Pushed to the SSPX

[JReducation]

Dear Brother,

This is absolutely false and you should know better than stating facts that are false. Pope Benedict did contact Bishop Fellay after the excommunications were lifted and the Bishop Williamson affair emerged and asked him, quite discretely, not to hold the planned ordinations in Germany that month. Bishop Fellay immediately complied with this Papal request.

So now without dragging out the “exercises no legal ministry” statement, a description of the current legal canonical situation which we all acknowledge, please either show us the documented reference where the Holy Father told the SSPX to desist from all ordinations (apart from the one which I cited and was complied to), or retract your false statement.

My dear friend:

I would be happy to accept that I have been corrected of a mistake, when you show me the document that shows the dialogue between Bishop Fellay and the Holy Father where the latter suggests moving the site of the ordinations, rather than not performing them.

I cannot retract, since I did not intend to detract. I have no bones to pick with the SSPX. Therefore, I have no reason to malign their reputation or speak falsehood against them. I can only repeat what I have read. I will grant you this. What I have read comes through the Catholic media. I am not privy to the internal documents of the Vatican, except those that pertain to my own community.

Have a Blessed Christmas!

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[giuseppeTO]

This statement goes to the heart of the logical fallacy that exists on this thread, namely, that of a false dichotomy. The choice a Catholic faces is not between some abusive nutty parish and the SSPX. This is simply untrue. There is more middle ground than that at either extreme.

Perhaps the problem in Lake Jackson, as well as many other (if not most other) modern parishes is that you consider as acceptable the practices that many consider abusive and disrespectful? If you have “grown up” in the Novus Ordo and never knew otherwise, you may consider normal what others have always considered despicable.

 

[giuseppeTO]

The ad hominem. Yet you are here and not at an SSPX site.

I am in both!

 

[giuseppeTO]

My dear friend:

I would be happy to accept that I have been corrected of a mistake, when you show me the document that shows the dialogue between Bishop Fellay and the Holy Father where the latter suggests moving the site of the ordinations, rather than not performing them.

I cannot retract, since I did not intend to detract. I have no bones to pick with the SSPX. Therefore, I have no reason to malign their reputation or speak falsehood against them. I can only repeat what I have read. I will grant you this. What I have read comes through the Catholic media. I am not privy to the internal documents of the Vatican, except those that pertain to my own community.

Have a Blessed Christmas!

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

As I expected, you were repeating hearsay as Pope Benedict .has not required the SSPX to refrain from further ordinations. The Pope does understand the situation, perhaps better than you or I.

A Blessed Christmas to you and your family also, my dear friend!

-GTO

 

[giuseppeTO]

That statement does not need to be dragged out. It is what it is. It is legitimate to refer to it at anytime the issue of the SSPX comes up.

Perhaps legitimate, but certainly not productive to use it as the answer to every discussion. If you use that as the answer to every SSPX question and I throw up a picture of a Clown Mass to answer any defense of the Modern Mass, we won;t have much of a board, will we?

 

[Indyann]

Perhaps the problem in Lake Jackson, as well as many other (if not most other) modern parishes is that you consider as acceptable the practices that many consider abusive and disrespectful? If you have “grown up” in the Novus Ordo and never knew otherwise, you may consider normal what others have always considered despicable.

That’s it in a nutshell. PERSONAL opinion. As long as the Pope does not consider the OF despicable and disrespectful, we are OK.

And yes, I did “grow up” with the TLM. so I do know otherwise.

It was not until I heard the words “THIS is MY BODY”, did I really “get it”.

Your opinion is no more valid than mine or anyone else’s.

 

[JReducation]

As I expected, you were repeating hearsay as Pope Benedict .has not required the SSPX to refrain from further ordinations. The Pope does understand the situation, perhaps better than you or I.

A Blessed Christmas to you and your family also, my dear friend!

-GTO

Do you have those documents re: conversations between Bishop Fellay and the Holy Father handy?

Have a Blessed Christmas!

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[ProVobis]

Pope Benedict did contact Bishop Fellay after the excommunications were lifted and the Bishop Williamson affair emerged and asked him, quite discretely, not to hold the planned ordinations in Germany that month. Bishop Fellay immediately complied with this Papal request.

Yes, I read the same bit of information, can’t recall exactly where I read it. I didn’t question it as it made sense. The ordinations are planned years in advance so as to accommodate relatives and friends who wish to attend. Moving forward, I don’t see the Vatican requiring all current would-be-SSPX seminarians to quit or suspend their ongoing studies suddenly as I’m sure they all have an ordination date in mind as a goal to reach. For the Vatican to demand they immediately close all SSPX seminaries, that really would be defeating the whole purpose of the talks, I would think. The whole issue of suspensions and jurisdictions notwithstanding, we have to be realistic and practical here. The lifting of the excommunications shouldn’t have such atrocious downsides to them.

 

[JReducation]

With the hope of bringing peace to this thread at Christmas, I’m going to post the real story here AGAIN!

