Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

[Sirach2]

The Holy See did not change this (at least back then) but did allow certain episcopal conferences to request an indult under extraordinary circumstances.

You were active in the old thread with Floresco, where we went round and round over whether or not they were actually given permission by Pope Paul VI. Indeed, they were given permission, in 1969, and the Pope’s instruction accompanied said permission. He was not barring them, and I seriously doubt anyone has proof that this was happening “randomly” and forced the Pope’s hand. That comment is unbefitting his office, to suggest that he kowtows to pressure without any other choice in the matter. Internet bloggers like to spread tales in order to support their position. (Just as you are doing here, when you know in fact, that this was discussed thoroughly in this very forum.)

 

[R_C]

Of course I’m full of pride when I receive Him.

I stated that the post was full of pride. Have you eyes without seeing?

As far as the rest of your post? How dare you judge
my level or the level of reverence anyone else is
experiencing or try to dictate such?

Where have I judged your level of reverence?

Where have I judged anyone’s level of reverence?

Where have I (tried to) dictate anyone’s level of reverence?

But your affirmation I do judge, because in good conscience all Catholics must correct and admonish when it is called forth. To refrain from doing so arises from a spirit of pusillanimity too often present in our days. Christ is present in any Mass and grants His grace ex opere operato, but the ways in which the Divine Liturgy is offered changes the way in which the faithful receive those graces.

Are you so blinded by your prejudice you can’t see
your disrespect of Him in your statements trying to
depict your own reverence?

Mine own reverence is merely adherence to the reverence of the Church Universal in imitation of the lives of the saints. It is not judgmental. It is not preferential. I do not esteem holier a man who receives on the tongue and kneeling. I do not esteem irreverent a man who receives in his hands and standing. The Church Fathers, saints, and Popes have expressed themselves on this pastoral matter.

The point is, was, and always
will be Him, not your rigid adherence to some sort of
piety approved by you.

By the Holy Church, Bride of the Lamb. The Mother knows better. The Bride knows the Bridegroom.

Don’t attack me if your argument is weak, please. Division is of the devil, and I do not say that communion on the hand is illicit, merely that there is a reason for communion on the tongue.

 

[R_C]

You were active in the old thread with Floresco, where we went round and round over whether or not they were actually given permission by Pope Paul VI. Indeed, they were given permission, in 1969, and the Pope’s instruction accompanied said permission.

You are stating falsehood, Sirach2, and perhaps knowingly.

The Memoriale Domini was not a universal permission. It required episcopal conferences to vote on the matter and request permission to the Holy See, which would consider granting an indult. The “permission” attached was a mere sample of how the actual indult would look like if granted by the Holy See. No forum discussion can change the facts. Anyone can verify this by reading the Instruction itself.

I seriously doubt anyone has proof that this was happening “randomly” and forced the Pope’s hand.

You are contradicting Paul VI himself, for he stated: “in certain communities and in certain places this practice [of communion in the hand] has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately”. This means communion in the hand was happening randomly.

But the Pope’s hand was not forced - he denied a change in the ordinary way of receiving Holy Communion:

in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

He did concede the possibility of the Holy See granting an indult, and delineated how to request it.

Internet bloggers like to spread tales in order to support their position. (Just as you are doing here

Your insinuations are unbecoming of a Catholic and most offensive. I ask you refrain from pinning base accusations on my person and to focus on the arguments at hand. It is not the first time you insult me on this forum. You must stop doing so.

 

[simple_soul]

There is much pride in this statement.

Only a deep lack of awareness of the sense of the sacred and of the essence of gratiae ex opere operantis would bring forth such an argument. All valid and licit Holy Masses are equal in dignity. A reverent Holy Mass in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is not inferior to any E.F. Mass. But to deny the serious issues that for forty years have affected the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, which have been addressed by and manifested openly by the wisest theologians and liturgists and by the Holy Fathers themselves is indeed the true foolishness. Irreverence against the temple is the only thing that brought out Christ’s wrath during His public ministry. How much chastisement have poor celebrations of the NO brought upon the Church…how much graces have devout and reverent celebrations of any Divine Liturgy in any Catholic Rite brought upon the whole world!

Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi. According to how we pray, we shall believe and live.

If you believe that the Lord of Hosts is before you, you should follow the impulse of the soul to honor and revere him with the simplicity of a little child, not caring about what others around may say or think.

Which is why for thousands of years the Church (at least in the Latin Rite) had custom of genuflecting and receiving on the tongue. If it made no difference, they would have sat around a table and passed the fragments of Eucharist to one another.

But every gesture, every expression, every action and omission means something in the divine liturgy.

