The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionVatican denies ‘reform of reform’
Source says missal changes pose enough liturgical upheaval
Sep. 14, 2009
Karen Virginia gives Communion to Mary Ellen Rogers during a lay-led service at St. Frances X Cabrini Church in Scituate, Mass., June 28. (CNS/Jodi Hilton)
Some Italian media reports to the contrary, Vatican officials have denied that any new “reform of the reform” in Catholic liturgy, such as curbing Communion in the hand or having priests face away from the people during Mass, is pending.
A Vatican source speaking on background told NCR, “Especially in the English-speaking world, [Pope Benedict XVI] knows that now is not the time for more upheaval, since we already have the new Roman Missal on the way.”
The Roman Missal is the collection of prayers and other texts for the Mass. A new English translation employing language closer to the Latin original, such as “And with your spirit” rather than “And also with you” in response to “The Lord be with you,” has been in the works for several years. The U.S. bishops are expected to vote on the last remaining components of the text this November.
Reports of a broader liturgical “reform of the reform” first surfaced in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale Aug. 22, in a piece by respected Vatican writer Andrea Tornielli. The story indicated that the Congregation for Divine Worship, the Vatican’s office for liturgical policy, had decided in a mid-March plenary assembly to recommend a series of measures to Benedict, including that Communion on the tongue should be regarded as the “normal” practice, with Communion in the hand seen as “exceptional.”
Moreover, the report claimed that the congregation was considering recommending that priests celebrate Mass facing toward the East, hence with their back to the congregation, at least at the moment when the eucharistic host is consecrated. In addition, the report asserted that the congregation also recommended greater use of Latin in the liturgy, not just in the older Tridentine rite but also in the new rite commonly celebrated in parishes around the world.
Such changes informally have been dubbed a “reform of the reform,” referring to a rollback of an earlier wave of progressive liturgical changes associated with the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), such as the priest celebrating Mass facing the congregation and using vernacular languages rather than Latin.
On Aug. 24, a Vatican spokesperson effectively denied the Il Giornale report, saying, “At the moment there are no institutional proposals regarding changes to the liturgical books currently in use.” Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s No. 2 official after the pope, dismissed the reports as “fantasies” in an interview with the Vatican newspaper.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Officials with knowledge of the Congregation for Divine Worship’s recent plenary assembly confirmed those denials.
“I’ve seen the propositions,” one official told NCR. “There’s nothing on Communion in the hand, nothing on the orientation of the priest at Mass.”
Instead, the official said, the propositions call for “a look at the prenotanda in the various liturgical books,” referring to prefaces that lay out the basic rules for liturgical practice. The aim, the official said, is to “eliminate some inappropriate adaptations” and to “encourage greater reverence in the liturgy.”
On Aug. 29, Tornielli posted an entry on his blog saying that while the changes to which his story alluded may not be “imminent,” nonetheless he stands by the claim that the Congregation for Divine Worship is moving in this direction, even if the work “is only at the beginning.”
Vatican sources told NCR that while there’s little official indication to date of such moves, one “wild card” in the equation may be the new prefect of the congregation, Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares, appointed to the post last December.
So far, sources say, Cañizares has acquired a reputation for not always sharing the details of his thinking with staff and advisers. In part, that may be because his Italian is limited (as is his English), making it sometimes difficult to communicate subtleties.
Cañizares enjoys strong ties to Benedict, having been a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since 1995, while then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was still the prefect. With a doctorate in theology, Cañizares was mentioned at one stage as a possible successor to Ratzinger at the doctrinal congregation.
It’s possible, sources say, that Cañizares might have a vision for additional liturgical reforms that has not yet been shared with staff or made its way into official documents. For the moment, however, sources describe a consensus that with a new translation of the missal set to appear, this is not a time for other dramatic changes.
In the meantime, the Committee on Divine Worship of the U.S. bishops’ conference has established a Web site to help prepare for the new missal.
John L. Allen Jr. is NCR senior correspondent. His e-mail address is jallen@ncronline.org.
Related Web site
Information on the Roman Missal from the U.S. bishops' Committee on Divine Worship
www.usccb.org/romanmissal
The reason there is currently
The reason there is currently no institutional proposal to change the current liturgical books is because everything mentioned is already licit! Sheesh. I find all the hand-wringing rather absurd.
Latin, Communion on the tongue, the priest facing liturgical East, all of these are the norm. Other practices have been allowed via an indult. Indults can be revoked at any time. I'm just sayin'...
Don't worry. If and when these "proposals" make their appearance, the norms will not be as rapidly enforced as the 1970 Missal was. These practices need to grow and mature over time. Who knows, you may come to like it. :-)
Hygiene will win out over
Hygiene will win out over communion on the tongue. It won't be liked or aceepted. People will have to decide not to commune for the safety of themselves and family.
