Novus Ordo Priest Is Fed Up

[jeanannemarie]

P Newton, I am offended that you spoke so of the Holy Father. There is no cause for such disrespect here.

 

[pnewton]

Huh? I am at a total loss as to what part offends you. That the letter was nice? It seemed nice to me. That there was a thread? The Cardinal uses an “if - then” to threaten disciplinary action. That I am proud of the Holy Father when the letter was by Cardinal Estevez? I am at a loss.

Still, if you think I was disrespectful to the Holy Father, report the post. Such a thing should never happen on this forum.

 

[surritter]

That day is now. I believe Rome has stated it is your right to receive kneeling on the tongue and in fact, all who receive from the current Pope must do so in this manner.

Not quite. It is a right to receive on the tongue. The normal posture for reception is standing. Rome has said that those who kneel are not to be refused communion, however.

Notice the difference – to not be denied communion for kneeling is not the same thing as saying it is a right. I believe the logic behind Rome’s statement is to avoid correcting the communicant at a time when all members of Christ’s body are most intimate.

 

[Lamentabili]

Not quite. It is a right to receive on the tongue. The normal posture for reception is standing. Rome has said that those who kneel are not to be refused communion, however.

Notice the difference – to not be denied communion for kneeling is not the same thing as saying it is a right. I believe the logic behind Rome’s statement is to avoid correcting the communicant at a time when all members of Christ’s body are most intimate.

It is a right. If nothing else, on the basis of immemorial custom. But more easily on the basis of this letter. If it were not a right, but a privilege, the pastor/ Bishop could do as they wish and Rome would have simply recommended they act in a certain manner and would not have threatened disciplinary sanction…

The Congregation in fact is concerned at the number of similar complaints that it has received in recent months from various places, and considers any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her** kneeling posture** to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful, namely that of being assisted by their Pastors by means of the Sacraments (Codex Iuris Canonici, canon 213).

In fact, as His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has recently emphasized, the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.

 

[surritter]

If you read that quote again, it is saying that the reception of the Sacrament is a right. It is saying that kneeling is not to obstruct the right to receive. You even bolded the phrase “most basic rights” and that phrase is then spelled out as referring to receiving (assisted by their Pastors…) not to kneeling itself.

I’m not trying to make a big deal out of this, but I’m just saying that this is not carte blanche to kneel where the norm established by the local bishops is to stand.

 

[Brendan]

I’m not trying to make a big deal out of this, but I’m just saying that this is not carte blanche to kneel where the norm established by the local bishops is to stand.

The Universal Norm is for the recpipent to choose which posture they wish to adopt. Since that is a universal norm, a bishop can only establish something contrary with the appropriate recognitio from Rome.

Prot. n. 47 / 03 / L

Rome, 26 February 2003

Dear [name deleted],

This Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has received through official channels your letter dated 1 December 2002, related to the application of the norms approved by the Conference of Bishops of the United States of America, with the subsequent recognitio of this Congregation, as regards the question of the posture for receiving Holy Communion.

**As the authority by virtue of whose *recognitio ***the norm in question has attained the force of law, this Dicastery is competent to specify the manner in which the norm is to be understood for the sake of a proper application. Having received more than a few letters regarding this matter from different locations in the United States of America, the Congregation wishes to ensure that its position on the matter is clear.

To this end, it is perhaps useful to respond to your inquiry by repeating the content of a letter that the Congregation recently addressed to a Bishop in the United States of America from whose Diocese a number of pertinent letters had been received. The letter states: “…** while this Congregation gave the recognitio to the norm desired by the Bishops’ Conference of your country that people stand for Holy Communion, this was done on the condition that communicants who choose to kneel are not to be denied Holy Communion on these grounds. Indeed, the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion”. **
This Dicastery hopes that the citation given here will provide an adequate answer to your letter. At the same time, please be assured that the Congregation remains ready to be of assistance if you should need to contact it again.

With every prayerful good wish, I am

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Mons. Mario Marini
Undersecretary

 

[CradleCath]

Not quite. It is a right to receive on the tongue. The normal posture for reception is standing

. Rome has said that those who kneel are not to be refused communion, however.

Wrong. The universal norm for the Latin rite is to receive Communion kneeling & on the tongue. Communion in the hand is by indult only & the indult was the result of trickery & manipulation.

