Wherein Fr. Z rants about repression of Communion on the tongue and about a “new normal”
- Status
P
puer.dei
Guest
The USCCB seems to be looking at not repressing it, so . . .
C
commenter
Guest
Well, never let a good outrage go to waste.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Looks like the bishops won the first round, Fr. Z. You’ll have to come up with something else to rant about in your next blog post.
S
stpurl
Guest
To be fair, there are probably at least a thousand things that bishops have stated on the USCCB website as procedure which neither all the bishops nor all the priests actually follow.
Did you bother to read the entire article? The mentions of individual bishops who despite what is stated by their fellows have decided to do things differently?
It’s all fine until it’s OUR bishop or the priest at OUR church who doesn’t follow a rule (if its a rule we happen to approve of. There is often never a cricket chirp when bishop A or Fathers C-P decide that contrary to the USCCB ‘they” will do something(s) THEIR different way. Because “pastoral’ you know.
I’m thankful that now my current bishop and priests are ‘going along’ but I had too many years where the adherence to the USCCB was ‘slim to none’ in my neck of the woods.
As one ages and has more experiences or more varied experiences than most (something which Father Z definitely has, especially with reflect to the clerical state, and which I and several regular posters here have experienced with the ‘lay’, unlike so many of you who are either younger and have luckily had mostly good experiences, or who have that happy frame of mind wherein ‘if Father/bishop does it, then I like it, no need to give me details, you’re just trying to cause trouble”… .
But it’s seldom the people who are happy with ‘status quo’ who effect positives. I’m sure that the majority of the priests and lay who just ‘let Roe V Wade go as it’s too much trouble to protest and just makes us look bad’ haven’t exactly helped change the situation. I’m sure the priests and lay who were uncomfortable with all those ‘civil rights marches’ and just wanted people to ‘live and let live’ didn’t exactly help change that situation.
Etc. etc.
Did you bother to read the entire article? The mentions of individual bishops who despite what is stated by their fellows have decided to do things differently?
It’s all fine until it’s OUR bishop or the priest at OUR church who doesn’t follow a rule (if its a rule we happen to approve of. There is often never a cricket chirp when bishop A or Fathers C-P decide that contrary to the USCCB ‘they” will do something(s) THEIR different way. Because “pastoral’ you know.
I’m thankful that now my current bishop and priests are ‘going along’ but I had too many years where the adherence to the USCCB was ‘slim to none’ in my neck of the woods.
As one ages and has more experiences or more varied experiences than most (something which Father Z definitely has, especially with reflect to the clerical state, and which I and several regular posters here have experienced with the ‘lay’, unlike so many of you who are either younger and have luckily had mostly good experiences, or who have that happy frame of mind wherein ‘if Father/bishop does it, then I like it, no need to give me details, you’re just trying to cause trouble”… .
But it’s seldom the people who are happy with ‘status quo’ who effect positives. I’m sure that the majority of the priests and lay who just ‘let Roe V Wade go as it’s too much trouble to protest and just makes us look bad’ haven’t exactly helped change the situation. I’m sure the priests and lay who were uncomfortable with all those ‘civil rights marches’ and just wanted people to ‘live and let live’ didn’t exactly help change that situation.
Etc. etc.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Y’all, I receive on the tongue. But, so far as I know, there has been no Church document that discusses the proper reception of Holy Communion which is considered infallible. My pastor would probably still let us receive on the tongue, however, he has asked for people receiving from extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to receive on the hand (well, he did about a week before Mass was publicly cancelled). I’m not going to say anything else about this.
I
IanM
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
S
stpurl
Guest
Just. …Wow. “Statement of personal piety?” You mean the universal norm of reception in the Church is now a ‘statement of personal piety?”
po18guy
Well-known member
The “Reporter” is a dissident, radical (in sheep’s clothing) progressive publication that has been asked by the Bishop to stop using the term “Catholic” due to the scandal they cause.
I cannot prove, but believe that they purposefully chose the almost identical and confusing title, in the hope of luring Nation Catholic Register readers to their site.
As to Fr. Z, Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Rants are tiring.
I cannot prove, but believe that they purposefully chose the almost identical and confusing title, in the hope of luring Nation Catholic Register readers to their site.
As to Fr. Z, Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Rants are tiring.
Last edited:
T
Tolle_Lege
Guest
Both true…the Reporter is rubbish.
Fr. Z…half his posts are rants, the other half are pictures of food he’s eaten or cooked. Used to read his site, but don’t really go there anymore.
T
twf
Guest
I used to love his blog as well…during +Benedict’s papacy, I thought it was a great blog. His liturgical insights in particular were always welcome. In the years since +Francis was elected, I’ve become increasingly turned off by his blog. The interjections of very American, very right-wing politics is also a turnoff for me.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Look, Fr. Z makes an annoying (to me) post once in a while. He still makes good posts often. And he blesses salt and says TLM every day and does other good things.
Pretty much every priest out there makes an annoying (to me) post or gives an annoying (to me) homily once in a while. They are human.