So let's get this
So let's get this strait...Communion on the tongue is unhygienic, but receiving from the communal cup of Sacred Blood isn't.
I would maintain that properly done communion on the tongue is more hygienic, especially after having participated in the Sign of Piece, unless you disinfect your hands between then and receiving the Eucharist.
As already said the Universal norm of the Church is reception on the tongue, kneeling. Receiving in a standing posture, in the hand is only allowed by indult. Mr. Allen, for whom I have the highest respect, should know this, and I suspect does. That the situation has been presented any other way is disingenuous and something that I would not expect from him.
If the minister wipes the
If the minister wipes the inside and outside of the lip of the cup contaminants will be wiped off. Combine this with the fact that the alcohol content of the consecrated wine is usually enough to keep it sterile. Also, the metal cup is quite toxic to pathogens. I know that very few pathogens can be cultured from the lip of the chalice. I think you're actually safer to receive from the cup than receiving the host from a minister whose fingers are wet from somebody else's saliva and thereby contaminating hosts. Hope this helps.
Good time for the Dr. to
Good time for the Dr. to speak.
There are more germs on a
There are more germs on a human tongue than a dog tongue. Even the cleanest of mouths is a sewer in terms of bacteria and viruses.
I am of the firm opinion that
I am of the firm opinion that those who object to communion on the tongue for reasons of hygiene, haven't seen it done correctly. On the tongue does not mean slit your moth open or even open it wide, one must stick the tongue out entirely. Giving Father, Deacon, or the EMHC a big enough target prevents the danger of licking fingers on accident.
I myself typically receive on the hand, but when I do receive on the tongue, when I extend my tongue and lift my chin up, I never have a hygiene danger.
Uh, the hygiene problem is
Uh, the hygiene problem is already there. Ask anyone who gives communion. They've already touched someone's tongue.
Contaminated Hosts, Brian is
Contaminated Hosts, Brian is really the problem. It occurs when the priest touches any tongue, saliva and possible pathogens are now on his fingers. Now, when he picks up hosts he contaminates each one of them. Thereafter, it doesn't matter if you receive in the hand or, as you do, on the tongue properly, the host is still contaminated and the recipient will possibly become ill. The solution is for all to receive in the hand therefore no one will get saliva contamined hosts. Also, whoever is communicating must make sure they place the host in the hand of the communicant and not touch the palm of the hand either. What about receiving the cup? If the minister wipes the inside and outside of the lip of the cup most contaminants will be wiped off. Combine this with the fact that the alcohol content of the consecrated wine is usually enough to keep it sterile. Also, the metal cup is quite toxic to pathogens. I think you're actually safer to receive from the cup than receiving the host from a minister whose wet fingers are contaminating hosts! Hope this helps.
Actually, the good news is
Actually, the good news is that many parishes are dispensing with Communion under both species. This means fewer inappropriately dressed lay ministers charging the Altar during Mass, ready to "give out the wine or the bread". While I applaud the suspension of this practice, I find the reasons silly.
Meanwhile, Communion on the tongue is the normative form of receiving Communion. Neither a bishop nor a priest, even less someone in the "liturgy office" or some lay minister, can forbid the normative practice. If a person prefers to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, there is no rule, regulation, law or indult that will allow a priest, deacon or lay minister to deny that person Communion on the tongue.
Finally, this is the Lord we are talking about. You have to look at Holy Communion not only through the eyes of fear and medicine, but through the eyes of Faith. It is highly doubtful that the Lord will permit someone to become seriously ill because that person received Communion in the normative maner.
God gave us a brain, remember
God gave us a brain, remember faith AND REASON? Stop making us look stupid. Christ said He wasn't king of this world. He also was susceptible to it also unless you think that He didn't feel the pain of flogging and crucifixation? Everyone is susceptible to the illnesses and pain of this world. And Clint, receiving the body of Christ implies that He will live in us and we live in Him. He never said "and will protect you from all illness".
The germs are on the host, they are not part of the body of Christ. Germs fall into the category of accidentals. To say that the Lord will not permit illness is as stupid as saying that I am protected from harm if I march into battle in a religious war. Remember the infamous "childrens crusade" They too thought the Lord would protect them, they were slaughtered. What about Fr. Damian and the leper colony in Hawaii? He too, despite communion contracted leprosy. Faith and REASON, get some.
Our archdiocese, in
Our archdiocese, in attempting to not pass on H1N1 viruses, has said there will be no communion on the tongue until the virus danger is past...
Been there, done that.
Been there, done that. Wouldn't want to revert to it. Vatican II changes are far superior, and certainly more faithful to the reality of the Passover meal.
I agree Nancy, movement away
I agree Nancy, movement away from an inclusivity of the passive laity, will only serve to increase the passivity of those who are there to "participate in the liturgy". Have you ever tried to communicate with someone who has their back to you? The question is not about receiving the Eucharist on the tongue, the question is about what the Eucharistic meal could and should mean for all of the community.
