is useful only for slinging insults.

        The rites have to be judged not by the sinners who used - or abused, or failed to use well - them. They have to be judged for what they are in themselves. And in that sense the ancient rites beat these new ones in every point and aspect. I don’t have the leisure now to write a doctoral dissertation, or any other 800 page book, to prove the point; but it is not necessary to prove what is evident by demonstration, right?

 

[Shin]

I emailed the fellow some words of thanks.

 

[Michelle_in_WV]

Reverend Father,

I have enjoyed reading your posts, and I hope to read everything for which you have provided links very soon.

I wanted to tell you that I know a faithful priest who solved the problem of giving laymen Holy Communion in the hand by switching to using the method of distribution by Intinction exclusively in his Novus Ordo Masses.

Laymen cannot complain because they are receiving Holy Communion under both species, and the priest does not need to fear desecration because laymen (“extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion”) are not permitted to distribute Holy Communion by this method, nor may anyone receive Holy Communion in the hand when this method is used.

Your daughter in Christ,
Michelle

 

[Lamentabili]

Michelle (and everyone else),

Just to clarify I am not the author of these articles.

The priest’s name is Fr. Paul Ward.

Please send notes of thanks, encouragement, etc to him at the following link.

fatherpaul.org/FPFeedback/WriteToFatherPaul.html

Thanks!

 

[Michelle_in_WV]

Lamentabili,

I thought that you were a priest who was quoting another priest. Thank you for the clarification, and for the link to Fr. Ward’s contact page.

Mistakes aside, I think the priest who started distributing Holy Communion by Intinction (dipping an edge of the Host into the Blood in the chalice, and then placing the Host on the communicant’s tongue) discovered an excellent solution to the problem of giving Holy Communion in the hand to laymen.

I think it also echoes wonderfully the small ritual in which the priest drops a fragment of the Host into the chalice to symbolize the reunion of the Body and Blood of Christ in His Resurrection.

Michelle

 

[karoleck]

I think that priests who are trying to be holy in their own personal lives and are loyal to the The See of St.Peter should be applauded and given a good pat on the back.I as a lay-catholic I love these priests and I can only encourage everyone to keep on praying for Priests.I personally have distributed 400 of the booklets called Adoration,Reparation,Spiritual Motherhood for Priests :google it if you are unaware of it,available to be printed off in a PDF format, made available from The Congregation for The Clergy,it has great examples of saintly people who saw the Priests’ need of spiritual support.
I too am tired of the endless chatter before and after Mass(even during it unfornately) and the numerous matters brought up in this thread.However I do not put the blame on the Novus Ordo Mass.I personally was brought up and served seven years in the Latin Mass times-I even taught the Latin responses to the new servers.But that did not stop me in my teens from turning away from God and embracing as a teenager the “pleasures of the world”.God gave me the grace to revert to the Catholic faith a few years later.Certainly abandoning the use of Latin in Theology helped to contribute to unclear thinking and teaching.It is like opponents to the “old catholics”-- of pre-vatican I,saying that Mel Gibsons’ fall from grace was because of his Liturgical leanings there.That would be absurd ,as it has more to do with FALLEN HUMAN NATURE rather than any liturgical arguement.(I personally believe that God will balance his bad example, against the “Passion of The Christ”)The point I am making is that we should not too easily blame the state of things within the Catholic Church on permitting The Novus Ordo Mass.I have read the Vatican II documents at least two or three times,it is a blue print for the Catholic Church,the revival of the Code of Cannon Law and The Catholic Catechism are the direct true fruits of this Eccumenical Council.I have no symthathy for those who can rationalize the rejection of Vatican II Council-the reason being is that this position does not stand within the normal patten of how the Teaching Church has operated in its’2000years of existence.A catholic cannot pick and choose what council is valid;I believe that the Latin Mass was just a red herring ;the reason being that if this was the reason for creating a break away church,it is not the reason now!!! Perhaps it has to do more with fallen human nature,such as pride and being “right” rather than seeking the Truth?I ask this with respect, as I have wonderful friends who attended the Latin Masses by Apostolic Indult years ago-some are very holy and good catholics-the salt of the earth-so please do not see this as a personal attack on "traditional"Latin Mass followers( I am more than happy to attend a Latin Liturgical Mass).I look foward to the day when the followers of “The Archbishop” come back to full unity within the Church, as they have a lot to contribute.

