Was it Right for Minn Archbishop to Censor Fr. Altier from Relevant Radio?

[Traditional_Ang]

BobR:

Or maybe a little beyond orthodox? Fr. Altier has claimed that “the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand”. And I have heard that communion in the hand is frowned upon at St. Agnes. Well, in fact, tongue or hand is the rule at the option of the recipient. And at St. Peter’s (the one in Rome, Italy, not Richfield, MN) folks at an evening Mass I was at a couple of years ago were receiving in the hand. Perhaps the bishop has detected a “more Catholic than the Pope” attitude at work and has decided that this priest should cool it a bit for his own good. I have some sympathy for the view that taking communion in the hand is less reverent, but to claim one’s own preference as doctrine is over the top.

BobR:

That’s probably the first substantive argument I’ve seen, But that doesn’t answer why the Bishops haven’t adopted a set of universal standards so that the Faithful would know who should and shouldn’t be disciplined.

Regarding reception of the Holy Eucharist, this is what the US Bishops said:

41. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words “The Body of Christ.” The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost.”

usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

There is nothing about reception on the hand being the norm.

And then there is this:

A look at the new GIRM
by Father Walter Ray Williams

Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is also the universal norm of the Church; reception in the hand is permitted in most of the dioceses of the world, including all the dioceses of the USA. The norm of posture for reception, in the USA, is standing. After the promulgation of this norm, reports of members of the faithful being denied Holy Communion because they continue the “immemorial practice” of kneeling for Communion began to make their way to Rome. The Holy See sharply rebuked priests for this and made it clear that one kneeling is not to be refused Communion.

turrisfortis.com/girm6.html

Paragraph 161 of GIRM reads as follows:

“If Communion is given only under the form of bread, the priest raises the Eucharistic bread slightly and shows it to each one, saying: The body of Christ. The communicants reply: Amen, and receive the Sacrament as they choose, either on the tongue, or in the hands, where this is allowed. As soon as the communicant receives the sacred host it is consumed in its entirety. If Communion is given under both kinds, the rite described in nos. 284-287 is followed.”

dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Dec/dec8gog.htm

Fr. Altier may have gone overboard on the issue, but whether one receives our Lord on the tongue or in the hand is NOT a matter of DOCTRINE, but a matter of DISCIPLINE or PRACTICE in the same way as whether one says the Mass in English or in another language.

On the other hand, Fr. Greeley has denied the infallibility of the Pope and the Church’s Teaching on Artificial Contraception. these are matters of DOCTRINE and MORALS. Many of us feel this is more grave and causes more scandal to the Church.

I believe that the discussion of Communion on the hand v. on the tongue was discussed on another thread. I suggest we leave it there.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Orionthehunter]

Eileen T:

Yeah, and that was why I left the Church in my late teens, because every time I asked Why? I got fobbed off. This would be the equivalent of me telling my kids, "Because I said so…

which I did not do because that would not be treating them with respect. I always explained the reasons behind my decisions so that they would not be rebellious. I learned that from Scripture.
There is a difference between a member of the flock in his diocese wanting to know something and someone a thousand miles away. Secondly, personnel matters in the U.S. are between the employee and employer. Colleauges don’t have the right to know everything.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Traditional Ang:

David:

Each Bishop may well be an individual, but the faithful and those those who serve under them should be able to discern a set of basic standards so that conduct that is disciplined in one Diocese would be disciplined in another Diocese, and that which is applauded in one Diocese would be applauded in another Diocese.

That’s just not happening right now, and that creates a situation where decisions often appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious, and where the faithful and the clergy don’t know who’s making thos decisions or if anyone is responsible for them.

In this case, the fact that an ORTHODOX priest was pulled from the radio line-up while another one was kept on who consistently questions the Pope and the Teachings of the Church is the point, because it demonstrates that there is no universal and predictable set of standards at work, as there once was.

The Bishops have to lead, but they have to lead TOGETHER as a TEAM, with the Pope as their PRIME MINISTER, and our Lord Jesus as the PRESIDENT and KING of the team, teaching that which has been “received by all men in all places at all times”. I promise you - they can’t go wrong if they do that, and not even the critics here at CA will have grounds to criticize them. Or, at least won’t have grounds very often.

