Angry Priests And Laity....?

[cmotherofpirl]

Having lived thru the transition from the what is now known as the EF to the NO I will point out there is far more prep for this transition than what we were given. We had several practices and that was it, we were informed it was a great thing and to get used to it, and Father started saying it. It was a very bewildering time. Even then I felt we were cheated - we had gone from an grownup ceremony to the kids version - there was no more mystery or solemnity. I am excited for this new translation!!!!

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294800568' post='2199216']
While there are some, I would argue that you are using an extreme example to prove a point. It has been my experience that the majority of those who receive on the tongue are far more reverent than those who receive in the hand. To make the allusion to your wearing a veil on the same level as the reception of Holy Communion is not the same, because there is no requirement to wear a veil. That is purely your choice.

As far as rebellion goes, the point is that by and large, those who lived through the 60s and became involved in Church leadership either on a lay or on heirarchical level were affected by the rebellious attitudes. Look into history and you will see that it has born itself to be true. They were/are rebellious for the sake of social change....that is a proven fact.

[b]While we cannot judge the person, we can judge his acts. And rebellion is an action. That is fully within our privy to do.
[/b]
We are One, Holy, catholic (not just Catholic) and Apostolic. To hold one accountable for how he worships is not to tear him down, [b]but to show him that there is a standard and that this standard applies for all, in a universal way, not just a few, in the way that they want. [/b]To fall into that trap is to fall into the trap that the SSPX fell into in the 1970s culimnating in outright suspension in 1988. I, for one, would like to NOT see that happen.
[/quote]


I know that you can judge an action. But the way that the original poster seems dissatisfied with those who do not worship Traditionally does not reflect judging some else's actions, but instead judging the type of person they are. Also, it is no longer considered rebellious to not wear a veil in Mass, etc, because the Church now says it's okay. If it was before Vatican II and I didn't wear a veil in Church, that would be rebellious. Therefore, you cannot judge anyone or their actions (in this case, not veiling) because it is no longer considered rebellious. So, really, to argue that the Traditional take on this issue is better because the opposite is "rebellious" would be incorrect and groundless.

What exactly do you mean here? I understand the point of "catholic" meaning "universal", but I'm confused about the whole "standard" thing. It sounds like you're saying that anyone who does not worship in the same Traditional way that you prefer is being a sub-standard Catholic. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to take what you're saying the wrong way. What I do understand is your concern for preventing others from straying from the Catholic Church's teachings. And I appreciate that.

[AudreyGrace]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294799973' post='2199211']
My argument would be that by reception of Holy Communion in the hand, one is actually self communicating, because rather than receiving our Lord, he is taking our Lord, as stated in the universal norm...still further, I would argue that reception from the cup is an even bigger abuse, based upon the same reasoning...that one takes the cup rather than receiving it.
[/quote]

I had a priest beautifully describe a type of symbolism associated with receiving Communion. When we offer up our hands, we are not only receiving Jesus, but also offering up all of ourselves and giving ourselves to God. Giving our bodies as a temple for God to dwell in a special way. Mindfully becoming aware of Communion being a two-sided thing.. We receive God, and He receives us.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1294806513' post='2199245']
I had a priest beautifully describe a type of symbolism associated with receiving Communion. When we offer up our hands, we are not only receiving Jesus, but also offering up all of ourselves and giving ourselves to God. Giving our bodies as a temple for God to dwell in a special way. Mindfully becoming aware of Communion being a two-sided thing.. We receive God, and He receives us.
[/quote]

There can be beautiful meaning put into receiving in the hand, no doubt... and pray God that everyone who receives in such a manner does so with that intention...

But, just as in moral acts, intention isn't everything. Actions in themselves have an inherent meaning. Receiving on the tongue connotes a greater reverence, objectively speaking. A person who receives on the tongue with an irreverent disposition would receive on the hand with an irreverent disposition- but his objective act is respectful toward the Eucharist, which prevents scandal. Sad to say, many who receive on the hand cause a great deal of scandal.