Like it or not, the "reform
Like it or not, the "reform of the reform" is underway and has been for some time. Even in our little, out-of-the-way "Faith Community" there is singing in Latin and ringing of bells. Richard McBrien got booted from the diocesan newspaper, and the Bishop has approved 24/7 Eucharist Adoration in several locations. Aging is the agent of change. The "double-knit dinosaurs" are moving on to that big Hootenanny in the sky. Pity they never left us anything beautiful to remember them by!
They left you the most active
They left you the most active faith-life on the planet. That's what people from other places say about the American Catholic Church. Not beautiful? You take way too much for granted in life, and are missing your blessings.
Actually, they left a wasted
Actually, they left a wasted desert. They left a Church at war with itself, divided and filled with dissent. They left a devastated vineyard in many dioceses, some of which have seen the entire Catholic life of the diocese destroyed. They left a Church with fewer people attending Mass, fewer people who believe in the Real Presence, fewer priests, fewer nuns, fewer seminarians and fewer vocations to religious life. They left parish churches that were whitewashed and stripped of everything Catholic, parish churches that look like lovely barns or concert halls, churches that one cannot tell from Protestant churches. They left behind a new incarnation of the ancient iconoclast heresy.
They left behind a Church devoid of mystery and beauty. They left behind a Church whose people are debating the very nature of the Church itself. They left behind very little to be proud of.
Clint I've read a lot your
Clint I've read a lot your posts, which have occasionally made me wonder how old you are. This is another one of them. What Vatican II did,more than anthing else, was take the fear out of Catholicism. THat fear used to be alleviated by comparing yourself to someone else and deciding you might be a sinner but you weren't as bad a sinner as they were.
When you talk about lack of understanding of the Real Presence I often wonder if you mean lack of fear of the Divinity of Jesus. The beautiful thing for me from this 'wasted desert' is I'm no longer in fear of the God who told us He loved us. Catholicism is no longer emotionally abusive---unless you happen to be gay.
I am 35. I was born in 1974,
I am 35. I was born in 1974, and thus am a product of the Vatican II "generation", if you will. I did not attend Catholic school (grew up in a very rural area, the nearest Catholic school was some distance from us) and attended CCD instead. I remember being taught, for example, that the best way to receive Communion is on the hand. I was never taught to receive on the tongue, wasn't even given the option! I remember singing banal songs from "Glory and Praise". I have no memory of a Tridentine Mass before college. I grew up in this mythical paradise that so many folks claim the post-Vatican II Church to be.
Yet, somewhere along the way, in high school, I came to realize that the post-Vatican II Church is not all she is cracked up to be. I wish I could pinpoint the very moment. Perhaps it was attending Mass at the Cathedral of St. Louis, in St. Louis, one of the most incredibly beautiful and awe-inspiring churches in the world, and singing banal and empty songs. Even then, I realized that there was a disconnect between the God Who is depicted in the iconography of the Cathedral, the God Who created the entire universe and sustains it through His will alone, the God Who parted the Red Sea, destroyed Sodom, spoke to the prophets in wind and fire, fed a vast multitude with only a few loaves and a couple of fish, and the God Who we sing about in our Masses, a Great Warm Fuzzy.
Then I began college seminary. I rejoiced to find that, of the twenty guys who were there when I began, only a half dozen or so were satisfied with the Church as it is. The vast majority realized that there was something essential missing in the Church since Vatican II. We realized that there was something wrong with people entering a church and chatting as if they were standing in line waiting to get into a movie. We realized that there was something wrong with priests who celebrated Mass, the supreme prayer we offer to God, sitting at a coffee table and wearing a stole over his street clothes. We realized that there was something wrong with churches that were whitewashed barns, stripped of their iconography, their beauty, their meaning, and left barren. We realized that this image was a good one of the post-Vatican II Church: stripped and barren. Fewer priests. Fewer nuns and sisters. Fewer people regularly attending Mass. Fewer people who believe in the Real Presence: that the host and the wine, after the consecration, is really and truly the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and it is not some symbol or sign. As one priest-wit once said, "After Vatican II there were more priests leaving the priesthood, more nuns leaving the convents, and more Catholics leaving the pews, and they call this progress!"
You mention that Vatican II took the fear out of Catholicism. Well, a little healthy fear is a good thing. Children are fearful of getting in trouble, they love their parents, but are afraid of being punished. Later, as we grow, we retain that fear, but instead of fear of punishment, it becomes fear of hurting those we love the most. Healthy fear of God is just that, fear, not of punishment, but of hurting the God Who loves us so much that He sent His only Son to save us from our sins.
Perhaps the Church was right to try to emphasize the healthy fear, the wonder and awe, we should have in the Presence of God. But, so many have taken that change in focus to mean that fear is totally wrong. I honestly believe that, if Christ returned today in all His power, glory and majesty, there are some who would go slap Him a high-five rather than fall in homage and adoration before God Himself.