And, please remember, as long as the Church has had Bishops, they’ve made mistakes, and someone (other Bishops, priests, laity) has had to try to tell them the truth in love. Or did you forget the incidence in the Book of Acts when St. Paul had to correct St. Peter?

In Christ, Michael

All true, but that does not mean that this bishop was wrong to pull Fr Altier from his radio ministry as we do not know why it was done and neither guy is talking about it.

Seems if Fr Altier had issues with it he would be talking.

I suggest that everyone takes Fr Altier’s lead on this and stop the speculation and condemnations.

 

[BobR]

Traditional Ang:

I believe that the discussion of Communion on the hand v. on the tongue was discussed on another thread. I suggest we leave it there.

I agree. I only raised it as an example of a *possible *reason that the archbishop may have wanted to put the brakes on this priest (not “silenced”, merely guided).

At the end of the day, the archbishop’s actions towrads a particular priest on a parish 20 miles away aren’t that big a deal to me, I just hate to see a bishop who I have seen do a lot of good get bashed.

 

[bones_IV]

BobR:

I can’t explain it - it’s not something I know much about. I do know that the Legion of Christ has been somewhat deceptive in their approach to my son, who was at one time trying to discern whether or not he had vocation to the priesthood. Their cult-like recruiting methods left our family with a bad feeling. The contrast between their methods and Archbihop Flynn’s regarding prospective seminarians was like night and day.

The bishop’s reasons for the ban can be found in this article from the archdioces’ official newspaper.

Cult like recruiting methods? How? In what way? Maybe it’s perhaps what you call cult I would call loyalty.

 

[bones_IV]

Traditional Ang:

BobR:

That’s probably the first substantive argument I’ve seen, But that doesn’t answer why the Bishops haven’t adopted a set of universal standards so that the Faithful would know who should and shouldn’t be disciplined.

Regarding reception of the Holy Eucharist, this is what the US Bishops said:

41. Holy Communion under the form of bread is offered to the communicant with the words “The Body of Christ.” The communicant may choose whether to receive the Body of Christ in the hand or on the tongue. When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “When you approach, take care not to do so with your hand stretched out and your fingers open or apart, but rather place your left hand as a throne beneath your right, as befits one who is about to receive the King. Then receive him, taking care that nothing is lost.”

usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

There is nothing about reception on the hand being the norm.

And then there is this:

A look at the new GIRM
by Father Walter Ray Williams

Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is also the universal norm of the Church; reception in the hand is permitted in most of the dioceses of the world, including all the dioceses of the USA. The norm of posture for reception, in the USA, is standing. After the promulgation of this norm, reports of members of the faithful being denied Holy Communion because they continue the “immemorial practice” of kneeling for Communion began to make their way to Rome. The Holy See sharply rebuked priests for this and made it clear that one kneeling is not to be refused Communion.

turrisfortis.com/girm6.html

Paragraph 161 of GIRM reads as follows:

"If Communion is given only under the form of bread, the priest raises the Eucharistic bread slightly and shows it to each one, saying: The body of Christ. The communicants reply: Amen, and receive the Sacrament as they choose, either on the tongue, or in the hands, where this is allowed. As soon as the communicant receives the sacred host it is consumed in its entirety. If Communion is given under both kinds, the rite described in nos. 284-287 is followed."

dailycatholic.org/issue/2002Dec/dec8gog.htm

Fr. Altier may have gone overboard on the issue, but whether one receives our Lord on the tongue or in the hand is NOT a matter of DOCTRINE, but a matter of DISCIPLINE or PRACTICE in the same way as whether one says the Mass in English or in another language.

On the other hand, Fr. Greeley has denied the infallibility of the Pope and the Church’s Teaching on Artificial Contraception. these are matters of DOCTRINE and MORALS. Many of us feel this is more grave and causes more scandal to the Church.

I believe that the discussion of Communion on the hand v. on the tongue was discussed on another thread. I suggest we leave it there.

In Christ, Michael

I believe that the faith in the Church is like that of ancient Israel. Isaiah the prophet is saying about OUR GENERATION “your faith is like filth and rags”. That’s what our faith is today and it stinks. America will be destroyed because certain liberal catholics (especially those on this forum) just don’t get it.