The best scenario is to receive in a reverent manner (on the tongue) [i]and[/i] with a reverent inner disposition.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294799973' post='2199211']You're incorrect. The norm is to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. It is an indult given to the US to allow for reception of Holy Communion in the hand. Notice what is listed first....tongue...[/quote]This doesn't prove a change in norms among the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Catholic faithful always retain the liberty to receive kneeling and on the tongue, which is something I personally do and have done for years. There are also certain situations where reception on the hand is not permissible, such as intinction, which is curiously what the Anglican Use Community does here... Honestly, I frequent the Latin Mass Community and the Anglican Use Community so frequently that I sometimes forget about on the hand while standing.[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294799973' post='2199211']My argument would be that by reception of Holy Communion in the hand, one is actually self communicating, because rather than receiving our Lord, he is taking our Lord, as stated in the universal norm...still further, I would argue that reception from the cup is an even bigger abuse, based upon the same reasoning...that one takes the cup rather than receiving it.[/quote]These provisions are referring to a liturgical abuse where extraordinary ministers of holy communion, sometimes even communicants, would merely take communion of either species from the altar themselves.

Far as I am aware, the norm in this diocese, both in practice and instruction, is standing and in the hand... with exception to the Anglican Use Community or Latin Mass Community. An altarboy I am acquainted and friends with in the Latin Mass Community, who also serves at the cathedral, tells me that taking communion as an altarboy outside of the norms is grounds temporary suspension. That is also the case at the local parish here.

IF you can prove that the norm is kneeling and on the tongue, cool. But unless you can clearly, directly, and explicitly show that... all you got is an opinion or a preference.

Edited January 12, 2011 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294783132' post='2199093']
From over at my blog [url="http://www.traddyiniowa.blogspot.com"]A Traditional Catholic in Iowa[/url]

The Liturgical Pimpernel writes:
(with my[b] comments [/b]and [u]emphasis[/u])


I have a priest-friend who has told me that he will not celebrate the Mass with the new translation. He says the reason for the translation in the first place was to make the Mass easier to understand. If we are going to have this new translation, he says, we might as well go back to the Latin. They will be just as intelligible to the average Catholic in the pew. My response....OK!!!! Let's!!!! I'm all for it!!!! That would be more in keeping with the "spirit of Vatican Council II" anyhow. This whole ongoing problem of translation is really quite ridiculous. We don't need a translation, we need to have celebrations of the Mass in a language that is intelligible by all.

The only thing that libby dibby's and conservatives agree upon is that a hand missal/missalette is a good thing. So, if we can get along for almost 50 years with a hand missal then why can't we go back? Or better yet, why bother at all? The Mass isn't about understanding every last word, but rather, it is for uniting oneself to the mystery that is the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary. So, if we don't understand audibly, is that so bad, when we can understand with our soul, that a sacrifice is going on? Participatio Actuosa v. Participatio Activa is again the real question. Which is more intregal and authentic to the melding of soul and body to the liturgical action.

This is an important issue and one that merits discussion amongst the faithful. If our priests are going to revolt, we should be faithful to Rome. Rome is the final answer for matters of discipline, not aging priests who are upset at the fact that they didn't get their way.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

(Please check my blog too....)
[/quote]
I agree. While I know anecdotes don't really mean anything in a debate, my own experiences with participating with parts being in another language is that the language wasn't a barrier to prayer. My first experience with that was at a Polish wake; they all prayed the Rosary in Polish, which of course I don't know, but that didn't stop me from praying the Rosary with them. Our Cathedral has a solemn NO Mass, with many parts in Latin, another language I don't know. They had Mass sheets for everyone, and I caught on pretty quickly.

[quote name='CatherineM' timestamp='1294795521' post='2199189']
I've been receiving on the tongue since I hurt my knee a couple of months ago and had to go to two crutches. My hands are kind of full. Maybe we should talk people into carrying the missal with them to sing while in line. That would fill their hands up.
[/quote]
I started receiving on the tongue after having Kieran. Wasn't exactly feasible to receive in the hand whilst holding an infant. He provided my excuse, really, as I'd been considering receiving on the tongue and hadn't worked up the guts to do it.

[MIKolbe]

i think these "changes" would be an excellent opportunity for some well needed catechesis throughout many parishes!