This is evident in the manner in which some receive Holy Communion. They cannot be bothered to make any form of reverence. They come up in line as if they are cattle at a trough. Some are even chewing gum or chit-chatting! They stick out their hands and, when the minister places the Body of Our Lord in their hands, they "pop" the host in their mouth and chomp away as if they're chewing gum. Some even grab the host away from the minister!
It is precisely these abuses that the Holy See wants to end. It's not about the Church abusing anyone, rather it is about us, and I include myself in this "us", abusing the very Body and Blood of Christ with our irreverence, our casual attitude toward the greatest gift mankind has ever been given.
I am 52. I remember pre
I am 52. I remember pre Vatican II. What you probably think you know about pre Vatican II is wrong. However, I remember it well and I NEVER want to go back there. Nuns hitting kids, one nun slapping a student because he chose the wrong crayon to color. As it turns out he was color blind. Blind obedience to the rubrics of the Mass but didn't know a damn thing about God and Jesus. As a matter of fact I thought Gods name was Abraham! I didn't know better until Vatican II. All the fuzzy stuff that younger pious individuals associate with pre Vatican II is just an illusion, just ask us pre Vatican II survivors. It was all about rubrics, not about God. I once touched an empty ciborium that had not been "purified" and was given Hell for doing so. I remember the silly bows and attempts to grab the biretta before the priest sat on it. The priest bragging that his two fingers were consecrated w/ chrism so his two fingers could change bread into Jesus, one priest would brag he could take a handful of hosts, roll them together and go down the communion line, like an assembly line, seeing how fast he could distribute, wet fingers, spreading barbers itch by using the chalice pall as a paten during communion reception and on, and on and on ad nauseatum. Thank God you weren't born back then Clint. Remember, be careful what you wish for you just might get it.
Hello Clint, I've also read
Hello Clint, I've also read several of your posts and I disagree with just about everything you say about the Church (including what you say in this post). Nonetheless, I appreciate the story you have shared and, even though I don't agree with your perspective, I can accept as valid the way you look at the Church and at liturgy. There is more than one path to God (even within Catholicism) and you have followed one that is meaningful for you. I just wonder if you are willing to return the favor? I am a little younger than you (born in 1981) but I had a very similar experience growing up (rural area, no Catholic schools, Glory and Praise, non-clerical priests, plainly-adorned churches, etc). The difference is that I loved my upbringing and it continues to be a primary source of meaning in my life as a committed Catholic.
What would be so wrong with me allowing you to have your Latin Tridentine Mass and you allowing me to have my stripped-down, Glory and Praise, acoustic guitar Mass? The Church allows both, isn't there room for a certain amount of diversity? I'm not talking about "anything goes", I'm just talking about recognizing that total uniformity isn't the best thing for the Body of Christ, which is diverse by its very nature.
P.S. Don't forget that in the Incarnation, Jesus is not only totally divine, but also totally human. Jesus interacts informally with many holy people in the Gospels, and it's no scandal. In fact, these encounters are some of the most profound in all of Sacred Scripture. What makes you so absolutely sure that Jesus wouldn't appreciate hand-to-hand contact from one of his followers (who was wearing shorts)? You cannot deduce from such an exchange that the person in question does not possess the Spirit-given gift of wonder and awe in the Lord.
Bravo Nathaniel! BUT
Bravo Nathaniel! BUT conservatives want both, both the latin Mass AND to change the Vatican II mass. How sad. BUT it won't happen. They are a tiny minority. They even imply that B16 will change things when he himself said he wouldn't.
Nathaniel, you are correct in
Nathaniel, you are correct in that there are many roads, many ways, to God, even in the Church. Pope Benedict XVI has reminded us of that. I thank you for your comments.
I agree that utter and complete uniformity is not in the best interest of the Church Universal. Obviously, there is room for diversity in the liturgy, in music, in the language used (I am NOT advocating a return to the Tridentine Rite, necessarily. I do love that rite, but also find the Novus Ordo to be very moving and very beautiful when celebrated properly). So, certainly, there is room for a variety of liturgical worship, from the pomp and majesty of a Tridentine High Mass, to the simplicity of a guitar Mass.
What interests me is that there are certain standards, requirements and expectations of the Mass. For example, except in cases of pastoral necessity, the priest celebrant is to be vested, at every Mass, in alb, stole and chasuble. The words of the Mass are not suggestions, but rather words that are to be said. Rubrics are to be followed for a reason. The reason is that the rubrics guarantee the universality of the liturgy, in other words, that everywhere one goes the "core" of the Mass (what used to be called the "ordinary", the part of the Mass that does not change from week to week) is the same. Even though we may not understand the language, the gestures, vestments, etc are the same. Someone mentioned in an earlier post that pre-Vatican II the Mass was all about the rubrics. I would argue that post-Vatican II the Mass is about everything BUT the rubrics. There has to be a balance. Rubrics are the instructions on how to celebrate Mass properly and reverently. They are not the enemy.