 

[yinekka]

*The Tail Just Wagged the Dog

On the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI Given Motu Proprio
(Note: links to the appropriate documents are given at the end of this article.)

There is much excitement about the wonderful news that the use of the Tridentine Order of the Mass has been liberalized. Now priests all over the world can use it. Really? At least that’s what the news reports said.*

I am not sure what the title of the article means so I won’t comment on it.

Fr appeared to be going to speak on Summorum Pontificum but after a few lines he launched off into an attack on the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

It doesn’t appear that father has actually celebrated the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Has he attempted to but been stopped by his bishop? Are people not interested? Has he just not celebrated it?

The title of the post was Novus Ordo [Ordinary Form] priest is fed up.

No one is stopping father from celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass as reverently as he can according to the rubrics - Say the black and do the **red **.Female altar servers and communion in the hand is permitted by Rome. It is the bishop’s call whether the diocese can have female altar servers for the Ordinary Form not fathers. Father needs to concentrate on how he celebrates the Sacrifice of the Mass and not worry about anyone else.

One interesting thing I noted from father’s biography: He was ordained in May 2004 and has been Associate Pastor in 9 parishes so far - an average of 5 months in each parish. If father was in Australia this would suggest to me that he has a problem because Associate Priests are usually in a parish for longer than 5 months. Is 5 months the normal time for Associate Priests to spend in a parish in the USA?

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Yes, karoleck.

Where is the Holy Spirit in this? It is as if some believe that it is our actions that warrant God’s Mercy and Grace. We don’t warrant it with the “correct” Mass or the “correct” prayer, just the correct desire and disdain for sin that separates us from God. Irreverent attitudes do foster the like in others, from priests and parents, but it is not a result of the Church.

This irreverence is a consequence of the massively increased irreverence of the world. No matter how reverent your external life is, the Holy Spirit is in union with you through internal reverence.

 

[bpbasilphx]

By “Novus Ordo Priest,” are you trying to refer to a priest who normally celebrates in the Ordinary Form?

And apparently the author of this article might be unaware that the Liber Usualis is NOT the sum total of the chant of the Latin Church, but merely a selection from other books, including the Kyriale, Graduale, Antophonale, and Nocturnale.

It’s a useful book that’s got a little bit of everything, but not everything of anything, except possibly the Kyriale.

And others have noticed the lack of official chants for the Pauline Missal and revised Liturgia Hororium, to say nothing about approved vernacular texts.

 

[Jacafamala]

*The Tail Just Wagged the Dog

On the Apostolic Letter Summorum Pontificum of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI Given Motu Proprio
(Note: links to the appropriate documents are given at the end of this article.)

There is much excitement about the wonderful news that the use of the Tridentine Order of the Mass has been liberalized. Now priests all over the world can use it. Really? At least that’s what the news reports said.*

I am not sure what the title of the article means so I won’t comment on it.

Fr appeared to be going to speak on Summorum Pontificum but after a few lines he launched off into an attack on the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

It doesn’t appear that father has actually celebrated the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. Has he attempted to but been stopped by his bishop? Are people not interested? Has he just not celebrated it?

The title of the post was Novus Ordo [Ordinary Form] priest is fed up.

No one is stopping father from celebrating the Sacrifice of the Mass as reverently as he can according to the rubrics - Say the black and do the **red **.Female altar servers and communion in the hand is permitted by Rome. It is the bishop’s call whether the diocese can have female altar servers for the Ordinary Form not fathers. Father needs to concentrate on how he celebrates the Sacrifice of the Mass and not worry about anyone else.

One interesting thing I noted from father’s biography: He was ordained in May 2004 and has been Associate Pastor in 9 parishes so far - an average of 5 months in each parish. If father was in Australia this would suggest to me that he has a problem because Associate Priests are usually in a parish for longer than 5 months. Is 5 months the normal time for Associate Priests to spend in a parish in the USA?

I know nothing about this priest other than what I’ve just read but I’d bet anything he’ll become a traditional priest, (an EF priest) eventually.