[southern california guy]

[quote name='Cam42' timestamp='1294800761' post='2199218']
No, the whole of the translation changes...they are not minimal. I would have you look to the [url="http://www.usccb.org/romanmissal/"]Roman Missal[/url] for the changes.
[/quote]

It seems to me that if people are making a big deal of it than the changes are going to be major -- or at least they believe that they are.

But why don't we do a little research and post some examples of the changes in this thread? I'll try when I get a chance but that probably won't be until tomorrow.

[Cam42]

[quote name='southern california guy' timestamp='1294837325' post='2199326']
It seems to me that if people are making a big deal of it than the changes are going to be major -- or at least they believe that they are.

But why don't we do a little research and post some examples of the changes in this thread? I'll try when I get a chance but that probably won't be until tomorrow.
[/quote]

It starts at the [b]confetior[/b]:

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
(And, striking their breast, they say:)
through my fault, through my fault,
through my most grievous fault;
(Then they continue:)
therefore I ask blessed Mary ever-Virgin,
all the Angels and Saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord our God.
(The absolution by the Priest follows:)
May almighty God have mercy on us,
forgive us our sins,
and bring us to everlasting life.
(The people reply:)
Amen.

Currently....

I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned through my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, forgive us our sins, and bring us to everlasting life.

All: Amen.


[b]Gloria[/b]

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will.
We praise you,
we bless you,
we adore you,
we glorify you,
we give you thanks for your great glory,
Lord God, heavenly King,
O God, almighty Father.
Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world,
have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world,
receive our prayer;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father,
have mercy on us.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High,
Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father.
Amen.

Currently....

Glory to God in the highest,
and peace to his people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father,
we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
you take away the sin of the world: have mercy on us;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father: receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord,
You alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

[b]Credo[/b]

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
(At the words that follow up to and including and became man, all bow.)
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

Currently....

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven:
[bow during the next two lines:]
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The responses of the [b]Preface[/b].....

(Then the Priest begins the Eucharistic Prayer.
Extending his hands, he says:)
The Lord be with you.
(The people reply:)
And with your spirit.
(The Priest, raising his hands, continues:)
Lift up your hearts.
(The people:)
We lift them up to the Lord.
(The Priest, with hands extended, adds:)
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
(The people:)
It is right and just.

[b]Sanctus[/b]

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts.
Heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

Currently....

Preface Dialogue:
Priest: The Lord be with you. All: And also with you.
Priest: Lift up your hearts. All: We lift them up to the Lord.
Priest: Let us give thanks to the Lord, our God. All: It is right to give him thanks and praise.

Holy, Holy (Sanctus):
All: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might,
Heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.

I'll post the rest later...but this is everything up to the Canon....

[Cam42]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1294806303' post='2199244']
What exactly do you mean here? I understand the point of "catholic" meaning "universal", but I'm confused about the whole "standard" thing. It sounds like you're saying that anyone who does not worship in the same Traditional way that you prefer is being a sub-standard Catholic. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to take what you're saying the wrong way. What I do understand is your concern for preventing others from straying from the Catholic Church's teachings. And I appreciate that.
[/quote]

We can worship any way that we like. However, worshipping is not just the active response. Worshipping is the internal action which unites our soul to the mystery of the Unbloody Sacrifice. When I speak of a standard, I do mean that there is one way to do the active response. We have a ritual. That ritual is guided by the rubrics. When we move outside of those rubrics, we are lessening the effects of our worship, because we are doing something contrary to the Church.

This isn't a matter of being Traditional, this is a matter of being faithful to the Mass. If one innovates, he is not being faithful to the Mass. Again, if we look to [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html"]Sacrosanctum Concilium[/url] 22, we'll see the importance of faithfulness to the liturgical action.

[Cam42]

This is for AudreyGrace....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxZn_gEi0MI


Rebellion is a terrible thing....I hope you take the time to watch....it's worth it. This is what I mean by rebellion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='AudreyGrace' timestamp='1294799119' post='2199204']
Wow... I'll do the same.
[/quote]

Here is some martial that could help.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jii6NCfTW68[/media]

[url="http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/12/alcuin-reid-reviews-dominus-est.html"]http://www.newliturg...ominus-est.html[/url]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiUqDa_Gzj0[/media]


[url="http://marysanawim.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/respect-for-christ-in-the-eucharist-%E2%80%93-one-priest%E2%80%99s-perspective/"]Respect For Christ In The Eucharist – One Priest's Perspective[/url]

by Rev. Robert Lange

Americans have the option of receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue or in the hand. The Vatican granted us the option of receiving on the hand in 1977. This was accomplished by an indult, a lifting of the law, so we may receive either way, on the tongue or in the hand. The indult was granted because the American Bishops told the Vatican that their parishioners were clamoring for it. "We can feed ourselves" was one of the specious arguments put forward.