"The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly rebuke a brother bishop, Pope Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops. The late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, then president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. In the spring of 1977, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the required two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Several canon lawyers have stated categorically that this procedure was illegal. An interview with Bishop Blanchette in the National Catholic Register (June 12, 1977) confirms that Communion in the hand was unlawfully introduced into the United States. Fr. John Hardon likewise has affirmed the fact that retired and dying bishops were polled to make sure the measure for Communion in the hand would be passed.
marysanawim.wordpress.com/2008/07/14/holy-communion-in-the-hand-the-true-story/

forestmurmurs.blogspot.com/2008/06/communion-in-hand-indult.html

I was in my 20’s when this happened & I believe that this was the most shocking of all the changes…absolutely it was for the laity & many of our priests left because of it. It was more upsetting than the Mass in the vernaculur, the neglect of the rosary, novenas, Benediction, etc. We’d been raised to know that Christ was THERE in that host, that the “bread” was His Body &… think about it…if Christ appeared before you, in the flesh, would you grab His Hand & shake it or would you fall to your knees in adoration??

PS. I touched on something else that most Catholics today don’t realize. I’ve heard it said that the mass Exodus of our priests was caused by a desire to be married. It wasn’t. They left the priesthood because they felt it was no longer what “they signed up” for. They were right.

The fact that they did marry later, was just because they no longer had a sacred reason not to & it is what most lay people do. Most of the homosexual priests stayed & were active. I really don’t understand this one, except that they could remain in the seminaries filled with the objects of their desire…other men. They could live in a rectory with the same, etc.

This is off-topic, but interesting reading, because we truly lost the “best & brightest” priests during the 70’s. They were the ones who would be the Bishops & Cardinals now & they would never have tolerated the handling of the Body of Christ by anyone & everyone.

blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/02/the-gay-priest-problem-1.html

 

[surritter]

Thanks for the clarification, Brendan.

 

[ProVobis]

"The practice of Communion in the hand was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in disobedience to the rubrics of the Holy See.

Not only disobedience but it was considered a grave sacrilege and an act of self-communication in violation of church’s laws. This could have easily been an excommunicable event as well.

Whereas one can easily make a case for the necessity of the Novus Ordo, there is nothing necessary about CITH. It has done nothing good for the Church.

 

[CradleCath]

Not only disobedience but it was considered a grave sacrilege and an act of self-communication in violation of church’s laws. This could have easily been an excommunicable event as well.

Indeed it could have been. What a shock it was!!! 12 yrs. of learning in Catholic schools pretty much went down the drain when they instituted CITH & did away with kneeling to receive.

Whereas one can easily make a case for the necessity of the Novus Ordo, there is nothing necessary about CITH. It has done nothing good for the Church.

 

[ProVobis]

Indeed it could have been. What a shock it was!!! 12 yrs. of learning in Catholic schools pretty much went down the drain when they instituted CITH & did away with kneeling to receive.

And the sad thing is that the Church’s message seems to be: If enough people sin, let’s just allow it. No wonder the Church has lost its moral leadership in the world.

 

[cothrige]

If you read that quote again, it is saying that the reception of the Sacrament is a right. It is saying that kneeling is not to obstruct the right to receive. You even bolded the phrase “most basic rights” and that phrase is then spelled out as referring to receiving (assisted by their Pastors…) not to kneeling itself.

I’m not trying to make a big deal out of this, but I’m just saying that this is not carte blanche to kneel where the norm established by the local bishops is to stand.

Having read this thread with interest it seems to me that what you say here is right, and yet I find myself confused. What do you make of the inclusion in the letter of the statement that “the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”? How much of a “norm” can something really be if acting otherwise is still not to be called illicit or disobedient? This was the most interesting part of the letter to my mind. I would be interested in what other people think of this particular choice of words and how it affects the current situation in this country.

 

[surritter]

Having read this thread with interest it seems to me that what you say here is right, and yet I find myself confused. What do you make of the inclusion in the letter of the statement that “the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Holy Communion.”? How much of a “norm” can something really be if acting otherwise is still not to be called illicit or disobedient? This was the most interesting part of the letter to my mind. I would be interested in what other people think of this particular choice of words and how it affects the current situation in this country.

I did backpeddle a little from my previous posts about this, but I would still say that to kneel simply because you know it cannot be considered illicit is not necessarily the same thing as calling it a full-blown right. After all, the bishops conferences DO have a say in how some things are done during Mass, and Msgr. Marini’s letter (see post #85) did acknowledge that standing is a “norm” for the USA. If you feel moved to kneel, those bishops cannot say you are disobedient. But it would be outside of the norm, objectively speaking.

 

[whatischarity]

Lamentablli writes:

I guess they can, for the results on the faithful have been as catastrophic as is the Novus Ordo liturgy…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

I am confused. Isn’t it dangerous to speak so disparaging of the ordinary form of worship approved by the universal Roman Catholic Church. How can the Novus Ordo liturgy be catastrophic? How can it be “bad liturgical prayer”? Lastly, how does the original writer expect any unbiased reader to take his writings seriously when he closes with the apparently slanderous statement that “our Pastors praise such results”? It is like Glenn Beck attacking Holy Mother Church.