In addition, I am interested in the reverence at Mass. Anything that encourages people to view the Mass as casual or relaxed is a problem. You see, at Mass, we are in the Presence of God Himself in a very special way. Further, we encounter, at Mass, a reliving of the mystery of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord. Finally, at Mass we participate, as nearly as we are able in this world, in the Heavenly Banquet along with the angels and saints. A recognition of these realities calls forth from us, or should, a deep and mystical reverence and awe for the God Who Is, the God Who loved us so much that He sent His only Son to be our savior.
After Vatican II, the Church tried a multitude of experiments in the liturgy, some good, many not. The liturgy is a growing reality, it is not stagnate. It changes and evolves. The liturgy that I and many others advocate is not a wholesale dismissal of the last 40 years, but rather an integration of the best of the Church's tradition AND the best of the post-Vatican II "experiments".
Dear Clint Green: Fewer
Dear Clint Green:
Fewer people who believe in the Real Presence:
Hopefully you are not saying that those people you mentioned are Catholics. I have never encpuntered a Catholic, even a lapsed one, who does not frimly believe in the Real Presence. Have you or have you talked to any of them? Someone might deny that the Holy Spirit was not the Promoter of the Vatican II, but should respect all the Catholics who believe in Jesus Christ's REAL PRESENCE in the Sacraemnts and in our lives.
Clint, your view of the
Clint, your view of the post-V2 church is extraordinarily pessimistic because you think questioning, dissent and seeking after truth are bad things. I call it learning based on experience, challenges and new findings & paradigms. Further, you mistake the structure of the Church, most notably the heirarchy and doctrinal formations, for the Church itself. The Church is and always has been the assembly of people following Jesus as best they can, and the structures and formations are only useful in so much as they help the people of God do this task. Liturgy is the communal, lived out expression of the People's encounter with God via the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. It is a living and dynamic practice where we remember the relationship Jesus and we have with the Father, his actions at the Last Supper, and his death on the cross, but also and more powerfully his resurrection by God and continued real presence in the People themselves emphasized by the eucharistic species as a sacrament of this real presence. Further, this bread and wine becomes for us a portal for our own sacred encounter not only with God, Jesus and the Spirit, but also a sacred encounter with ourselves and the entire community. If you freeze this liturgy, you have stripped it of it's transformative power and deprived all of us of this beloved and functional practise, and made it a testament to a dead rather than a living God. that is why the reforms of V2 are so important, and why I am glad that the curia and Pope have apparently backed off on the "reform of the reform." Hopefully, this is an accurate statement about their true intentions. I pray that they are sincere.
Dave
Actually, they left you the
Actually, they left you the most active faith-life on the planet. You just don't know it or take a whole lot for granted.
I repeat, we have priests
I repeat, we have priests leaving the priesthood, sisters leaving the convents, people leaving the pews, belief in the Real Presence at an all-time low since, probably, the Protestant Revolt, and we call this progress? We call this an "active faith-life"?
It is only in recent years, since the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, the Great, and his move to catechize the Church in the AUTHENTIC meaning of the Second Vatican Council (as opposed to the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II") that we have seen an uptick in vocations to the priesthood and religious life, always a sign of the health of a local Church.
Just saying that "they left you the most active faith-life on the planet" does not make it so, especially when the objective evidence is to the contrary.
Just saw this, oh Clint. Just
Just saw this, oh Clint. Just trying to create cause-and-effect between "priests leaving the priesthood" etc. and V2 does not make it so, when even the most basic knowledge of research will tell you you haven't even begun to conceptualize/identify all the variables involved. You just talk what you want to hear. Take some science courses in and amongst all that normative stuff you study--will make you more grounded on planet earth and more likely to know God.
Way to correct the illusion,
Way to correct the illusion, Annie. Sometimes I wonder whether the millenials will ever get what Vatican II accomplished. Certainly not with the current regime. It's similar to young girls wondering what all the fuss about feminism has been all about (even though they continue to earn only 70% of what men earn).
What exactly has Vatican II
What exactly has Vatican II accomplished? I would love for someone to come up with one legitimate good thing that has come from Vatican II. Also, what does feminism ("the failed experiment") have to do with anything. Nancy, we can really see what angle you're coming from here. Next . . .
WEll, now, Maxwell, that's
WEll, now, Maxwell, that's quite an odd statement considering it was, like, a major Council in the Church. I'm not sure what you are missing here. The dynamic involvement of the "laity" in the work of the Church is certainly a prominent after-effect of V2, at least in the United States. Ask anyone coming here. Perhaps it is just that you are from here and don't have the comparison or don't realize how much you take for granted.
beautiful sentiment
beautiful sentiment
The more the Vatican says
The more the Vatican says "Nein," the more we know that "Jah" is right around the corner.
