Was the Novus Ordo Mass an infallible declaration?

[Sirach2]

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

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.

One does not need to read the profile of the person who uses this disrespect, for it will 99% of the time belong to a traditionalist. As Brother said further,

But very often, the Traditionalist world, one hears these terms deliberately used with the full intent of demeaning, rejecting and even condescending. That’s not part of Catholic tradition.

If we’re going to defend tradition the first tradition that we must protect is respect. If we examine our Catholic tradition one of the hallmarks of our saints and leaders is their demeanor. It’s always a very respectful one in tone and deed.** In this world of traditionalism, we often seem to behave as if we have the right or the obligation to be condescending, dismissive and at times even crude in how we refer to the sacred, the clergy, or the Church in general**. That’s something that we need to avoid like a plague. It does not make for good evangelization. On the contrary,** it only makes enemies.** The object must always be to draw men toward divine union, not to repel them with our attitude.

And in another excellent response here (emphasis mine):

Let’s dispels some myths here.
First: Communion in the hand began as an act of disobedience.
This is not true. This is a myth that was created by Traditionalists in order to find a justification to condemn CITH. The truth is more simple and less exciting. In Europe, certain bishops authorized communion in the hand in their dioceses. Therefore, the priests who took advantage of the permission were not being disobedient.

The bishops who did so did not ask Rome for permission. This part is true. However, canonically, this does not constitute disobedience on the part of the bishops involved, because Canon Law is very clear the the diocesan bishop is the highest liturgical authority in his diocese. The question that was raised was whether or not the law covered this particular action on the part of the bishops.

To settle the issue, the Holy See issued an indult that is available to any conference of bishops that asks for it or to any individual bishop who asks for it. However, it is understood that the diocesan bishop always has the final word on the matter.

May we put this myth to rest, please? I guess there haven’t been many CITH threads lately, so traditionalists are reigniting their fury to condemn the action with a lot of false or misleading information designed to demean. As I reported earlier, the indult was granted in AAS 61 in 1969 by Pope Paul VI, and more recently inserted as a general permission in the GIRM 161.

1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or,** where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant.** As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes the whole of it.

 

[AlexV]

The best book on the matter of Communion in the hand is probably Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s “Dominus est,” complete with foreword by Archbishop Rajnith.

 

[Sirach2]

The best book on the matter of Communion in the hand is probably Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s “Dominus est,” complete with foreword by Archbishop Rajnith.

Memory tells me that this Abp. was utterly against CITH, so in advising one to read the book, you fail to mention that they will be flooded with rationale to avoid it. Yet this is only one opinion out of over five thousand bishops who many not be in agreement with him.

(More traditionalist propaganda)

 

[agnes_therese]

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.

In that case, there has been no disobedience in the matter since the indult. So why does it matter so much? Why is it so often brought up against people who receive in the hand when it is allowed? It has absolutely nothing to do with receiving Communion in the hand now.

 

[AlexV]

One could also say that everything one sees at, say, certain major gatherings of clergy and faithful to celebrate religious education conferences in major cities of the USA is…“allowed,” if an archbishop or other ordinary is present year after year and doesn’t say anything.

Lots of things are “allowed,” more or less, either rubrically or by the express or implicit permission of the local ordinary.

That doesn’t mean such things are above criticism.

 

[Sirach2]

In that case, there has been no disobedience in the matter since the indult. So why does it matter so much? Why is it so often brought up against people who receive in the hand when it is allowed? It has absolutely nothing to do with receiving Communion in the hand now.

How true, Agnes. “They think by their much saying, they will be heard.”

 

[Brendan_64]

1. Is it blasphemy to claim a fully licit and valid
   Mass promulgated by the Vatican is intrinsically
   evil or a form of Satanism?

Again I ask you, what is the question you want me to answer. You have made a statement, a statement is not a question. Is this statement supposed to be the question I ignored earlier? Even though it wasn’t actually a question and it wasn’t addressed to me?

Where do you get the idea thst I disagree with your statement anyway? Why would I automatically respond to every statement posted by you, or anyone else for that matter, particularly when I actually agree with the statement?

 

[agnes_therese]

One could also say that everything one sees at, say, certain major gatherings of clergy and faithful to celebrate religious education conferences in major cities of the USA is…“allowed,” if an archbishop or other ordinary is present year after year and doesn’t say anything.

Lots of things are “allowed,” more or less, either rubrically or by the express or implicit permission of the local ordinary.

That doesn’t mean such things are above criticism.

I would think a papal indult should deserve more respect than the “implicit permission of the local ordinary.”