If one is hell bent on finding sacrilege, you will find it. You should look at my parish. We have both the ordinary form and the extraordinary form every Sunday. We have parishioners who recieve the Body of Jesus and the tongue and in the hand, We have people in jeans and suits. The most important thing we have is love of Jesus followed by hope in Him and faith in His duly appointed representatives. I imagine this Fr. Paul is a fine priest who just got caught up in rhetoric but there may be a lesson to learn from this for us all.

 

[donmaximuso27]

Lamentablli writes:

I am confused. Isn’t it dangerous to speak so disparaging of the ordinary form of worship approved by the universal Roman Catholic Church. How can the Novus Ordo liturgy be catastrophic? How can it be “bad liturgical prayer”? Lastly, how does the original writer expect any unbiased reader to take his writings seriously when he closes with the apparently slanderous statement that “our Pastors praise such results”? It is like Glenn Beck attacking Holy Mother Church.

If one is hell bent on finding sacrilege, you will find it. You should look at my parish. We have both the ordinary form and the extraordinary form every Sunday. We have parishioners who recieve the Body of Jesus and the tongue and in the hand, We have people in jeans and suits. The most important thing we have is love of Jesus followed by hope in Him and faith in His duly appointed representatives. I imagine this Fr. Paul is a fine priest who just got caught up in rhetoric but there may be a lesson to learn from this for us all.

What is truly dangerous is the current liturgy used by the majority of Latin Rite Catholics, one that was obviously formulated and promoted far too quickly. Neither Father Paul, nor any traditionalist for that matter, is “hell bent” in finding sacrilege. After studying basic liturgical study and theology, and the basic history of the Church, it takes little effort to notice the lack of reverence, awe, and inspiration in the common NO mass. Did he use rhetoric? Yes, as do many. Fr. Paul and millions of others have the basic understanding of liturgical study and theology to realize the common NO mass is completely out of line with 2,000 year old traditions of the Church. Simply, the liturgy is serious business, for it is how we worship Christ and encounter him in the Holy Sacrament of the Altar. Therefore, as Father Paul is doing, it must be examined and studied in an extremely serious manner.

 

[pnewton]

What is truly dangerous is the current liturgy used by the majority of Latin Rite Catholics,

I do not see danger. I do see the reality of the presence of the Lord and availabity of Grace to all who will receive.

 

[surritter]

What is truly dangerous is the current liturgy used by the majority of Latin Rite Catholics…After studying basic liturgical study and theology, and the basic history of the Church, it takes little effort to notice the lack of reverence, awe, and inspiration in the common NO mass.

In your studies of theology and Church history, did you encounter anything about the importance of unity under the chair of Peter, and obedience to that authority?

 

[donmaximuso27]

In your studies of theology and Church history, did you encounter anything about the importance of unity under the chair of Peter, and obedience to that authority?

Nothing represents and symbolizes the unity of the Church and its people more so then the Eucharist and our partaking of the Eucharist. This is why the Holy See, especially the Holy Father, has promoted and encouraged our historical liturgical traditions. Benedict has clearly stated that what needs to surround the Eucharist and inspire us is traditional liturgical styles, music, etc. So as for obedience (liturgically), I think those inclined to participate and appreciate those traditions are in a good position.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous and unfair for you to assume disobedience in those that love the liturgical traditions of the Church. I won’t even bother addressing such a hasty assumption.

 

[surritter]

Nothing represents and symbolizes the unity of the Church and its people more so then the Eucharist and our partaking of the Eucharist. This is why the Holy See, especially the Holy Father, has promoted and encouraged our historical liturgical traditions. Benedict has clearly stated that what needs to surround the Eucharist and inspire us is traditional liturgical styles, music, etc. So as for obedience (liturgically), I think those inclined to participate and appreciate those traditions are in a good position.

Furthermore, it is ridiculous and unfair for you to assume disobedience in those that love the liturgical traditions of the Church. I won’t even bother addressing such a hasty assumption.

Oh, I don’t think that a love of liturgical tradition equates with disobedience. But supporting a movement that has defied Rome (SSPX) is a subtle form of disobedience, yes?

Those on this thread should be encouraged to attend reverent, traditional liturgies that are fully submissive to the pope. The priest who is the original subject of this thread is traditional, orthodox, and in full communion with Rome. That is why I have attended his parish occasionally in the past.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, I don’t think that a love of liturgical tradition equates with disobedience. But supporting a movement that has defied Rome (SSPX) is a subtle form of disobedience, yes?

I check the first post. There was no support of the SSPX.