I'm all in favor of a "Reform
I'm all in favor of a "Reform of the reform". In many
respects, Vatican II changed the wrong things. It should
be mandatory that all newly ordained priests be able to
celebrate the traditional Latin Mass (including the Solemn High
form, in Gregorian rite). Another necessary change is that
woman should now be ordained, to the priesthood at the very least.
Jesus does not condone the current exclusion of woman from this
central role. Arguments against ordaining women are transparently
sophistical.
The ordination of woman would greatly alleviate the shortage of
priests, and the proliferation of the Gregorian Rite would, in time,
swell the attendance at Mass.
Bob
"..... now is not the
"..... now is not the time......" sure sounds to me like changes are coming. Just a matter of time. I know - how about engineering an outbreak of bubonic plague? That'll make for an even more realistic middle-ages experience.
Well, maybe Swine Flu will be
Well, maybe Swine Flu will be just the thing for which you are asking.
But don't hold your breath; return to the sacrality of the Mass is going to return...maybe not in a year, but eventually.
You see, old age and death has a way of taking care of things.
"Return to the sacrality of
"Return to the sacrality of the Mass"? I don't get it. What's NOT sacred about the Mass now?
My question too. If you're
My question too. If you're not reverent now, a little more kneeling or whatever isn't going to get you there.
Giant puppets, Prayers of the
Giant puppets, Prayers of the Faithful where the petitioner prays for things at variance with Church teachings, the Precious Blood served in vessels of profane matter like common glass or pottery, rock band music using hymns of Protestant origin which contain heretical concepts, unnecessary ministers flitting around in a manner that distracts from the central purpose of the Liturgy, worship of God, unauthorized and unneeded additions to the Liturgy which profane the sense of the sacred, lack of decorum on the part of the priest or aforementioned ministers...need I go on?
Please list the names of all
Please list the names of all the churches, the dates and the abuses that occurred since you seem to think they are rampant everywhere. List the presiders too. Otherwise, you're wagging your tongue. St. James said it best: the tongue is a pest that will not keep still, full of deadly poison. I have never seen any of these things visiting churches during my travels. So give us names and dates please.
ps Early Christians used glass and pottery as chalices, they also kept consecrated bread in linen sacks in St. Peters. Nothing profane there.
The exact material used by
The exact material used by early Christians is somewhat irrelevant. The more important point is that the sacred vessels should be made of a noble, durable material that is fit for the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The dignity of the vessel tells us that this is no ordinary glass of wine that we share. I would assume that if you were serving a formal dinner to the president that you use your finest china, and not paper plates and plastic cups. We should likewise being using our best when serving the Eucharistic meal.
Really? So the early
Really? So the early Christians engaged in profanity because they used glass and pottery? Sorry, I don't worship vessels, only what is in them. Vessels are not holy, only what's in them. So Jesus requires gold and jewels on Eucharistic vessels? Should we also put gold specs in the wheat used to make hosts? Use the very best 50 yr old wine? Terry C. called glass and pottery profane material. It isn't. Saying so casts the early Christians in a bad light. Rather, exalting vessels w/ gold and jewels and the "very best" when Jesus used simple bread and simple wine is profane.
How about the Call to Action
How about the Call to Action Conference in 2008? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU I stopped counting the abuses at 25.
Your view of what goes on at
Your view of what goes on at mass is unduly distorted by your traditionalist lens. It is simply too pessimistic and does not recognize that (paraphrasing Jesus) the sick are healed,the dead raised and the poor have the good news preached to them. This all occurs (at least in our hearts) when we celebrate the "new' mass with the entire people of God. And by the way, per most scholars Jesus almost surely used a wooden or pottery cup at the Last Supper. Dave
If there are liturgical
If there are liturgical abuses (practices contrary to the 'General Instruction on the Roman Missal' and 'Liturgicam Authenticume) the faithful are being deprived of their right to the Catholic liturgical tradition (Canon Law).
These liturgical abuses make the Mass man-centered, not God-centered. I did not make this up; Pope Benedict in continuity with Pope John Paul II, Pope Paul VI, etc. has repeatedly made it clear that the Mass should be celebrated according to the mind of the Church.
Howl all you want. (I know, I'm arrogant, patriarchal, rigid, insensitive, stupid, backward, etc...I'm getting used to the name-calling).
Dear John: I find this remark
Dear John:
I find this remark of yours...interesting:
"The story indicated that the Congregation for Divine Worship, the Vatican’s office for liturgical policy, had decided in a mid-March plenary assembly to recommend a series of measures to Benedict, including that Communion on the tongue should be regarded as the “normal” practice, with Communion in the hand seen as “exceptional.”"