 

[ProVobis]

Communion in the hand was already operative in the Roman rite from some time within the 1200’s.

So were female servers in convents at some other point in time, I’m sure. What’s the real point of stating such precedence, especially when it’s condemned or banned from general use later?

 

[Brendan_64]

So were female servers in convents at some other point in time, I’m sure. What’s the real point of stating such precedence, especially when it’s condemned or banned from general use later?

It sets a precedence that if at any point in the past, no matter how far back in the past, a certain practice was in existence in the Church, then current disciplinary rules can be ignored. It also represents a rejection of the authority of Rome.

 

[thewanderer]

It sets a precedence that if at any point in the past, no matter how far back in the past, a certain practice was in existence in the Church, then current disciplinary rules can be ignored. It also represents a rejection of the authority of Rome.

I know it may seem like I’m picking on you, I really don’t mean to, I have followed you in other threads in the past and really liked a lot of what you had to say. But I’m afraid this post is out of line. ProVobis was specifically asking otjm why otjm mentioned that communion in the hand was at one time allowed. In response you claim that the reason is to try to make it easier to ignore current disciplinary rules and that it displays a rejection of the authority of Rome!! You do realize that because of the way this conversation has gone your post is clearly attributing these things to a specific person, otjm, when we have no reason, from what is written in this thread, to make any such assumption??

Something to reflect on from the Catechism

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.277 He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;278
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478** To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it.** But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.279

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[ProVobis]

ProVobis was specifically asking otjm why otjm mentioned that communion in the hand was at one time allowed.

Actually more specifically allowed in certain settings, such as monastic. They obviously have their own rules and matters of spirituality than the mainstream.

 

[Brendan_64]

I know it may seem like I’m picking on you, I really don’t mean to, I have followed you in other threads in the past and really liked a lot of what you had to say. But I’m afraid this post is out of line. ProVobis was specifically asking otjm why otjm mentioned that communion in the hand was at one time allowed. In response you claim that the reason is to try to make it easier to ignore current disciplinary rules and that it displays a rejection of the authority of Rome!! You do realize that because of the way this conversation has gone your post is clearly attributing these things to a specific person, otjm, when we have no reason, from what is written in this thread, to make any such assumption??

I am not attributing such things to otjm, or anyone else, at all.

I am simply saying that to claim that there was no disobedience relating to when Communion in the Hand started to be used after Vatican II (before an indult was granted) when the disciplinary rules at the time did not permit it, because it had been used 1,000 years before sets a precedence indicating that the disciplinary rules of the Church can be over-ruled by an individual if there is historical evidence to support this disobedience. I am talking about what happened between Vatican II and the indult being granted. Ignoring disciplinary rules does represent disobedience to Rome, and that is what happened in that period.

I am attributing the disobedience to those who acted in this fashion before an indult was granted. Communion in the hand after an indult (as is the case today in the Bishops Conference areas where an indult has been granted) is entirely legitimate and does not represent disobedience to Rome.

Please don’t read into my post something I haven’t specifically stated. If I was going to attribute something to any particular poster then I would be very clear that I was doing so. I tend to be quite frank by nature.

CCC 2478 could also be also applied to how you should interpret my post? I can honestly say that I was not attributing such things to otjm.

 

[pnewton]

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?

I wouldn’t stick my tongue out at him.

I only make this jest to illustrate the limitation of such comparisons, which is, basically they are useless beyond the interior thoughts of the heart, none of which can be discerned by another. Liturgy changes over time with a good reason. Liturgy changes from place to place with good reason. Much of what we do is a response to the culture and an accommodation. The Church accommodates us because she is guided by the Holy Spirit and God is accommodating, coming down to Earth in humanity and bread and meeting us at our basest level.

I think what we lose we talk about reverence is that we want to see Mass as something presented for Saints, as in those who have put aside all attachment to sin and will not need the purification of Purgatory. Not all have yet arrived where we are. If Jesus was willing to take the steps of humility he did, then his bride must be willing to do the same. I know it is an irritation to the holy that we see irreverence in Mass, but just view that irritation as a sign that we have not yet learned to see as Jesus saw.

 

[thewanderer]

Can you honestly say that you do not see how the following implies (whether or not you intended to imply this) that otjm wishes to promote disobedience and rejects the authority of Rome?

ProVobis;11992113:

otjm;11991118:

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

So were female servers in convents at some other point in time, I’m sure. What’s the real point of stating such precedence, especially when it’s condemned or banned from general use later?

It sets a precedence that if at any point in the past, no matter how far back in the past, a certain practice was in existence in the Church, then current disciplinary rules can be ignored. It also represents a rejection of the authority of Rome.