For many, touching the Most Blessed Sacrament simply feels disrespectful and thus they refrain from doing so. For many, bending the knee before the Living God is the only way to go. This is not passing judgment on those who don’t.

But my question is: do those who receive on their hand and standing have a reason for doing so, or do they just do it because that’s the way they learned it / that’s the way everyone’s doing it? That kind of introspection is most desirable. One should plan Holy Communion like a bride plans how she will receive her bridegroom. Every gesture, smile, every word, every kiss…all will mean something…may we grow in awareness of the Real Presence of Christ and receive Him with ever-increasing reverence and devotion, according to the precepts and rubrics of Holy Mother Church and in respectful memory of the traditions of our Fathers in the faith.

I am only sharing this because you asked and to hopefully show you how it has helped increase and continues to help me increase my love and reverence of the profound reality of Jesus’ real Presence in the Eucharist.

Not sure if it will help you with your question but here it is anyway…

I will have to say that for me, receiving Jesus in my hand is so humbling and reassuring.
The first few times I received Him in my hand all I could here was what I had been told of how bad it was! How wrong it is! How irreverent it is! And yet,…when the Priest placed Him in my hand I held Him there in reverential awe as tenderly as I could. Looked at Him for a moment and realized how reassuring He was to me just sitting there in my hand. How weak and vulnerable and trusting He was in me and how reassuring He was to me seeing Him there…it was overwhelming and that I was not sinning or desecrating Him while He sat and as I picked Him up with my right hand and put Him into my mouth. As I consumed Him I realized in a more profound way how much He loved me and wanted to be intimate with me and in-spite of how unworthy I felt of Him, He found me worthy…and wanted nothing more than to heal me from all my brokenness…to protect me from all my enemies who lay like a lion does for its prey. I still marvel at how He has reduced Himself to food for me…and how no matter how unworthy I am He lets me hold Him…and then consume Him…I marvel at how He must really love me but it is a real, deep, sustaining kind of love. Not one that is based on the high of the moment but the kind of love that knows my pain, my anguish, and fears and helps me through them. Helps me to bear them and heals me of them and takes them upon Himself by giving His very life for me. I want to cherish Him. When I see Him in my hand I want to take Him start to my heart and cherish Him there letting keeping Him there trying the best that I can to just protect Him and keep Him as close to me as I can. Then after I have consumed Him and am holding Him there right next to my heart He gently rinds me that it is I who need to be protect and so I just hold Him in my heart and let Him protect me and heal me.

I believe the reason I still do receive Him in the hand when I go to an OF of the Liturgy is because for me it drives home the point to cherish Him and it humbles me knowing how unworthy I am to be holding Him and it reminds me every time that in spite of my unworthiness He wants to have a very real and intimate and healing relationship with me that is very real, sustaining and ongoing and will be completed when He takes me home someday… Knowing Him this way lets me know a Peace, Hope and Joy that is like nothing of this world and that I can only describe as being Him. His Promising Kiss. That He will always be faithful to me no matter how much fear, doubt or second guessing I am filled with…or how many times I forget to just let go of trying to make myself better instead of just trusting Him to make me better…and no matter how much I goof up along the way…I know He is with me…

So even if the Church did away with CITH I will always thank Jesus all the time for having the opportunity of Him humbling Himself and letting me come to know Him in this intimate way through receiving Him in my hand. It is an experience I take with me no matter how I receive Him.

 

[ProVobis]

Just look at the outlandish, off-topic junk brought up in the last days post that have zero to do with the form of Mass, the language used of anything else relevant to a truly logical discussion.

I think the translations of Vatican II, Apostolic Constitutions, and other documents are very important. It might not be so obvious but as I pointed out on another forum even tiny inaccuracies of conversions such as metric from/to English systems, can have devasting and costly effects ultimately. And those conversions are more scientific than language translations, which are more artistic in nature. I’ll agree that the old Mass is just as prone to any liturgical abuse as the new Mass.

 

[agnes_therese]

Division is of the devil, and I do not say that communion on the hand is illicit, merely that there is a reason for communion on the tongue.

It does not automatically follow that there is not reason for communion in the hand.

I approach my Lord as a beggar, with empty hands, and He fills them with the only true food.

 

[ProVobis]

We forget that the change in the matter of receiving was made before the Missale Romanum was issued. In 1964, the communion formula was changed and in time the communion rails were removed and standing became the norm. Even if the New Mass had not been promulgated, CITH would probably have been introduced IMO.

 

[Sirach2]

You are stating falsehood, Sirach2, and perhaps knowingly.

The Memoriale Domini was not a universal permission. It required episcopal conferences to vote on the matter and request permission to the Holy See, which would consider granting an indult. The “permission” attached was a mere sample of how the actual indult would look like if granted by the Holy See. No forum discussion can change the facts. Anyone can verify this by reading the Instruction itself.