What you infer here is that this is something that may happen...when in fact communion on the tongue is already the 'normal' practice. The practice of communion in the hand has been allowed by dispensation only to a select few countries in the Latin Church.
"To touch the Sacred Species...with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (JP II, Dominicae Cenae)
Respectfully,
Smooches.
By our baptism we are all
By our baptism we are all priests, prophets, and kings!
Yes. That is very true. The
Yes. That is very true. The quote, however, says "ordained," which indicates a priesthood of a different kind and degree than what you or I posses (unless you are ordained, Anon).
The "priesthood of a
The "priesthood of a different kind" was not at all part of the primitive Christian communities. Why? Because, as Paul reminded his listeners, everybody was a "priest" by virtue of his or her baptism. The person who led Christian worship was a lay presider known as (depending on particular community) the "presbyter" or "episkopos," not to be confused with our understanding of "priest" and "bishop" today. It was his community leadership that was the basis for his liturgical leadership. The presbyter/episkopos led his fellow priests, men and women, as they worshiped God the Father through Jesus the one and only High Priest.
The primitive church did not have ordained ministry. The earliest extant ordination ritual is the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, customarily dated ca. 215 AD. It is generally considered a redaction, i.e., a body of writings likely penned by different authors, from different communities, from different time periods. Its content might date from as early as ca. 150 AD to as late as 350 AD. The ordination ritual for episkopos includes reference to performing priestly/sacerdotal duties, but the ordination ritual for presbyter does not!!!
In short, Mr. Thompson, ordained ministry --- whether to priest or bishop --- was a historical development that was truly "novel" in light of the primitive Christians' understanding that only one priesthood had served God, to wit, the Jewish priesthood until its demise after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. (It should be noted that while the Jewish priests had sacrificial duties at the Temple, they were not seen as having any special privilege or status at the various synagogues to which they belonged.)
Now if the primitive Christians did not have "ordained" priests, did they have a valid eucharist, or did they not? If Jesus and The Twelve did not ordain anybody to priesthood, what is the basis for insisting on our retaining some kind of "ontologically" different priesthood today?
I've touched, and I'm not
I've touched, and I'm not ordained. What do you think happened to heaven or earth?
Going backwards intead of
Going backwards intead of forword!
I have noticed that those in
I have noticed that those in the Church who use the phrase "going forward" usually don't realize that they are advocating "going backwards" to 19th century Protestantism.
I totally agree. Translation
I totally agree. Translation is an art. From a peek at the link to the new translation, translatyion seems to be a lost art. At least it didn'tgo all the way ams specify "... and with your ghost."
The only winners are the whining traditionalists.
A web site to "help" prepare
A web site to "help" prepare for the new Missal?? How can one prepare for what the people will refuse to accept?
Pax. Aristophilos
AUGER, I hope you're right,
AUGER, I hope you're right, but I suspect most "ordinary" Catholics will go right along with this new crap because they don't care one way or the other. There'll be some initial grumbling, but folks will continue to "punch their ticket" each Sunday and put their money in the collection basket.
After all, that's all they know.
I hope you're right, but I'm not optimistic.
If a dogma, doctrine, or
If a dogma, doctrine, or other Church teaching/function is not "received" by the people, then it is not licit...sensus fidelium is still extant. Thank goodness...of course, the hierarchy doesn't believe in it...it will be to their own detriment.
The "reform of the reform"
The "reform of the reform" has already begun and sooner or later Benedict will introduce more ways of making the liturgy more "reverent" and the Tridentine Mass will again be the norm. More intelligent theologians will be silenced, bishops will be awarded the position for their blind compliance, the ordinary faithful will be "put back in their place," the Eucharist will be gazed upon rather than celebrated, and the medieval church will return. The question remains: Where will faithful, thinking, prayerful Vatican II Catholics go?
Why does anyone consider
Why does anyone consider themselves a Vatican II Catholic? There have been dozens of legitmate Church Councils. All of them valid, licit, and still in effect. Vatican II is not the only council to follow. We Catholics must follow all the Councils since they all speak for the Holy Spirit. Vatican II did not abbrogate anything nor did it dispense with what came before. Those innovations were imposed and/or developed outside the infalliable teaching of any Council.
Tradionalists need to accept organic development to liturgy and revealed truth, while progressives need to avoid rupture with the past.
The answer is: The imploding
The answer is: The imploding Anglican communion awaits you with her open arms.
You've got the wrong locus
You've got the wrong locus for the imploding. The imploding that is taking place is right in your own back yard. You are simply too young or too ignorant to see it.
We Episcopalians and the
We Episcopalians and the Anglican Communion are not ready to self-destruct, even if right-wingers and their vast pool of extremist billionaire fortunes (aided by the Catholic far right I might add) seek that end. From my reading of these pages on NCR, JayB has it nailed. The disputes in your church are far more vitriolic So, please stop using us as your bogeyman. You "rad trads" are the pot calling the kettle black.
