So-called liturgical abuse?

[muledog]

Lazerlike42:

You are being told that receiving in the hands is abuse by ultra-traditionalists who blieve that anything that was changed after Vatican II is automatically bad. More often that not these folks have no idea that what they criticize as bad is exactly how it was done in the early days of the Church.

For instance, they will say that current Masses are invalid because they are not in Latin when the Masses were never in Latin until hundreds of years after Christ.

First, I think your “strawman” arguments are much exaggerated. I don’t know of a single person who believes that the current normative Mass is invalid because it’s not in Latin.

Secondly, even the Holy Father has made it known that he believes many errors crept into the Church after Vatican II, including a misunderstanding of proper liturgy.

The argument that “if it happened in the far-distant past, then it must be good” is incorrect. Antiquarianism has been thoroughly condemned and denounced by the Church. Pope Pius XII, in his liturgical encyclical Mediator Dei, stated the following:
Mediator Dei:

No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise.(emphasis added)

 

[OhioBob]

Tantum ergo:

Smells like teen spirit. . .

You progressives and your head-banging Gregorian Chant are interrupting up my traditional liturgical dance. :dancing:

 

[Lazerlike42]

muledog:

First, I think your “strawman” arguments are much exaggerated. I don’t know of a single person who believes that the current normative Mass is invalid because it’s not in Latin.

Then you’ve apparently never had a discussion with a tradionalist! Alright, maybe you have. I don’t mean to say that all tradionalists believe this, but a great many do.

Secondly, even the Holy Father has made it known that he believes many errors crept into the Church after Vatican II, including a misunderstanding of proper liturgy.

There have no doubt been many abuses that came into the Church after VII, but “after” does not mean “because of.” If you didn’t mean that, then I have no disagreement with you. My point is that the abuse is not a result of the Mass being in the vernacular, it is a result of liberals in the Church taking advantage of VII. I would even go so far as to say that had VII not happened there may have been abuse, because it is a result of the liberals who came into the Church in the 60s, an event that would have happened with or without VII (to a lesser degree without, however).

The argument that “if it happened in the far-distant past, then it must be good” is incorrect. Antiquarianism has been thoroughly condemned and denounced by the Church. Pope Pius XII, in his liturgical encyclical Mediator Dei, stated the following:

This is true. However, the arguement that if something was done officially in the past that it must be permissable, which is the only arguement I was making, is correct. I’m not saying anything about good vs. bad. If a person wants to argue, for instance, that Latin Masses were better than English ones, I won’t argue with him. If he says Latin Masses are valid as opposed to English, that is where I argue.

My points were directed on the notion that the film attempts to make modern Liturgy out to be incorrect or invalid. If someone wants to make a film that says the older Liturgy was better, I don’t have a problem with that.

 

[muledog]

estesbob:

Thy instructions are that you dont publicly deny them communion BUT counsel them in private that Kneeling is inapropriate.

Not according to the Congregation for Divine Worship. The latest dubium, published in the Adoremus Bulletin, says that
Prot. n. 1322/02/L:

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.

You say it’s inappropriate, the Holy See says it’s “completely appropriate.” Wonder who’s right on this one.

Methinks you should read the CDW documents in their entirety.

 

[muledog]

Lazerlike42:

Then you’ve apparently never had a discussion with a tradionalist! Alright, maybe you have. I don’t mean to say that all tradionalists believe this, but a great many do.

Again, Lazerlike, I’d have to disagree. I attended an SSPX chapel in Fort Wayne over 15 years ago for about six months. Nobody I talked to at the chapel ever said that the current Ordo Missae was/is invalid because it is in the vernacular. Nor did they ever say that it was invalid period.

I have belonged to my current “Novus Ordo” parish for over 20 years now, but I still attend the Traditional Latin Mass (FSSP) as often as possible. None of those people believe that the normative Mass is invalid, either.

You must be hanging around a few sedevacantist wingnuts.

 

[catholic_woman]

The priests hands used to be consecrated as part of the ordination rite. I do not think that part of the Ordination Rite survived the revamp by Paul VI. The priests hands were consecrateed because they would be touching the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ every day as they celebrated Mass. Consecrated hands are the only hands that should be touching Our Lord and Savior.

Kneeling to receive communion was to show respect and reverence for Who you were about to receive. You are about to receive Christ. A little humility is in order.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

catholic_woman:

The priests hands used to be consecrated as part of the ordination rite. I do not think that part of the Ordination Rite survived the revamp by Paul VI. The priests hands were consecrateed because they would be touching the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ every day as they celebrated Mass. Consecrated hands are the only hands that should be touching Our Lord and Savior.

Kneeling to receive communion was to show respect and reverence for Who you were about to receive. You are about to receive Christ. A little humility is in order.