You know full well that this was the disproved in the aforementioned thread. It was NOT a “sample” letter, but an official letter addressed to various Bishops. Mark Thompson even noted this with the footnote that explained it clearly. Now let’s stop the twisting and go with the truth. Read the thread, R_C.
Floresco tried her utmost to convince us it was a sample or form letter, just as you are doing again, even though you saw the thread. Read his post confirming the authenticity of permission granted.

Originally Posted by floresco View Post
The asterisk appears to refer to a name to be filled in when used. Basically, it opens “Most Reverend _________” . This is just what we would expect in a form letter.

No, the asterisk refers to the footnote at the bottom of the page, which says:

• Hanc Epistulam g. [sic] Congregatio pro Cultu Divino sua cuiusque lingua exaratam Indultum petentibus misit.
  quid est, anglice,
• The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship sent this letter, in the respective language of each,** to those seeking a written indult**.
  It is, thus, not a “form letter” to be filled in later, but an example, in just one language of what had already been sent in various [respective languages]

I invite you to read it again for yourself, AAS 61 (1969) 546-547. The fact that you continue to oppose this despite its official entry into AAS tells me you are being contrary, whether willfully or forgetfully.

 

[AlexV]

Communion in the hand in recent times in the Latin Rite began as an abuse that eventually became the new normal; I well recall being told in 1981 as a first communicant that it was “wrong” to receive on the tongue and that “now we receive in the hand” (a common refrain in the 70s and 80s and beyond, whereby a divide was posited between what we used to do in those old, unenlightened days, and what we do now in these glorious days of springtime).

 

[marywarfield]

I am indeed speaking in a general sense and not making individual judgements, but there does appear to be a general sense of casualness, almost as if we have forgotten what is really present.

If the Lord appeared to you today what would you do? Would you walk over to Him say “Hi,” and shake His hand? Or would your response to Him be very different from that?

Is Jesus your friend, or is He your Lord and your God?

Well I guess I would hang silently in the back
until He was done being duly impressed with
your reverence. And then see if He hands me
the hand sanitizer.

 

[thewanderer]

I am indeed speaking in a general sense and not making individual judgements, but there does appear to be a general sense of casualness, almost as if we have forgotten what is really present.

If the Lord appeared to you today what would you do? Would you walk over to Him say “Hi,” and shake His hand? Or would your response to Him be very different from that?

Is Jesus your friend, or is He your Lord and your God?

He is indeed both at the same time. It is indeed one of the many great wonders and mysteries of our religion that God himself should come to us and desire a deeply personal and intimate relationship with each and every one of us. Why do you ask?

 

[OraLabora]

He is indeed both at the same time. It is indeed one of the many great wonders and mysteries of our religion that God himself should come to us and desire a deeply personal and intimate relationship with each and every one of us. Why do you ask?

Beautifully put!

 

[agnes_therese]

He is indeed both at the same time. It is indeed one of the many great wonders and mysteries of our religion that God himself should come to us and desire a deeply personal and intimate relationship with each and every one of us. Why do you ask?

Lovely. Thank you.

 

[marywarfield]

I am indeed speaking in a general sense and not making individual judgements, but there does appear to be a general sense of casualness, almost as if we have forgotten what is really present.

If the Lord appeared to you today what would you do? Would you walk over to Him say “Hi,” and shake His hand? Or would your response to Him be very different from that?

Is Jesus your friend, or is He your Lord and your God?

I would also like to ask this?
You said: If the Lord appeared to you today…

Brendan the Lord appears everyday. For me most
recently at 12:00 noon Mass.

That is my point Brendan… If implies He has not
appeared yet when worship the Eucharist we are
worshipping the person of Christ, really there
Brendan, truly, substantially there.

So would I do? I would do what I do everyday.

So I guess I miss your point.

 

[otjm]

What motivated the initial disobedience that led to the indult allowing Communion in the hand eventually being granted in the first place?

You might want to go back through some comments made in another thread; I believe that Brother JR has fairly well laid that issue of “disobedience” to rest.

 

[Brendan_64]

You might want to go back through some comments made in another thread; I believe that Brother JR has fairly well laid that issue of “disobedience” to rest.

So what came first then, the practice of Communion in the hand, or the indult allowing it for certain Bishops Conference?

Permission to allow something doesn’t work retrospectively. Do something it is allowed represents an act of disobedience.

 

[Brendan_64]

So I guess I miss your point.

My point is if Christ appeared directly in front of us (outside of Holy Communion) would we simply stand there, smile and shake His hand, or would we drop down on our knees in awe and reverence? People bow and curtsy to the Queen of England, are we happy to give Christ the equivalent of a handshake?

