The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionVatican downplays report of planned liturgical reforms
Aug. 25, 2009
Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, Okla., faces the crucifix on the altar as he celebrates Mass in early June at Holy Family Cathedral.
VATICAN CITY -- A Vatican spokesman downplayed a report that major liturgical reforms are being considered by Pope Benedict XVI.
"At the moment, there are no institutional proposals for a modification of the liturgical books currently in use," the spokesman, Father Ciro Benedettini, said Aug. 24.
He was responding to a report that a document with proposed liturgical modifications, including a curb on the practice of receiving Communion in the hand, had been sent to the pope last April by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.
The article, published by the newspaper Il Giornale, said the document was a first concrete step toward the "reform of the reform" in liturgy planned by Pope Benedict. It said the congregation proposed to promote a greater sense of the sacred in liturgy, recover the use of the Latin language in celebrations, and reformulate introductive parts of the Roman Missal to end abuses and experimentation.
The article said the worship congregation had voted on and approved the recommendations almost unanimously during its plenary session last March.
Vatican sources told Catholic News Service that the worship congregation did not, in fact, suggest a program of liturgical change, but simply forwarded to the pope some considerations from its discussions focusing on eucharistic adoration, the theme of the plenary session.
Some individual members may have added opinions on other liturgical issues, but they in no way constituted formal proposals, one source said.
The article in Il Giornale said one idea being studied by the worship congregation was a return to celebrating Mass with the priest facing the same direction as the people, known as "ad orientem."
The Vatican sources told CNS that this issue, however, was not discussed by the congregation at its plenary.
--------------------------------------------------
An earlier, related story: Okla. bishop no longer faces people at Mass (see photo above)
--------------------------------------------------
The debate over Communion in the hand drew attention in 2008, when Sri Lankan Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, then secretary of the Vatican's worship congregation, said he thought it was time for the Catholic Church to reconsider the current policy.
The archbishop said the Second Vatican Council never authorized the practice of Catholics receiving Communion in the hand, a custom that he said was "introduced abusively and hurriedly in some spheres" and only later authorized by the Vatican.
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
Archbishop Ranjith recently left his Vatican post when he was named archbishop of Colombo, Sri Lanka. He was replaced by Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia, a U.S. Dominican.
Last year, the Vatican announced that receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling before the pope would become the norm at papal liturgies. At that time, the Vatican's chief liturgist, Msgr. Guido Marini, noted that the distribution of Communion in the hand remains an exception granted by the Vatican to the bishops' conferences that have requested it.
"The article, published by
"The article, published by the newspaper Il Giornale, said the document was a first concrete step toward the "reform of the reform" in liturgy planned by Pope Benedict. It said the congregation proposed to promote a greater sense of the sacred in liturgy, recover the use of the Latin language in celebrations, and reformulate introductive parts of the Roman Missal to end abuses and experimentation."
The "liturgy" is a public re-presentation of the Passover meal Jesus celebrated with his disciples. Yes, it was and is sacred. But it is a meal, not an elaborate ritual that distances itself from our daily life. "Recovering the use of the Latin Language" is a "reform of the formation" of the early Church, the "followers of the Way". To be meaningful, we should reform our understanding and appreciation of the "family meal" and realize that this is why Jesus said - in the vernacular not in Latin - "Do this to remember me." The first disciples made this the central part of their lives, the "Source and Summit". Vatican II called for a return, renewal and refreshment of this sense of gathering for and celebration of the "family meal". This would be the optimal way of promoting "a greater sense of the sacred in liturgy" - and in our daily lives.
Dear Rolando Rodriguez: I
Dear Rolando Rodriguez: I believe in you. Recover the sacred in the ordinary. That is what God started in creation; Jesus elevated it in his life and left it for us to continue. Vatican II reminded us and restored our energy. These religious thugs want to steal it from us before the fruit has fully ripened. Maybe it threatens their status.
I could really care less what
I could really care less what may or may not come down the pike from Rome. What concerns me is the response of the laity to past and future attempts to bring back pre-Vatican II liturgical practices and beliefs that promoted and sustained the clerical culture so very much responsible for the dysfunctional mess in which the church finds itself.
Those who don't learn (or don't want to learn) the lessons of ecclesial history.....
I agree that recieving
I agree that recieving communion on the tongue is from older times. I do not want to have people putting there fngers in my mouth after the person just had his fingers in 100's before me. This would be a real hindrence for me. How about having priests celebrate Mass competely instead of skipping the whole introduction rites.