Let’s go back to the first post. Here is what actually happened.

• The chapel where this mass took place is at a college.
• The chapel has to close during the winter vacation, about a month, and the Blessed Sacrament cannot be left in the tabernacle unattended. Therefore, it has to be consummed.
• The celebrant wanted the communicants to help him consume the Sacrament. This is valid if you have many hosts.
• The celebrant gave several hosts to the communicant. It is easier to give several in the hand than try to stick them all in a person’s mouth at one time or do so one at a time.
• The communicant told the celebrant that he wanted communion in the mouth and that it was his right. It is true. It is his right.
• The celebrant responded in a manner that the communicant perceived as rude. It sounds rude from the original post. Until proven otherwise, we can assume that the celebrant’s response was rude.

All this being said, there was no violation to the Blessed Sacrament or the the rubrics of the mass.

This entire argument, which has evolved into people being nasty to each other, myself included, has been built on a post that did not contain all of the facts. I happen to know them, because I received them privately. There you have it folks. This is all about a priest who wanted to protect the Blessed Sacrament by having it consummed and a communicant to whom the priest was rude. It is not about the form of the mass or any violation to the liturgy. Can we drop this discussion now for the sake of peace at Christmas?

I wish the OP would come back and tell the whole story. It makes more sense.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[JReducation]

Yes, I read the same bit of information, can’t recall exactly where I read it. I didn’t question it as it made sense. The ordinations are planned years in advance so as to accommodate relatives and friends who wish to attend. Moving forward, I don’t see the Vatican requiring all current would-be-SSPX seminarians to quit or suspend their ongoing studies suddenly as I’m sure they all have an ordination date in mind as a goal to reach. For the Vatican to demand they immediately close all SSPX seminaries, that really would be defeating the whole purpose of the talks, I would think. The whole issue of suspensions and jurisdictions notwithstanding, we have to be realistic and practical here. The lifting of the excommunications shouldn’t have such atrocious downsides to them.

The Vatican has never asked the SSPX to close down their formation program. In fact, the Holy Father spoke very highly about the seminarians in his letter to the bishops and his concerned for them. The letter reflects that concern. What he has not done is to encourage the continued ordinations. It can be safely assumed that he wants them ordained validly and licitly. It’s the charitable thing for him to wish for.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[JReducation]

This is a PS to post 208. When we post something that happened to us, we should tell all the details. Otherwise, it can stir up a hornets’ nest. That’s not fair to anyone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

*]The chapel has to close during the winter vacation, about a month, and the Blessed Sacrament cannot be left in the tabernacle unattended. Therefore, it has to be consummed.

Still sounds like poor planning to me. Isn’t it more of a Vatican II thing to distribute hosts that have been consecrated at that Mass? I’ve been to Masses where they’ve had to break hosts in order to accommodate everyone there. And if there are a few extra, they can use those to distribute to hospitals, etc.

Or if it is the last Mass, that information should be at least known to everyone who attends there and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that an overflow of hosts need to be consumed. And certainly, if I see everyone taking communion in the hand and I was uncomfortable with it, I would simply receive at another Mass where I am properly disposed in a conveniently-located different church. Communion isn’t obligatory at every Mass.

That said, Merry Christmas to you also, JR.

 

[spn82756]

Still sounds like poor planning to me. Isn’t it more of a Vatican II thing to distribute hosts that have been consecrated at that Mass? I’ve been to Masses where they’ve had to break hosts in order to accommodate everyone there. And if there are a few extra, they can use those to distribute to hospitals, etc.

Or if it is the last Mass, that information should be at least known to everyone who attends there and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that an overflow of hosts need to be consumed. And certainly, if I see everyone taking communion in the hand and I was uncomfortable with it, I would simply receive at another Mass where I am properly disposed in a conveniently-located different church. Communion isn’t obligatory at every Mass.

That said, Merry Christmas to you also, JR.

Please excuse me because I don’t mean to be rude. What is the big deal about consuming all the consecrated hosts…whether given in the hand or mouth? Having been a part of a missionary church years ago in the south…we baked the bread for communion following the prescribed rules. We rented from another Christian church for Sunday Mass. All the consecrated bread had to be consumed before leaving. If there was some left…we consumed it.

I don’t see how this has anything to do with clowns, sugar cookies (BTW…the pic I’ve seen with the so called sugar cookie…sure looks a lot like home made bread for use in the Eucharist. Again…I don’t be to be rude…but this thread seems to have digressed into something not vaguely related to the original OP.

Have a blessed Christmas

 

[JReducation]

Still sounds like poor planning to me. Isn’t it more of a Vatican II thing to distribute hosts that have been consecrated at that Mass? I’ve been to Masses where they’ve had to break hosts in order to accommodate everyone there. And if there are a few extra, they can use those to distribute to hospitals, etc.