But back to your earlier point. You wanted me to answer something you’d asked about the NO and criticised me for not answering. I asked you then to specifically highlight the question you wanted me to answer. Could you please put that question to me? Unless you put the question to me, I cannot answer it?

 

[otjm]

So what came first then, the practice of Communion in the hand, or the indult allowing it for certain Bishops Conference?

Permission to allow something doesn’t work retrospectively. Do something it is allowed represents an act of disobedience.

Communion in the hand was already operative in the Roman rite from some time within the 1200’s. See, again, Bro, JR.

:You certainly are welcome to go to Europe and investigate the reasoning behind the start of it in a wider practice than the Franciscans (you might want to get that ticket soon, because age is going to make your research a bit difficult - some of them have already died off). But again back to Bro. JR, his comment notes that it is only the traditionalists who use the term “disobedience” because it suits their desire to suppress CITH. Not because it reflects reality, but because it brings shades of ill-repute to the matter.

CITH was present in the Church for the first have of the existence of the Church (as well as COTT). It was then reinstated, albeit in limited circumstances, in the 1200’s with the Franciscans.

The Church holds that if a speck of the Host is so small as to be indistinguishable from whatever other detritus may be around, that the True Presence no longer subsists.

So - while we are at it, with those who are aghast that some unidentifiable speck is somehow being ignored, let’s go back to the cloth that was on the Communion rails, and would be flipped up on top just before people started receiving.

Once Communion was received by all, the cloth was then again flipped back down. No purification of the cloth occurred, whatsoever. And this was well before the OF, or CITH, or any of the other complaints made herein existed.

In no way am I suggesting irreverence to the Eucharist. The bottom line is that there are some who are absolutely against CITH, and will always hold the position that appears to say that those who receive CITH are grossly irreverent, never mind they won’t come right out with it. Evocative emotional language like “popping it in their mouth” is indicative of the level of distortion brought to bear on the subject.

I suspect that criticism would go back to the very founding of the Church.

 

[marywarfield]

My point is if Christ appeared directly in front of us (outside of Holy Communion) would we simply stand there, smile and shake His hand, or would we drop down on our knees in awe and reverence? People bow and curtsy to the Queen of England, are we happy to give Christ the equivalent of a handshake?

But back to your earlier point. You wanted me to answer something you’d asked about the NO and criticised me for not answering. I asked you then to specifically highlight the question you wanted me to answer. Could you please put that question to me? Unless you put the question to me, I cannot answer it?

1. I would do neither. I would as I said, wait silently until
   He indicated He even knew I was there or wanted
   something. That is what I do with everyone Brendan
   and our priests.
   I have no interest in the Queen one way or another.
   As far as the the only President or governors
   I have ever met- I shook their hands. That’s what
   people do here.
   But considering Christ is omnipotent He would
   know: that I was present, my name, and the state
   of my soul. Therefore I’m sure when He got around to
   it His directions would be something I could follow.
2. Is it blasphemy to claim a fully licit and valid
   Mass promulgated by the Vatican is intrinsically
   evil or a form of Satanism?

 

[thewanderer]

My point is if Christ appead directly in front of us (outside of Holy Communion) would we simply stand there, smile and shake His hand, or would we drop down on our knees in awe and reverence? People bow and curtsy to the Queen of England, are we happy to give Christ the equivalent of a handshake?

I take it, Brendan, that this is also the answer to my question “why do you ask?”. Though it is still not a very clear answer. Really what this argument is is an attempt to belittle one external action by insinuating that anybody who was really actually reverant would perform a different external action. The odd thing about this is I always hear it used to advocate kneeling, genuflecting, and receiving on the tongue, yet it is very clear that a full prostration is an external action connected even more strongly to reverence. Which means that the very same argument used for kneeling can be used against kneeling. After all, we are talking about God here, don’t you want to give your best? Which would you rather do if you came face to face with the Creator of the universe, kneel? Or get down completely on the ground in awe of His majesty and holiness?

The point being that we have to avoid insinuating that it is inherently less reverent to stand or receive on the tongue just as we should avoid insinuating that those who kneel are lacking in reverance because they do not fully prostrate themselves. Reverence is an internal disposition. Unless a persons external actions are clearly meant to express irreverence we cannot assume that they are not being extremely reverant. To do so would be rash judgment. And so, if you claim or argue that standing is inherently less reverant you will be implicitly guilty of rash judgment as such a universal inherently includes the idea that all the individuals who stand are being less reverant simply because they stand. As I cautioned you before, be very careful, your thoughts as expressed here are veering dangerously close to rash judgment.