 

[Orionthehunter]

bones_IV:

Cult like recruiting methods? How? In what way? Maybe it’s perhaps what you call cult I would call loyalty.

If Bob and his son were uncomfortable w/ the tactics, we should respect their judgment. The bishop’s remarks in the letter linked by Bob also indicate an attitude by the group that was disrespectful of the Bishop’s Magisterium-ordained exclusive responsibility to be responsible for the Teaching in his diocese. While we are free to exercise our prudential judgment in opposing or rejecting a Bishop, it is to be done so w/ great care. Bob’s and his son’s loyalty to their Bishop is to be commended.

From Bones: I believe that the faith in the Church is like that of ancient Israel. Isaiah the prophet is saying about OUR GENERATION “your faith is like filth and rags”. That’s what our faith is today and it stinks. America will be destroyed because certain liberal catholics (especially those on this forum) just don’t get it.

If you are talking about those on this thread, I see only good faithful Catholics. Too whom are you talking about?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bones_IV:

Cult like recruiting methods? How? In what way? Maybe it’s perhaps what you call cult I would call loyalty.

In my vocational discernment I spoke with the Legion of Christ and I must say, it did feel a bit “cult” like to me. That was one of the reasons I moved on to other groups.

Please understand though. This is my personal experience and most likely colored by my past experience with cult like groups in my younger days.

I do not hesitate to direct those who are discerning a vocation in the direction of the Legion of Christ.

I only tell you of this as it was brought up elsewhere and I wanted that person to know that they are not the only ones to experience that feeling. I also want others to beware of my supporting experience to that persons comment.

 

[bones_IV]

Orionthehunter:

If Bob and his son were uncomfortable w/ the tactics, we should respect their judgment. The bishop’s remarks in the letter linked by Bob also indicate an attitude by the group that was disrespectful of the Bishop’s Magisterium-ordained exclusive responsibility to be responsible for the Teaching in his diocese. While we are free to exercise our prudential judgment in opposing or rejecting a Bishop, it is to be done so w/ great care. Bob’s and his son’s loyalty to their Bishop is to be commended.

If you are talking about those on this thread, I see only good faithful Catholics. Too whom are you talking about?

Uncomfortable was the reason? Sounds like an excuse to me. Checked their website and I didn’t find anything wrong with it. How was the group disrespectful of the “Bishop’s Magisterium-ordained exclusive responsibility to be responsible for the Teaching in his diocese”? Could that Teaching perhaps be one of dissent?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

bones_IV:

Uncomfortable was the reason? Sounds like an excuse to me. Checked their website and I didn’t find anything wrong with it. How was the group disrespectful of the “Bishop’s Magisterium-ordained exclusive responsibility to be responsible for the Teaching in his diocese”? Could that Teaching perhaps be one of dissent?

Did you read the article? It was more than just being uncomfortable.

Here is a direct quote from the article.

In that letter he expressed concern that, in meetings and correspondence with Father Bannon over several years, his efforts to learn more about the Legionaries and Regnum Christi and their ministry in St. Paul-Minneapolis brought responses that “tended to be vague and ambiguous, characterized by generalizations about intent and policy.”

While the Legionaries’ written materials speak of cooperation with local churches, he said, in his archdiocese “practice has not seemed to match theory in that regard. . . . Our pastors continue to sense that a ‘parallel church’ is being encouraged, one that separates persons from the local parish and archdiocese and creates competing structures.”

So lets see. The bishop can’t get any straight answers from the Legion, jsut vague generalizations and then his pastors express a concern to which the Legion has not responded to his satisfaction.

Again, the bishop is fully within his rights to do what he has done.

Just more Church bashing.

As for uncomfortablness being a reason not to go with a religious order during vocational discernment. I must say, that is a great reason. God does not tell us where to go but he does guide us.

I am sure you will jump on me because one of the orders I did not choose was because they put most of their emphasis on giving parish missions and they told me that they do not focus on the Liturgy. Even though this order is very faithful, so faithful that they supply the chaplian to the nuns at EWTN.