You are mistaken on two counts. The hands of our priests are still annointed and consecrated. You are also mistaken in that the Church permits the laity to touch the Sacred Species, both by receiving the Most Sacred Body in their hands (permitted by indult), and by acting under liscense by their bishops as EMHCs for the distrubution of Holy Communion both in Mass and to the homebound and sick. If the Church permits it or establishes it (either one), it cannot be an abuse…unless one thinks one is more holy than the Church or more Catholic than the pope.

Gregory XVI also affirmed that those that propose that the discipline of the Church is harmful fall under the condemnation of Pius VI…
“…[they] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). … do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope (Encyclical Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833).The Council of Trent similarly declared:
“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.).

Pope Pius IX likewise taught:

“It would beyond any doubt be blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the discipline which she has established, and which includes the administration of holy things, the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” (Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

Vatican I likewise affirmed:
“We teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.” (Pastor Aeternus , ch. 3, par. 2)

 

[mosher]

Ace86:

The Eastern Catholics have always received in the hand. So I don’t see how one way could be proper. Some just see it as more reverent in the tongue.

This is absolutly incorrect. In most if not all Oriental Liturgies the faithful receive on the tongue because it is fed to you by the minister by way of a spoon type instrument as the species are co-mingled.

Also the OP is incorrect about the assertion that communion in the hand was proper in the early Church. It is only in the homily of St. Cyril that was cited that we find evidence of that practice. However it is true that it was received that way at the Agape but the Agape and the Divine Liturgy were distinct events. I am not saying that it is a bd thing I am just saying that we have to be historically honest where discussing this issue.

 

[m134e5]

A recent church document (Redemptionis Sacramentum or Ecclesia Eucharistia- I do not remember which) specifically said the faithful may receive communion standing or kneeling. Nothing was said about admonishing those who kneel- the document seemed to imply that it didn’t matter. Whatever was said before as to what is allowed, and what should be done if the ‘rule’ is broken is irrelevant- this is how things stand now.

 

[palmas85]

muledog:

Again, Lazerlike, I’d have to disagree. I attended an SSPX chapel in Fort Wayne over 15 years ago for about six months. Nobody I talked to at the chapel ever said that the current Ordo Missae was/is invalid because it is in the vernacular. Nor did they ever say that it was invalid period.

I have belonged to my current “Novus Ordo” parish for over 20 years now, but I still attend the Traditional Latin Mass (FSSP) as often as possible. None of those people believe that the normative Mass is invalid, either.

You must be hanging around a few sedevacantist wingnuts.

I too attend both types of masses and find that most who attend the Traditional do so because they find it much more reverent and centered on God rather than the congregation.

Having said that there is a good size group of traditionalists, mostly SSPX and other such groups who believe the Pauline Mass is invalid not because it’s not in latin but in the translation of the prayers of the Consecration and in the sheer number of consecrtory prayers… They feel that the change in the prayers invalidates the consecration and hence invalidates the Mass itself.

There are a number of pamphlets out which try to explain this in principle. Probably the most literate are by Reverend Anthony Cekada

 

[JKirkLVNV]

mosher:

Also the OP is incorrect about the assertion that communion in the hand was proper in the early Church. It is only in the homily of St. Cyril that was cited that we find evidence of that practice. However it is true that it was received that way at the Agape but the Agape and the Divine Liturgy were distinct events. I am not saying that it is a bd thing I am just saying that we have to be historically honest where discussing this issue.

Respectfully, this is not so. See here:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

And all of this is beside point anyway. The central questions
are,“Can the Church impose a discipline or allow a liberty in discipline in the administration of the sacraments? In the exercise of this right, can she lead the people into impiety?” The answer, according to the Church, is “Yes” to the former and “No” to the latter (see post #27).

No one is required to rec. in the hand. Those who do shouldn’t be any more criticized than those who kneel. If you wish to rec. on the tongue, then do so. If you wish to rec. in the hand, then do so.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

OhioBob:

You progressives and your head-banging Gregorian Chant are interrupting up my traditional liturgical dance. :dancing:

This made me laugh out loud!

 

[mosher]

JKirkLVNV:

Respectfully, this is not so. See here:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

And all of this is beside point anyway. The central questions
are,“Can the Church impose a discipline or allow a liberty in discipline in the administration of the sacraments? In the exercise of this right, can she lead the people into impiety?” The answer, according to the Church, is “Yes” to the former and “No” to the latter (see post #27).

No one is required to rec. in the hand. Those who do shouldn’t be any more criticized than those who kneel. If you wish to rec. on the tongue, then do so. If you wish to rec. in the hand, then do so.

That is a well written article. I wonder why it doesn’t address why the Church in the both the East and the West in the Patristic age decided to forbid reception in the hand?

But you are correct I am of the mind set that it really doesn’t matter just as long as the people don’t start to think that they are self-communicating. The Church gives allowance for hand or mouth for kneel or not kneeling (USA) addressing the individual conscious so I think it is a moot point.