I don’t bother getting fired up about it unless it’s a priest who is constantly saying stuff that potentially leads the faithful astray. Which is relatively rare. Priests, by virtue of being priests, usually manage to keep themselves more in check than the lay commentators.
Fr. Z like all the priests is probably stressed out by this situation and maybe he expresses that by ranting in posts. I’m inclined to just scroll past it.
Pretty much every priest out there makes an annoying (to me) post or gives an annoying (to me) homily once in a while. They are human.
I don’t bother getting fired up about it unless it’s a priest who is constantly saying stuff that potentially leads the faithful astray. Which is relatively rare. Priests, by virtue of being priests, usually manage to keep themselves more in check than the lay commentators.
Fr. Z like all the priests is probably stressed out by this situation and maybe he expresses that by ranting in posts. I’m inclined to just scroll past it.
Last edited:
P
puer.dei
Guest
If this were an opinion piece, I’d be right there with you. But their political views have nothing to do with Archbishop Blair’s memorandum. Even LifeSite agrees that it exists.
P
pnewton
Guest
I used to see Fr. Z as a sort of balanced traditionalist, at least until this particular rant.
He plays to the conspiracy theorists:
But as to his main point, Redeptionis Sacrametuum is discipline, from Saint John Paul II. It is absurd to think that the late pontiff foresaw this development. He was addressing priest that were, for the sake of innovation, and their own personal preference (just like Fr. Z has), not giving communion in the hand. Would he be happier if these priests, or bishops, that do not trust the transmission of the virus by communion in the hand simply did not have public Mass? It seems so, and that floors me.
Then there is the issue of whether they are being obedient to the current pontiff, which he cannot possible know. Yes, there is email. But there is also the immediacy that Pope Francis could intervene if he saw the need. I see this whole issue as above his priestly pay grade.
He plays to the conspiracy theorists:
He judges millions to be in mortal sin:
He engages in sarcasm toward faithful:
I accept his usual agenda that everyone should receive communion his way, as it is the right way. I do not doubt that he is a good priest, though he might have been more suited to the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. But that is no crime. A lot of people are enamored of the past.
But as to his main point, Redeptionis Sacrametuum is discipline, from Saint John Paul II. It is absurd to think that the late pontiff foresaw this development. He was addressing priest that were, for the sake of innovation, and their own personal preference (just like Fr. Z has), not giving communion in the hand. Would he be happier if these priests, or bishops, that do not trust the transmission of the virus by communion in the hand simply did not have public Mass? It seems so, and that floors me.
Then there is the issue of whether they are being obedient to the current pontiff, which he cannot possible know. Yes, there is email. But there is also the immediacy that Pope Francis could intervene if he saw the need. I see this whole issue as above his priestly pay grade.
S
stpurl
Guest
You do recall that the universal norm for reception of communion is on the tongue though, right?
It’s a little bit more than ‘personal preference”
Now that being said, I don’t agree with everything Father Z says. But I don’t discount what he says without a bit of the ‘wait and see’ attitude. I have lived too long and seen too many priests and bishops who (I’m sure with the best intentions) always seemed to express something as “Church teaching” when it. Wasn’t. Quite. From the priests in the 1960s whose own desire for marriage and women priests went into not just a downplaying of actual teaching or a ‘hypothetical’ approach to outright denial of the teaching, from the shades of implementation of practices that were never part of Vatican 2 or were directly contrary, I may love and pray for priests and bishops and honor their service and their office, but I don’t find their every action impeccable. People can make mistakes.
It’s a little bit more than ‘personal preference”
Now that being said, I don’t agree with everything Father Z says. But I don’t discount what he says without a bit of the ‘wait and see’ attitude. I have lived too long and seen too many priests and bishops who (I’m sure with the best intentions) always seemed to express something as “Church teaching” when it. Wasn’t. Quite. From the priests in the 1960s whose own desire for marriage and women priests went into not just a downplaying of actual teaching or a ‘hypothetical’ approach to outright denial of the teaching, from the shades of implementation of practices that were never part of Vatican 2 or were directly contrary, I may love and pray for priests and bishops and honor their service and their office, but I don’t find their every action impeccable. People can make mistakes.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
So does half this forum.
Also, it is likely that there are at least some people at churches receiving unworthy Communion. If you figure one person per parish per Sunday, it’s still millions of people.
They may not be in mortal sin, but they are committing grave sin, whether or not they realize it’s grave.
I speak as one who probably received unworthy Communions most of the time when I bothered to receive at all for 30 years. Although the congregation would not have been able to guess my sins by looking, or by checking on the number of kids I had or any of that.
Last edited:
T
tstadheim
Guest
Emeraldlady
New member
Wow. This is confirmation that traditionalists don’t believe that CITH is legitimate at all and up to them is would be banned. His rant is at best irresponsible and at worst something sinister. Telling people not to receive CITH it it is the only way available, is literally denying the Presence of Christ in our Communion. Why on earth else would a Priest discourage people from receiving in this legitimate way? Very suspicious motives to me.
- Status