I've noticed several
I've noticed several references to receiving the host by people sticking fingers in your mouth. Obviously these people do not know that receiving the host on the tongue has nothing to do with fingers in the mouth. Also, receiving in the hand is an indult accorded to certain epiccopal conferences.
Sieber on Aug. 27, 2009.
Sieber on Aug. 27, 2009.
Dear Sieber,
I administer Holy Communion every week! And there are those who receive Communion on the tongue. Even though you try not to touch their tongue---it does happen. And you cannot stop people breathing on your hands while their mouth is open.
Question: We have been hearing about the Swine Flu really hitting the world hard this coming fall and winter. What about the passing of germs by touching (even accidentally) someone's tongue and then distributing Communion to other.
One could have the flu, but not show signs of it until some hours after Mass. Think of all the people that could be infected.
Jesus did not place the bread that he changed into his body on the tongues of his Apostles. He said "Take and eat".
Golly, let's make everybody
Golly, let's make everybody happy and use diamond encrusted golden tongs which are wiped down with germicide by barefoot dancing nuns.
The point is one of choice.
The point is one of choice. There are people whose immune systems are compromised, just to mention one scenario. The 'present system' works just fine where I am. People can choose tongue or hands without a barefoot dancing sister in sight. Now does that hurt so much?
Why would you object to the
Why would you object to the Priest administering Holy Communion on your tongue? His fingers never touch your lips, and even if they did, the Priests hands are consecrated and are very clean. Do you know what your hands have touched before you receive Our Lord? Our Lord goes from the Priests fingers to your hands to your mouth. It is better to receive on the tongue; the faithful have done this for hundreds of years before Vatican II and I have never heard of anyone getting sick. No one should touch the Host except a Priest, whose hands are blessed and consecrated. I beg you to reconsider and start kneeling and receive Our Lord on your tongue directly from a Priest, not a Eucharistic Minister. Thank you for listening. I hope I have ended your fears of receiving on the tongue. May God be with you. JG
Anonymous (gee, you write a
Anonymous (gee, you write a lot on this site!), I would guess you've never been a Eucharistic minister, or talked to a priest about the issue of hygiene and illness? Priest and minister's fingers touch tongues a lot when you are trying to put a host on a flailing tongue whipping by. It is inevitable. And then you pick up another host with the same fingers and give it to someone else. Is there something about this movement of hand and fingers you don't see? This is not the mystery. The priest is not given a special cleanliness protection with ordination!
One of the reasons for the quick switch to hands for communion was that it is a bit less dirty than tongues and mouths, and that is obvious. In a time of worldwide infectiousness, communion practices have often been discussed. There are no easy answers, but this is an area where some choice will be increasingly supported, not less.
I toally agree. I remember
I toally agree. I remember from the "old days" that sometimes the priest's fingers touched the tongue and I am sure it was not just mine! It also amazes me that these committees have nothing better to do than be worried about the trappings of our celebrations and our faith. Why not leave the manner of reception to the receiver!
As for me and my mouth, we
As for me and my mouth, we will serve the Lord by receiving in the hand. And standing. I am a duly commissioned eucharistic minister. My bishop feels I'm worthy to touch the precious body. That's good enough for me and should be good enough for anyone coming up my line to receive. More than 90 percent receive in the hand. It's a real challenge to not touch someone's mouth or tongue when the want to receive by mouth. I feel I should disinfect for the next person in line. I'm always amazed that so many people seem to know what's in my heart - and that it must necessarily be lacking, unless I receive the precious body and blood as they dictate. Doing it their way, by mouth, I'm now magically more reverent. Let's focus on something important, like parish closings or getting more than 10 percent of the parish to volunteer their gifts back to the church.
I guess Anonymous is a doctor
I guess Anonymous is a doctor who will stand beside each priest as he distributes communion. Then he can sanitize the priest's hand after each person receives communion. Consecration, although extremely important, does not have anything to do with sanitation. How could the priest distribute communion and not touch lips and tongues of those who receive Communion???? In an age of so much knowledge about communicable diseases I think this is just ignorance. And, do you think it would be recorded when people from years past would have gotten sick from this practice? They didn't have the same knowledge we have today to attribute illness to daily practices.
