Because a Saint edited a rite 1500+ years ago does not mean that Cardinal Bugnini’s Mass is comparable. I do not see any calls for the beatification of Cardinal Bugnini. His Mass is bland; it is not an improvement on the rite which preceded it. I have not heard much praise for Cardinal Bugnini’s Mass. It has mostly been defence against criticisms.
When a priest works for a diocese he receives his succession from the local bishop. However, the priest himself is not an Apostle. The bishop is.
Excommunication is the strongest disciplinary measure that a pope can use. Not only is the bishop outside the Church, but he is stripped of his faculties to preach, witness marriages and absolve. However, excommunication must be exercised with great care, because the objective is to discipline and bring back the individual. If it does not have the desired effect, the pope can lift it and try something else. He always had the authority to strip a bishop of all canonical authority and strip him of his title and faculties, which is the current status with the bishops of the SSPX. They have no canonical status; therefore, they have no authority and the faithful are not bound to obey them. They have no faculties to preach in any diocese, wtiness marriages or absolve. In other words, they’re suspended. They exercise the ministry without permission. That becomes a moral issue between them and God. It is not for us to judge one way or another. We can simply judge the external and say that they are violating the law. That’s all. This has been the practice for disciplining bishops since the early Church. When the Church had civil authority, they often sentenced them to jail time.
I have no idea what a mickey is.
The sexual abuse scandals have nothing to do with this. Sexual abuse is not an excommunicable offense. Ordaining bishops without the permission of the pope is excommunicable. It’s a much higher moral crime, because it’s an act of wilfull disobedience. and an ilegal use of the sacrament.
I have never seen any purification of hands. But remember, deacons don’t purify their hands either. That’s an act for the priest. It goes with the priest’s prayer to be cleansed so that he can confect the Eucharist with dignity. Purification of the hands is not tied into distribution of communion, it leads into the canon of the mass. So there would be no logical reason for deacons or other to purify their hands.
Read above. They are not the only ones. It is more common among them. But there are other Churches who allow it. They don’t have an indult, because they don’t need it since it was never abrogated. They have come back and forth on that according to local customs. You have to remember that there are five rites in the Eastern Churches and 21 Churches. Besides the Chaldean Church, there are other Churches that use the Chaldean rite. One of them is the Syro-Malabar. Among the Orthodox, there are several Churches that use the Chaldean rite.
I agree that symbols are very important as is language (meaning the use of words, not Latin vs Eng). That being said, we cannot make the mistake of saying that the symbols and language of the Tridentine mass are the only one that convey the meaning of mystery. That is not the case. This is one of many forms, not the THE form.
First of all, communion on the knees was only for laity in secular parishes. It was never a question of benefit. It was a point of custom
That’s actually incorrect, since the Ordinary Form’s missal has not been changed; the English translation of that Missal has been changed to more closely resemble not the Extraordinary Form but rather the actual text of the OF Missal.
A High Mass is the theoretical norm. The typical Mass for the typical parish was more commonly the missa cantata; not everybody assisted at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, and many of the parishes in the city itself were of smaller size.
Only Consecrated hands should touch the Host though. Not our hands or anyone else’s. We don’t benefit from receiving Communion as much if we don’t even receive it the right way.First of all, communion on the knees was only for laity in secular parishes. It was never a question of benefit. It was a point of custom
Second, communion is the benefit, not the person who gives it to you. I find it interesting that you keep insisting on communion from a priest. What about deacons? Is that less beneficial?
What about a religious brother, friar or monk? They’re not ordained. Is that less beneficial?
The benefit is in the sacrament, not the minister or the posture.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
It was the only form available to most Roman Catholics. Introducing Eastern Catholic rites as an excuse is a red herring. Most Roman Catholics have never heard of them, even now. To use them as an excuse to further de-sacralise the RC rite is a bad argument.
Who is all of us? The ‘Tridentine’ Mass is ‘The’ form? I never said that. What I’m arguing for is consistency in a mystic rite called ‘The Holy Sacrifice Of The Mass’, Latin version, wherein Christ is invoked into a host and seers tell us the denizens of Heaven appear by our altars when it is said.
We’re in the Roman Catholic church. Our symbols and their meaning have being pretty consistent for the past 500+ years. The ‘other rite’ argument is just an excuse for whatever the lovers of change want to insert into the ‘Latin’ rite. Same as using St. Cyril, David etc.
Never said that.
I understand the Carmelites don’t say their old rite any more. I’ve heard it’s beautiful. Dunno about the other orders. That their austerity should be applied across the Church is wrong.
The Church has said otherwise. They have the authority to do so – you do NOT.
It most certainly is not a red herring. It is to counter the argument that wants to have the only form of Liturgy in the entire Catholic Church be the EF. That is just patently false. There has NEVER been uniformity in the Liturgy throughout the Church, not even in the era of Trent in the Latin Church.
I say that because the priest is there. At a Mass I attended, in a Franciscan church, he sat out the distribution and let the lady EMHCs do it. It’s one more mundane element added to a mystic rite, and in this instance, it looked kind of comical; like he was having a rest.
I can’t recall anyone seriously making that argument. That’s just silly. The Eastern Catholics are invoked to excuse CITH, that’s my experience on here. Also, the Last Supper. That’s a popular one.
Some hymns, vestments, statues, and gestures are certainly of spiritual benefit.
The High Mass is the norm in the EF, according to the Church’s definition of “norm”. Someone who doesn’t know that definition would certainly think that a Mass that is only celebrated one out of seven times a week cannot possibly be a “norm”. Noting that God making Himself present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass deserves all the reverence you can muster, can you present any principled reason for a Low Mass to be offered?
That is an abuse, save for some health reason on his part. It is not the norm.
It is a 375mL bottle of 40% alcohol.
Yet again, what Church? The true, Traditional Church or the one that is around today?
There is only ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The Church founded by Jesus Christ on the rock of Peter, lead today by Pope Benedict XVI the successor of Saint Peter.
A deacon’s hands are never consecrated. But the deacon is the ordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Roman Church since the time of Steven the first deacon.
But you have to understand the custom here. Franciscans were not founded as an order of priests. The focus among Franciscans has always been to be friars or in English, Brothers. Since the time of Francis the ordaind brothers have always been expect to avoid singularizing themselves, but to blend in with the rest of the brotherhood.
The Eastern Catholics and the orders came into the conversation because you called CITH a sacrilege. I said that if it were a sacrilege, it would not be allowed in any religious order or any of the 22 Catholic Churches.