Really?

otjm makes a historical statement, ProVobis asks him what the point of making that statement is, and you reply by saying the point is to spread disobedience and that it shows a rejection of Church authority.

I really fail to see how anyone can claim your post does not imply that otjm wishes disobedience and rejects Church authority. I do recognize that you did not intend to imply that and that is something I should have been more careful about in my own post, making it clear that I am not claiming you intended to imply this about otjm, but it is there nonetheless.

I am not attributing such things to otjm, or anyone else, at all.

I am simply saying that to claim that there was no disobedience relating to when Communion in the Hand started to be used after Vatican II (before an indult was granted) when the disciplinary rules at the time did not permit it, because it had been used 1,000 years before sets a precedence indicating that the disciplinary rules of the Church can be over-ruled by an individual if there is historical evidence to support this disobedience. I am talking about what happened between Vatican II and the indult being granted. Ignoring disciplinary rules does represent disobedience to Rome, and that is what happened in that period.

I am attributing the disobedience to those who acted in this fashion before an indult was granted. Communion in the hand after an indult (as is the case today in the Bishops Conference areas where an indult has been granted) is entirely legitimate and does not represent disobedience to Rome.

Please don’t read into my post something I haven’t specifically stated. If I was going to attribute something to any particular poster then I would be very clear that I was doing so. I tend to be quite frank by nature.

CCC 2478 could also be also applied to how you should interpret my post? I can honestly say that I was not attributing such things to otjm.

I am glad to hear it and I am sorry for not being more clear in my post that I did not mean to imply that you intended to imply these things about otjm, but rather that, intended or not, they were implied.

 

[Sirach2]

I am simply saying that to claim that there was no disobedience relating to when Communion in the Hand started to be used after Vatican II (before an indult was granted) when the disciplinary rules at the time did not permit it, because it had been used 1,000 years before sets a precedence indicating that the disciplinary rules of the Church can be over-ruled by an individual if there is historical evidence to support this disobedience. I am talking about what happened between Vatican II and the indult being granted. Ignoring disciplinary rules does represent disobedience to Rome, and that is what happened in that period.

I am attributing the disobedience to those who acted in this fashion before an indult was granted.

I’m really concerned that you hold such strong opinions personally, yet you completely disregard the teachings of others who know what they are talking about. Why is it that you did not read the excerpt I shared just a few posts ago from Brother JR? Are you calling his information false by overriding it with your own version? Let me post his words again in case you missed it.

The bishops who did so did not ask Rome for permission. This part is true. However, canonically, this does not constitute disobedience on the part of the bishops involved, because Canon Law is very clear the the diocesan bishop is the highest liturgical authority in his diocese. The question that was raised was whether or not the law covered this particular action on the part of the bishops

To settle the issue, the Holy See issued an indult that is available to any conference of bishops that asks for it or to any individual bishop who asks for it. However, it is understood that the diocesan bishop always has the final word on the matter.
.

It seems very clear that some bishops’ so-called disobedience did not constitute “setting a precedence to overrule the disciplinary rules of the Church.” Those who did not feel comfortable in proceding on their own authority, even though it was permitted by Canon Law, petitioned the Holy Father, and he granted permission, which eventually became a statute in the latest GIRM allowing ALL clergy to distribute in the hand. Surely, the Pope could have denied it, yes? But he did not. Nor did the other three popes who followed Paul VI, who could also have recinded the permission on their own Authority by Motu Proprio.

You are quite wrong in continuing to present your views as truth, when it is far from it. This is what causes ruptures among innocent faithful who buy the lie without having all the facts. It is also calumnous to label these Bishops, our Shepherds, as disobedient and spread it to others.

 

[Brendan_64]

Can you honestly say that you do not see how the following implies (whether or not you intended to imply this) that otjm wishes to promote disobedience and rejects the authority of Rome?.

I am simply saying that I was not implying any such thing. How you, or others, interpret my post is not within my control.

Really?

Yes, really!

otjm makes a historical statement, ProVobis asks him what the point of making that statement is, and you reply by saying the point is to spread disobedience and that it shows a rejection of Church authority.

I do not see why you are persisting with this.

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

intend

to imply that and that is something I should have been more careful about in my own post, making it clear that I am not claiming you intended to imply this about otjm, but it is there nonetheless.

How can I unintentionally imply something? To imply something requires intent to imply something. If someone misinterprets my post as implying something (as you have) that does not mean I was actually implying it, simply that you mistakenly thought that I was.

intended

to imply these things about otjm, but rather that, intended or not, they were implied. No. I did not imply any such thing. To imply something requires intent to imply something. There was no intent on my part, therefore there was no implication on my part, simply your misinterpretation.