I too was thinking that maybe
I too was thinking that maybe there should be a new ablution rite developed for washing of the hands following each person's reception of communion on the tongue. I suppose some people would stand in line all Sunday waiting for the ablution rites to be completed. Not me. :)
Wow! Just in time for swine
Wow! Just in time for swine flu!!!
What particular "pre-Vatican
What particular "pre-Vatican II liturgical practices and beliefs" come to mind?
To imagine that all bishops, priests, and deacons are perpetually holy and impeccable and untouchable in virtue of ordination is just as ridiculous as to imagine that all Christians are perpetually holy and impeccable and untouchable in virtue of baptism. Whatever veil or fog shielded our collective vision 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 70 years ago must be removed so that we can recognize sinful (criminal!) priests and respond appropriately and quickly.
But what particular "pre-Vatican II liturgical practices and beliefs" are coming back that are going to make the Church dysfunctional?
"But what particular
"But what particular 'pre-Vatican II liturgical practices and beliefs' are coming back that are going to make the Church dysfunctional?"
The Tridentine liturgy, for one. The "Tridentinizing/Latinizing" of the Novus Ordo, for another. These liturgies (and liturgical "artifacts") help prop up the elevation of the ordained and subordination of the laity. The priest has his place up at the pedestal, er, the altar, and the laity are relegated to the nave of the church. The priest is "leading the people to God" when, in fact, the priesthood was an invention that took a good 200 or so years to take root (the primitive mass was led by a layman who "presided" in his capacity, first, as community leader and, second, as presbyter or episkopos [title depending on particular community]).
The church is already dysfunctional --- and not because of Vatican II. See newspaper headlines over the past decade: rampant clerical sexual abuse of children, episcopal coverups/arrogance/condescension toward victims and the laity at large. Culture takes time to develop. These "fruits" stem from a mindset that took centuries to develop, not mere decades. Three good references for "starters" are Michael Crosby's THE DYSFUNCTIONAL CHURCH: ADDICTION AND CODEPENDENCY IN THE FAMILY OF CATHOLICISM, Michael Papesh's CLERICAL CULTURE: CONTRADICTION AND TRANSFORMATION, and George Wilson's CLERICALISM: THE DEATH OF PRIESTHOOD.
The response of the laity is
The response of the laity is really unimportant. The Church is not governed by democratic rules or majority vote. The liturgy is the heritage and patrimony of the ENTIRE Church, not just the Church in the US and not just the Church of this present age. Thus, it belongs to the Holy See properly to maintain and protect that heritage and patrimony. As a layman myself, I understand this truth, but I am baffled by the fact that some, supposedly formed and informed Catholics do not. The only conclusion that can justly be drawn is that some of the formation received by some folks was not proper or "up to par".
Always remember that the
Always remember that the laity as we are so glibly called IS the church!!! Are we to return to the days of "pray,pay and obey?" Be sure and disallow the pay part of our importance.
Must everything always be
Must everything always be reduced to the question of power and who is able exercise it, and money and who will pay it? Is there know recognition of the Mystical Body of Christ anymore? Have we fallen so far from our traditions that we cannot even acknowledge that we are not the only manifestation of the Church Universal? Do we not even recognize that the Church Universal is made up of the Church of the past, present and future and that the patrimony and heritage of the Church belongs to everyone who make up the Church: those who are in Heaven and/or Purgatory, those currently alive, and those still to come?
Thankfully, I know that it is not the majority of the Church Militant who have fallen so far, but only a happily decreasing minority.
How sad that
Clint Green on Aug. 26, 2009.
Clint Green on Aug. 26, 2009.
The church WAS much more democratic in its earlier days than
it is now. The people had the right to elect their own bishops,
and pope. In 1789, the priests of the original thirteen colonies elected the first American bishop, John Carroll of Baltimore. And the popes didn't start appointing bishops outside the Papal States until 1829.
This "hertiage and patrimony" of the entire Church that you talk about, is a relatively recent event----considering a 2000+ year history.
Vatican Council II stated that every one of the faithful are full and equal members of the Church. But the Vatican keeps insisting that only clerics can make decisions in the Church. That means the people of God don't own their own Church. This has disastrous consequences. We can see the results best in western Europe, where huge majorities of Catholics do not care any more about a Church that they do not own (own---as in having a say in what happens there). And in Australia---82% of those registered as Catholics no longer attend Church---for the same reason.