Just not the place for me and shame on you for questioning Bod and his son for their reaons to not go on with the Legion. Heck they could have said that they didn’t like the eye color of the person they spoke with and it will still be ok as any persons’ personal reasons are valid for that person and who are we to question that?

 

[bones_IV]

ByzCath:

Did you read the article? It was more than just being uncomfortable.

Here is a direct quote from the article.

So lets see. The bishop can’t get any straight answers from the Legion, jsut vague generalizations and then his pastors express a concern to which the Legion has not responded to his satisfaction.

Again, the bishop is fully within his rights to do what he has done.

Just more Church bashing.

As for uncomfortablness being a reason not to go with a religious order during vocational discernment. I must say, that is a great reason. God does not tell us where to go but he does guide us.

I am sure you will jump on me because one of the orders I did not choose was because they put most of their emphasis on giving parish missions and they told me that they do not focus on the Liturgy. Even though this order is very faithful, so faithful that they supply the chaplian to the nuns at EWTN.

Just not the place for me and shame on you for questioning Bod and his son for their reaons to not go on with the Legion. Heck they could have said that they didn’t like the eye color of the person they spoke with and it will still be ok as any persons’ personal reasons are valid for that person and who are we to question that?

Exactly how vague were the answers? What Liturgy? I don’t understand. I was asking an honest question.

 

[Orionthehunter]

bones_IV:

How was the group disrespectful of the “Bishop’s Magisterium-ordained exclusive responsibility to be responsible for the Teaching in his diocese”? Could that Teaching perhaps be one of dissent?

This is from the link BobR provided regarding the Archbishop’s decision regarding this group.

In that letter he expressed concern that, in meetings and correspondence with Father Bannon over several years, his efforts to learn more about the Legionaries and Regnum Christi and their ministry in St. Paul-Minneapolis brought responses that** “tended to be vague and ambiguous, characterized by generalizations about intent and policy.”**

While the Legionaries’ written materials speak of cooperation with local churches, he said, in his archdiocese “practice has not seemed to match theory in that regard. . . . Our pastors continue to sense that a ‘parallel church’ is being encouraged, one that separates persons from the local parish and archdiocese and creates competing structures.”

“As a result,” he wrote to Father Bannon, “I have decided that Legionary of Christ priests are not to be active in any way in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.”

Lay Catholics “have a canonical right to join associations of the faithful, such as Regnum Christi, [but] not all such associations are officially approved or supported” in every diocese, the letter said.

Since the organization operates outside normal church structures such as parishes and schools, **“there is no opportunity for me to exercise appropriate vigilance in their regard,” ** the archbishop wrote.

In my opinion, any group that responds to a Bishop like this should be run out of town. For a Bishop to do otherwise is a deriliction of duty. He is the one responsible to Jesus and the Pope regarding what happens here, not you.

From Bones: Exactly how vague were the answers? What Liturgy? I don’t understand. I was asking an honest question.

Finally, Bones, you don’t live in this Archdiocese. If the Bishop says the answers were vague, I believe him. If they weren’t acceptable to him, I believe him. If he didn’t think this group was good for hte diocese, I accept his decision.

We have or have had some of the best Bishops in the nation here. Bishop Carlson (now in Saginaw), Bishop Aquila (ND and currently Apostolic Administrator for Eastern SD), Bishop Chaput(Denver), Bishop Cupich (Western SD). None of these good Bishops have uttered the slightest hint of criticism about Archbishop Flynn but instead are almost sappy in their praise. We appreciate your concern but we consider ourselves blessed. Now please quit casting aspersions on our Good Archbishop.

 

[Donna_P]

I voted OTHER

No one on this thread knows the WHY of the “censorship”. We don’t even know that it is a censorship.

Stop the speculation. Here are two men of GOd that need our prayers - so pray!

 

[Catholic29]

Since no one replied to my post # 90 in this thread. I have begun another thread for it regarding another not so minor issue within the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis.

And here it is: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=105816

Since the levels of charity have deteriorated here, I’m certain this thread will be soon closed. But I can say I’m not suprised as hot button issues tend to do that.