Agreed, the Catholic church
Agreed, the Catholic church has huge rifts, as it obvious from discussions here. The problem is most of that discussion is quiet and hidden. There is no official forum for dissent and the traditionalists (who run the church) would rather cast out everyone with a progressive outlook thinking that they are a small minority. In reality I think there is a vast population of quiet Catholics who would prefer more change in the direction of Vatican II and beyond, but they dare not say it or they do not think much about it. True, the discussion and debate in the Anglican church is visibly stressing and may tear it apart, but our Church may be quietly tearing itself apart from the inside and not realize until it too late.
Those Vatican II catholic
Those Vatican II catholic will al go where all of the catholic went because of the abuses of "the spirit of Vatican II"
Dear Br. Robert, It is
Dear Br. Robert,
It is popular today to equate the medieval church with backwardness and a high-handed clerical oppression of the laity. With respect, any cursory study of the Middle Ages shows this to be false. Yes, there were excesses, just as there are in any age including today, for the humans who inhabit Holy Church are far from perfect.
I must, therefore, disagree with your proposition that 'faithful, thinking, prayerful' people are associated with Vatican II, which proposition also seems to imply that the medieval period produced none of these. The Middle Ages (conservatively thought to be c.500-1500) produced SS Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm, who were all thinking and prayerful. It produced St Dominic who encouraged enducation and prayer. It produced SS Francis and Clare of Assisi, still models today, who were nothing if not engaged in a life of prayer and supreme love for the poor. Numerous contemplatives, mystics, and religious faithfully (but in their human frailty, sometimes with error) lived out lives of prayer, good works, and high thought. The laity, as best we know, by and large accepted and willingly supported the men and women who cared for them spiritually.
The post-Vatican II Church has no monopoly on these qualities, just as the Middle Ages had no monopoly on mistakes and human pride. In answer to your question, therefore: I should hope that the faithful, thinking, prayerful Vatican II Catholics would stay true to Holy Church.
Hello, Andrew. The going back
Hello, Andrew.
The going back to a medieval mentality does indeed imply moving backwards in the sense that we would allow ourselves to return to, and be trapped in, a period from which we have progressed. I am terribly grateful to the Middle Ages for producing the likes of St. Francis of Assisi. But even he heard a voice, whom he recognized as the Lord's, commanding, "Francis, rebuild my church which you see has fallen into ruins."
Augustine and Aquinas might
Augustine and Aquinas might have been prayerful thinking, but don't hang your hat on everything they thought. Augustine hated women (reactionary that he was) and Aquinas didn't believe women had a role in creating a human being - they were just incubators. So you have to take everything these guys thought and wrote about with a grain of salt and dissect it critically. They were products of their times, just as we are. The only problem is that Benedict and his ilk want to return to a time that is not here anymore. Dumb.
To the Extraordinary Form of
To the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, or the Ordinary Form celebrated as it was intended by 'Sacrosanctum concilium'...it's all there; the committee orchestrated by A. Bugnini made a lot of changes to what the Council Fathers wanted.
I'm a "Vatican II Catholic" by the way.
try the anglican church
try the anglican church
I've said it before, and I
I've said it before, and I guess I'm saying it again.
1. Recall the famous lesson of King Solomon.
2. Now observe that we frequently have our more "reactionary" members gleefully telling our more "progressive" members to leave.
3. Ask, which group loves their church more?
I guess it is time to leave
I guess it is time to leave Catholicism to the Roman-tics.
I am to the point that the church is more concerned with keeping its status as a conformer than as an extension of Jesus.
I apologize if I step on people's toes, figuratively, but the the church should be spending more time exploring the ramifications of the teachings of Jesus and not speaking the language of an ancient empire.
I acknowledge the international reach of the church, but I feel that we are bogged down with rubrics that are meaningless when the corporal works of mercy are not on the top of the to do list of the church.
What does it matter if we use the figurative "et cum spiritu tuo", "and (also) with you".
We do not need to play games with the liturgy. Like during the cold war we used sign / counter sign, e.g. sign, "your mother wears Army boots", co sign, "it is kind of chilly in Rio at this time of the year".
God doesn't need us spinning our wheels learning how to pray. One person may pray better sitting in a parked car than in a mega church that looks like a pagan temple.
For Heaven's sake, Jesus told us quite simply to love our enemies to pray for our persecutors, and not to resist injury. Why do we have to wrap it up in a dead language that Jesus probably didn't use himself.
Liturgy should be designed to help us pray, not box us into traditions that may not have a valuable meaning today.
Like the old man who resented changing the Holy Ghost to the Holy Spirit, I leave you with this. "Pax Domini sit semper vobis cum", to which you can reply, "and with your Ghost".
Pax
Post new comment