This is the 21st century, Clint. Before 1900, large majorities of people weren't even literate. But today, that's not the case. Also, the speed of information---makes the world much different. Trying to keep people down in a subservient position---does not fly anymore.
Pope Benedict XVI may have wanted a 'smaller and purer church", but he can't prove that Jesus would agree with him. And can the Vatican prove, without reasonable doubt, that Jesus would have been AGAINST a more democratic Church?
I don't believe that it can.
Good luck to Pope benedict
Good luck to Pope benedict for his desire for a "smaller and purer" Church. He, and others of his non-pastoral (Pharasaic) mindset can leave anytime they like!
The church would then be purer indeed!
"Pope Benedict XVI may have
"Pope Benedict XVI may have wanted a 'smaller and purer church", but he can't prove that Jesus would agree with him", so says Little Bear. Really? Did we not just hear the Gospel proclaimed a couple of weeks ago when the Lord called Himself "the Bread of Life"? And, did we not just hear how many of His disciples said "This is a hard saying, who can accept it?" and, as a result, went on their own way and followed Him no more? And did that Gospel not say that "Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe" and yet, knowing this "from the beginning", He did not alter in any way, shape, form or fashion His teaching to make it more palatable or more easily acceptable? No doubt Jesus felt very sad and disappointed as those left Him, but He did not change just to suit them, nor did He change anything He said, or say anything differently, just to stop people from leaving.
The Lord, you see, understood that there are some, perhaps many, who simply cannot or will not accept the truth. He knew that there were many who would rather put themselves and their own beliefs and opinions before His, who would rather be proud and wrong than humble and right. Yet, He let them choose their own way, and He never altered one word or one teaching to make them want to return. If people come to Him, they must accept Him as He Is, and not as they wish Him to be.
The Holy Father knows this as well. No one wants a "smaller" Church. But, if the choice is between a small, pure, holy Church, one that worships God with reverence and one that teaches the truth, or a church that is huge but has watered down its teachings to make them more acceptable and that worships God with inanities and silliness, then, for me, the choice is clear.
And, by the way, the only person who "owns" the Church is Christ. It is His Church, not mine or yours. He established the government of the Church on the Rock of Peter. And, to the question of democracy in the Church, I have already addressed that. If Christ had wanted to democracy, why did He not call for a vote or get a "consensus" of the disciples before uttering His Bread of Life discourse? Why did He not establish a Council of Apostles who would govern the Church, why choose one man to be the Church's voice and His Vicar? Because, He knew that, in almost every circumstance, democracy leads to compromise, and there can be no compromise between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil. He knew that a church which was run democratically would, inevitably, be divided, just as Protestantism is divided today.
The Episcopal Church is a great example of a church run democratically and that is divided time and again. Go to any town in the South and you will see a "First Baptist Church" and a "Second Baptist Church" and, sometimes even a "Third Baptist Church"! I once asked a Baptist friend of mine why this was and she said it was because some group at First Baptist got mad or disagreed with another group, so they formed their own congregation. Then some folks there got mad at others, and they formed the Third Baptist Church. Is this what you seriously want to condemn our Church to?
The Roman Catholic Church has survived thus far more or less unscathed. Others have broken off from us, yet we remain and our faith is unadulterated and unaltered. The reason for this is Christ's foresight in choosing Peter and establishing the Office of Bishop of Rome, the Papacy. The Holy Father is our unifying link, he protects the Church from doctrinal error and he governs the Church in Christ's name.
In the US alone there are over 22,000 Protestant denominations, but One Roman Catholic Church, founded by Christ on the Rock of Peter. What more evidence do you need?
Clint, I understand that you
Clint, I understand that you think what you say is obvious, but it is not the only reading or interpretation of the gospel. Even the passages about Peter being the rock and all do not prove papal infallibility or even leadership. Most of us can see the Pope as an important Christian leader, even a first among equals, but this vicar of Christ business just isn't supported by the text or Church history. Jesus said "He who is not against me is for me." The grandiose papal dominated Church you see as instituted by Jesus would not be recognizable to him. Rather than trimming the vine, we need to find some way to reconcile the divergent viewpoints or at least allow them to co-exist.