If you do you not accept my previous explanation of the post I made, then I cannot help that, and the issue is yours not mine.

 

[thewanderer]

I am simply saying that I was not implying any such thing. How you, or others, interpret my post is not within my control.

Yes, really!

I do not see why you are persisting with this.

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

How can I unintentionally imply something? To imply something requires intent to imply something. If someone misinterprets my post as implying something (as you have) that does not mean I was actually implying it, simply that you mistakenly thought that I was.

No. I did not imply any such thing. To imply something requires intent to imply something. There was no intent on my part, therefore there was no implication on my part, simply your misinterpretation.

If you do you not accept my previous explanation of the post I made, then I cannot help that, and the issue is yours not mine.

Since it is clear that you do not understand the distinction I am making and so are merely being upset I will have to drop this. I had simply hoped to make a point about being careful about the context of our words so that we do not unintentionally cast doubt upon others moral character. I am truly sorry if I have offended you in any way and I assure you I do not in any way attribute mal-intent to your post.

Peace

 

[thewanderer]

I am simply saying that I was not implying any such thing. How you, or others, interpret my post is not within my control.

Yes, really!

I do not see why you are persisting with this.

Are you accusing me of dishonesty?

How can I unintentionally imply something? To imply something requires intent to imply something. If someone misinterprets my post as implying something (as you have) that does not mean I was actually implying it, simply that you mistakenly thought that I was.

No. I did not imply any such thing. To imply something requires intent to imply something. There was no intent on my part, therefore there was no implication on my part, simply your misinterpretation.

If you do you not accept my previous explanation of the post I made, then I cannot help that, and the issue is yours not mine.

I am clearly upsetting you, and for that I am truly sorry.

The thing is that language has a set structure which can cause things to be implied by what you say whether or not you intend them to be implied. In this instance, the fact that ProVobis’ question was aimed directly at otjm’s statement means that an answer to ProVobis’ question will necessarily be directed towards otjm’s statement. If you ask a question about a particular statement by a particular person then the structure of language kind of demands that the answer actually speak about that particular statement. This is implied by the order of language whether or not the person answering the question intended it or not. If we do not keep this in mind we can end up, even unintentionally, implying that others are lacking in moral character.

If this clarification has not been sufficient to help explain my point to you then I will have to leave the conversation at that as it is clearly not being helpful and simply causing distress. I sincerely apologize for upsetting you and wish you to know that I do not in any way attribute mal-intent to you or your post.

Peace

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m really concerned that you hold such strong opinions personally, yet you completely disregard the teachings of others who know what they are talking about. Why is it that you did not read the excerpt I shared just a few posts ago from Brother JR? Are you calling his information false by overriding it with your own version? Let me post his words again in case you missed it…

I have the greatest of respect for Brother JR and agree with much (probably most) of what he writes on here. However I am entitled to a difference of opinion.

A Bishop may be the highest liturgical authority in his diocese, however, as with all Catholics, bishops are required to submit to the authority of Rome and the Supreme Pontif. If this was not the case then why were indults granted at all? If the bishop has full authority to do what he likes liturgically within his diocese then there would be no need for any indults. The fact is that bishops are subject to binding liturgical instruction from Rome (eg. Redemptionis Sacramentum, On Certain Questions Regarding The Collaboration Of The Non-Ordained Faithful In The Sacred Ministry Of Priest, etc.) despite being the highest liturgical authority in their own diocese.

Canon 331 states that the Supreme Pontif has supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church. This trumps the bishop’s authority within his diocese.

Those who did not feel comfortable in proceding on their own authority, even though it was permitted by Canon Law

No it is not. The Pope has supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.

Surely, the Pope could have denied it, yes? But he did not. Nor did the other three popes who followed Paul VI, who could also have recinded the permission on their own Authority by Motu Proprio.

Of cpurse they could have refused, but that does not mean that that means that permission was not required. Permission was indeed required and to act before permission was granted does constitute disobedience.

You are quite wrong in continuing to present your views as truth, when it is far from it.

I am free to express my views. I believe my views are in accordance with the teachings and rules of our Church.

To act in such a way as to give This is what causes ruptures among innocent faithful who buy the lie without having all the facts.

Nonsense. Are you now accusing me of lying? That is a pretty strong allegation to make.

It is also calumnous to label these Bishops, our Shepherds, as disobedient and spread it to others.

Now I am being accused of calumny, am I?

These accusations are out of order and I request that you retract them.