 

[Eileen_T]

Orionthehunter:

There is a difference between a member of the flock in his diocese wanting to know something and someone a thousand miles away. Secondly, personnel matters in the U.S. are between the employee and employer. Colleauges don’t have the right to know everything.

You misunderstood. I am not wanting to know what the Archbishop’s reasons were. My comment was more in nature of a general remark following your statement *he has no obligation to say other than “I have my reasons”. *

I was simply making a comment that I personally find that sort of comment frustrating. I may have phrased it awkwardly.

I believe that the Arch has the authority to deal with one of his priests in whatever way he sees fit. That is between him, the priest, Rome and, ultimately, God.

I am disappointed that I cannot benefit further from Fr Altier’s excellent homilies, but, hey, we still have Fr Corapi and EWTN.

 

[bones_IV]

Orionthehunter:

This is from the link BobR provided regarding the Archbishop’s decision regarding this group.

In my opinion, any group that responds to a Bishop like this should be run out of town. For a Bishop to do otherwise is a deriliction of duty. He is the one responsible to Jesus and the Pope regarding what happens here, not you.

Finally, Bones, you don’t live in this Archdiocese. If the Bishop says the answers were vague, I believe him. If they weren’t acceptable to him, I believe him. If he didn’t think this group was good for hte diocese, I accept his decision.

We have or have had some of the best Bishops in the nation here. Bishop Carlson (now in Saginaw), Bishop Aquila (ND and currently Apostolic Administrator for Eastern SD), Bishop Chaput(Denver), Bishop Cupich (Western SD). None of these good Bishops have uttered the slightest hint of criticism about Archbishop Flynn but instead are almost sappy in their praise. We appreciate your concern but we consider ourselves blessed. Now please quit casting aspersions on our Good Archbishop.

It seems to me that, that there’s no evidence that Regnum Christi was starting a parallel church. I’m just saying, there’s not enough evidence.

 

[Lurch104]

Orionthehunter:

Frankly, I mind my own business on such administrative matters in your diocese.

My diocese is an orthodox diocese. All Regnum Christi and the Legion are welcomed here with open arms.

Remember were are ONE, Holy, CATHOLIC (universal), Apostolic. One and Ctholic mean that when someone tries to suppress the faith in your diocese, it effects me in my diocese.

By the way, allowing error is not an administrative matter. You may think the Rainbow Sashers are an administrative function, I believe that it is a matter of teaching the truth.

 

[Lurch104]

BobR:

Their cult-like recruiting methods left our family with a bad feeling.
The bishop’s reasons for the ban can be found in this article from the archdioces’ official newspaper.

Well I guess your family and the Bishop Flynn both disagree with PJPII and B16.

I sleep well at night following the Pope’s lead.

 

[Orionthehunter]

bones_IV:

It seems to me that, that there’s no evidence that Regnum Christi was starting a parallel church. I’m just saying, there’s not enough evidence.

As I’ve observed my Archbishop (while not as close as those who live under his direct purview) from my diocese under his arch-diocese, I’m comfortable accepting his determination that they were not appropriate for our archdiocese. Do I know if they are “correct”? No but based on his full body of work, to question him is unfair.

Lurch, your effort to combine the teaching challenges regarding the St. Joan of Arc parish and the rainbow sash activists with the legitimate administrative authority of our Archbishop regarding Father Altier’s responsibilities as a diocesan Priest (a good holy man) and the Legion is not responsible and implies assertions that are false witness.

And your assertion that the Archbishop’s decision puts him at odds w/ the Pope is ludicrous. What is right and good in some places may not be so in others. That is why the Bishops have their teaching authority. And your statement that you sleep well implies that somehow we are heterodox wreaks of sanctimony.

 

[bones_IV]

Lurch104:

My diocese is an orthodox diocese. All Regnum Christi and the Legion are welcomed here with open arms.

Remember were are ONE, Holy, CATHOLIC (universal), Apostolic. One and Ctholic mean that when someone tries to suppress the faith in your diocese, it effects me in my diocese.

By the way, allowing error is not an administrative matter. You may think the Rainbow Sashers are an administrative function, I believe that it is a matter of teaching the truth.

The rainbow sashers are heretics.