I grant you that there are
I grant you that there are many who interpret the Gospel differently. Nonetheless, this is the established teaching of the Church. Church history does support the Holy Father's role as Vicar of Christ. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch famously said, in the second century, "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia" ("Where Peter is, there is the Church"). The Great Schism occurred, at least partly, because the Patriarch of Constantinople wanted to be seen as equal to the Bishop of Rome, who he believed should only be "Primus inter pares" or "first among equals" as you suggest. This was unacceptable to the Western Church since it was clear what Jesus intended when He gave Peter the Keys.
You see, during the Davidic Kingdom, there was a palace official roughly equivalent to a Prime Minister who held the Keys to the Kingdom. He spoke on behalf of the King, he acted on behalf of the King. When you saw him, you saw the King. Christ renewed the Kingdom as the new and perfected David. In this new Kingdom of God, He established a Prime Minister, or Vicar, just as David did, and gave to His Prime Minister the Keys to the Kingdom. That Prime Minister was Peter and in his 264 successors, that role of Vicar of Christ continues to be lived out in our Church today.
"Pure church?" Not possible
"Pure church?" Not possible unless they have something other than fallible human beings as members."
I am from Australia. I do not
I am from Australia. I do not attend Church because of what people like you have done in the last 40 years. Mass is just banal and only idiots or saints put up with it. If I wanted lay people given out communion I would be a protestant. If I wanted trendy things I'd take drugs. But I do not I want the truth not wordly lazy people like half those so called priests and nuns. No self discipline and ego vatican II has allowed them to expand.
The Laity are called the
The Laity are called the PEOPLE OF GOD and that is where the HOLY SPIRIT IS PRESENT! Let us try not to forget VATICAN II! God, the Holy Spirit, is present in the Christian Community from the inception of the followers of Christ! This was stated in The Vatican II council! Perhaps we need to study the document again and have a BIG REVIEW IN THE CHURCH IN ADULT-ED!
This elevation of the clerical ego in the Church is a bit too much! Let's get humble like Jesus was and get over this clerical status! After all aren't they (all clerics) supposed to be be the servants of the servants!?? Or are they just blinded by their egotism and love for fashion ,e.g. cassock and biretta , not to mention the retro-fashions in Rome?? Or as one cleric stated once "these hands are made for chalices not calluses", how vain!!
"Up to par" strikes me as
"Up to par" strikes me as quite an arrogant phrase. Unconscious veneration of the eternally "correct" "Holy See" is not a "truth" I accept when we know that the position of Holy See was bought a number of times by wealthy families. I was taught that all together we constitute the body of the church. I don't recall Jesus ever referring to the Holy See. Nor did he condone arrogance, disdain, or patronizing each other. He urged us to love our neighbors as ourselves. So I will work on that.
I read the article from Il
I read the article from Il Giornale, written by Andrea Tornielli, a Vaticanologist who has proven to have precise information about upcoming Vatican nominations both within the Curia and to the variojus dioceses for the last six months. I hope that Fr. Benedettini has reported factually the state of the question. Certain elements of the "reform of the reform" touch upon the concept of "actuosa participatio." which the Consilium ad exsequandam Constitionem de Sacra Liturgia judged "historical accretions"(e.g., multiplied gestures of reverence)or considered as restrictive of the ability of the faithful to enter directly into the heart (as opposed to the atmospherics) of the euchatristic celebration (the use of plain chant as opposed to the music of popular piety). The question of the celebration "ad orientem" or toward the East or toward the crucifix is hugely confused and requires great clarification. Above all, however, we must not lose sight of the sacrificial nature of the Mass as rooted in the identification of the priest, of the congregation, and of the elements of sacrifice with the one unbloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ in obedience and love prefigured in the Last Supper, occurring at Calvary, and made to come alive evert time we "proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes."
The reason for not
The reason for not distributing the host in one's hands is to prevent the communicant from putting it in his pocket and save it for a rainy day which is exactly what Canada's WASP prime minister Stephen Harper did and received a lot of criticism and aggravation because of his misguided gesture.
The best of the Good News of Jesus Christ is indeed that he wants us to indulge in a lot more hocus pocus, like incense and bells, to show that we are hollier than the other person. Like real scribes and pharisees.
Stephen Harper is a Wasp
Stephen Harper is a Wasp prime minister of Canada. I don't want to come across as an apologist for this man. Nevertheless, he did NOT put the host in his pocket, as you report; this has clearly been ruled out. Your information is incorrect.
The commenter (Thiverge) is a
The commenter (Thiverge) is a well known anti-Catholic. Just brush off his comments...