After Apostolic times, the Church gradually adopted Communion on the tongue as the universal practice. In the early fourth century the Arians, who denied the divinity of Christ, revived the practice of receiving Communion in the hand specifically to show a lesser respect for Christ, believing that He is not "equal to the Father."

[u]The universal Church law, which requires Holy Eucharist to be distributed to the faithful on their tongues, remains in force; it remains the law. However the indult has the effect of making the law inapplicable where in force.
[/u]
Foreseeing the demand for the indult coming, the Sacred Office for Divine Worship sent a letter to the presidents of the bishops' conferences to advise them how they may implement this option if granted. The letter spoke about reverence for the Holy Eucharist being the number one priority. With this in mind, the letter went into great detail trying to explain this crucial concern. The letter contained the following specifics.

Communion on the hand is an option; it is not the primary way of receiving. Catholics must be catechized to understand this important point. No one is to be forced to receive on the hand.

When receiving the Body of Christ on the hand, the faithful must be aware of the fact that each and every particle, no matter how small, is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Therefore no particle should ever be discarded or treated with less than total respect due to the Body of Christ.

The faithful must also be reminded that their hands must be clean to receive our Lord, Jesus Christ.

When ordained in 1986, I was a proponent of receiving Communion in the hand, but time has changed my thinking on this issue. Seeing so many abuses and forming a deeper respect for Jesus' true Presence in the Holy Eucharist were the factors which forced me to rethink my position.

[b]On March 28, 1965, when the catholic college I was attending opened their newly renovated chapel, we students were told how to receive the Holy Eucharist: standing and in the hand. There was no option given. May I add that this was fully twelve years before any American diocese received the indult, which allowed for that option.[/b]

Why did those priests, abbots and bishops disobey the authority of Rome? Communion in the hand became the norm for American Catholics in the 1960's. In many cases the practice was not presented to us as optional, but as the way to receive.

In my twenty-four years as a priest, I have served in many parishes and witnessed many Eucharistic abuses caused by receiving in the hand. I have picked Jesus off the floor from under pews and picked Him out of hymnals. I have followed people back to their seats and asked if they would give me the host back (they bring it out of a clinched hand or out of their pockets) and have witnessed many other sacrilegious desecrations of the most Blessed Sacrament, far too many and varied to mention, some so shocking most people would simply not believe my words.

As I began to see these desecrations of the Holy Eucharist, I began to understand how very sickening, disheartening and avoidable all of this actually has been. Many religious education programs teach the children how to receive on the hand, with at most a cursory mention of the traditional way of receiving on the tongue. Why? [b] The Church documents do not support such teaching. It was the same with many American dioceses in the 1960's when the faithful were being coerced into receiving on the hand a decade before being granted the indult. [/b]

Father Benedict Groeschel, a familiar face to EWTN viewers and an accomplished author, announced on his "Sunday Night Live With Fr. Groeschel" program that he considered Communion in the hand to be an abomination. That is strong language!
Blessed Theresa of Calcutta was asked what was the worst thing that has happened to the Church in her lifetime. She replied without hesitation, "Communion in the hand." Again powerful language!

Why would these two great figures of our time be so fervent in their opinions regarding this issue if it did not affect their whole being? Somehow I think they would agree that Communion in the hand is a true American tragedy.

Our Holy Father, Benedict XVI leads by example. Since becoming Pope, anyone receiving Holy Eucharist from him must receive on the tongue and kneeling. He is not requiring a change throughout the world, but is giving us a profound message by example.
Proper respect shown to the Holy Eucharist is primary. Please consider these thoughts before receiving Holy Communion this Sunday. Thank you.

Edited January 12, 2011 by KnightofChrist