Or if it is the last Mass, that information should be at least known to everyone who attends there and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that an overflow of hosts need to be consumed. And certainly, if I see everyone taking communion in the hand and I was uncomfortable with it, I would simply receive at another Mass where I am properly disposed in a conveniently-located different church. Communion isn’t obligatory at every Mass.

That said, Merry Christmas to you also, JR.

I don’t disagree. The people should not have been taken by surprise. Thought the poster did say that they knew it was the last mass. I just rememered that. So I came back to edit this. Maybe they didn’t know that they had to consume the hosts. They could have been told that and so forth. The communicant felt uncomfortable receiving in the hand and probably offended by the priest’s rudeness.

The point is that there was no violation of the rubrics or of the Sacrament. The debate about SSPX vs other parish vs something else, us built on a story that was lacking details. I’ve been hoping that the original poster would come back and tell the details, rather than me have to tell them.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[ProVobis]

…but this thread seems to have digressed into something not vaguely related to the original OP.

You’re justified in feeling that way. I should have ended my post by saying it is quite a leap from going from an uncomfortable situation in one church only to an SSPX service. As JR has suggested and I agree with him on this, the OP should have elaborated a little more on the situation.

 

[spn82756]

You’re justified in feeling that way. I should have ended my post by saying it is quite a leap from going from an uncomfortable situation in one church only to an SSPX service.

And again…A Blessed Christmas!

 

[JReducation]

Please excuse me because I don’t mean to be rude. What is the big deal about consuming all the consecrated hosts…whether given in the hand or mouth? Having been a part of a missionary church years ago in the south…we baked the bread for communion following the prescribed rules. We rented from another Christian church for Sunday Mass. All the consecrated bread had to be consumed before leaving. If there was some left…we consumed it.

I don’t see how this has anything to do with clowns, sugar cookies (BTW…the pic I’ve seen with the so called sugar cookie…sure looks a lot like home made bread for use in the Eucharist. Again…I don’t be to be rude…but this thread seems to have digressed into something not vaguely related to the original OP.

Have a blessed Christmas

Thank you. This is my point. The original poster told part of the story. But later, I found out the rest of the story. The original poster is not lying. There are just missing pieces. When you put the pieces together, this has nothing to do with sugar hosts, clown masses or anything like that.

1. 
   *]Communicant wanted communion on tongue.
   
   *]Priest wanted communicant to help consume multiple hosts.
   
   *]Communicant told priest he had the right to communion on the tongue. We don’t know how he said it.
   
   *]Priest was rude, instead of explaining himself better or moving on to the next person.
   
   = no violation of the rules.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps the problem in Lake Jackson, as well as many other (if not most other) modern parishes is that you consider as acceptable the practices that many consider abusive and disrespectful? If you have “grown up” in the Novus Ordo and never knew otherwise, you may consider normal what others have always considered despicable.

It is the abusive part I disagree with. The idea of respectful is reflective of an interior attitude, not an outward liturgy. The problem with the OP and what most rail against is abuse. Claiming I am ignorant of what is right and wrong is just down right presumptius. What makes you thing I even attend what you call a “modern parish” just because it is a Catholic parish and not SSPX chapel? When one assumes, all kind of bad things happen. So, why do we dispense with my parish and your speculations about me personally?

By the way, I did not even grow up Catholic.

 

[JReducation]

Perhaps the problem in Lake Jackson, as well as many other (if not most other) modern parishes is that you consider as acceptable the practices that many consider abusive and disrespectful? If you have “grown up” in the Novus Ordo and never knew otherwise, you may consider normal what others have always considered despicable.

Giuseppe:

Whatever is approved for the Ordinary Form of the mass cannot be “despicable” regardless of how people feel about it. The Holy See would not approve of something despicable and declare it to be the Ordinary way of celebrating the Eucharist. If one feels that something that is approved by the Holy See to be despicable, then one has a duty to distance himself from that opinion. To hold on to it is to believe that the Holy See would approve something despicable for worship. That is not possible. It may be something that a person is uncomfortable with. I grant you that, but not despicable.

When the Ordinary Form is celebrated as it was written it is quite beautiful. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but I can count on one hand the number of times that I have seen anything out of the ordinary in the Ordinary Form. The cookies and cream thing cannot be that common. I’ve been a religious for a long time and have served in five diocese and three countries. I have seen little things go wrong, but earth shattering, I can only remember two times in 42 years as a Catholic.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[pnewton]

Giuseppe:

Whatever is approved for the Ordinary Form of the mass cannot be “despicable” regardless of how people feel about it. The Holy See would not approve of something despicable and declare it to be the Ordinary way of celebrating the Eucharist. If one feels that something that is approved by the Holy See to be despicable, then one has a duty to distance himself from that opinion.

When one insults someone elses opinions for nothing more than being different than oneself, he elevates himself as a judge, something no Catholic should do. This is not a case of discernment, for clearly Rome has spoken in the matter of the liturgy. One may disagree, but insults are uncalled for.