That nonsense about the Cdn.
That nonsense about the Cdn. Prime Minister has been debunked. I wouldn't vote for him but let's be fair.
These liturgical questions
These liturgical questions have to be among the most barren and sterile “issues” facing the Church today. Think about it. Imagine that you were in the room discussing the issue of whether a priest should face the toward the congregation or away from the congregation. What could you add to the conversation? The Mass constitutes our most direct and intimate connection with Almighty God, the most magnificent Being in the universe. We have nearly 2,000 years of history on the subject. What is there that is new? What man sitting there could speak authoritatively about which alternative the God would prefer? And what would be his evidence?
The same goes for other difficult liturgical decisions. Take Communion in the hand or in the mouth? What does God want? Does He care? How do we know? Should the priest mumble in Latin or in the vernacular? Should we shake hands or not? Should the congregation sing or is it better for the choir to do it? (Having heard a number of congregations sing, I suspect that the latter would be easier on God’s ears, if He has ears, but that’s just my opinion.) Stand, sit or kneel?
Thankfully, you and I don’t need to debate this — we have an entire Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments to make this up as they go along. I have a suggestion: let’s send all of the cardinals, bishops and priests of this Congregation out to parishes in need of priests, give the Pope a coin that he can flip and ask him to tell us whether it comes up heads or tails.
you're right. and besides,
you're right. and besides, in regards to vatican 2, more people went to chruch before it than after it. the changes didn't work. almost nobody but the white haired in the pews,, the church is dying.
if the church is dying, it is
if the church is dying, it is because it is not following through on the refoms of Vatican II and responding to the people's need for God as an intimate close part of their daily life.
Turning the priest around and taking Eucharist away from our receiving it freely in our hands to where it is granted to us by someone forcing it in our throats in an act of submission and oppression is the reason the church is dying.
If the "reform of the reform" actually goes through, Christ's church will be dead and we will have to find our own way to God - which is what was happening after Vatican II by bringing the laity into the liturgy and feeling like a contributing part of "the body of Christ".
What a sad day in church history.
There have been people
There have been people thinking the church is dying since it started.
This would be a tragic
This would be a tragic mistake of great proportions. Many of the faithful would leave the fold. We are liturgically acclimated to the current liturgical form of the Eucharist and change does not come easily. It has taken many years since Vatican II for the faithful to fully appreciate and accept the current form.
That's funny. This is
That's funny. This is exactly what happened 40 years ago. The response then by many was "deal with it." So, now to the NCR nation I repeat back to them their own words, "deal with it."
The difference is that 40
The difference is that 40 years ago the liturgical reforms were necessary and benefitted all of us by making the Mass a participatory living experience for both priests and laity. To stay in the Middle Ages was as dumb then as it is now. To go backward is an unbelievable mistake and I pray that there are not secret plans to suddenly implement the "reform of the reform" that is now being downplayed by the Vatican. We will not "deal with it" just because some dinosaurs in Rome (particularly a certain German, who came of age in the Nazi period) say so. The dysfunctional, autocratic, "Pope and Church are infallible" days are over and will never return. I am not opposed to an occasional Latin, even Tridentine Mass, and anyone who wants to receive in their mouth is and should remain welcome to do so. Gregorian Chant occasionally could be nice -But don't you dare jam all this down our throats as mandatory or even the norm! And God forbid, don't lose sight of the fact that the Mass is communal prayer and dramatization of the Real Presence of Jesus in the People of God, and the Eucharist (whatever this term "Real Presence" means). As such, having priests turn their backs on the people, distancing us from God, will not ever be tolerated again by contemporary Catholics. No matter what Rome says. Now more than ever we need to pray "Blessed John XXIII, pray for us!"
"And God forbid, don't lose
"And God forbid, don't lose sight of the fact that the Mass is communal prayer and dramatization of the Real Presence of Jesus in the People of God, and the Eucharist (whatever this term "Real Presence" means)."
I don't know from your statements what denomination you belong to, but for any Catholic the above is not just heretical but blasphemous. The consecrated Host is thetotality of the living Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.
The "certain German, who came of age in the Nazi period" by the way is the the Vicar of Christ upon the earth, and still infallible when he speaks ex cathedra. As for dinosaurs, I can tell by your sentiments, like so many here at NCR, you are old enough to remember when Vatican II was new and cool. Those of us who know of it only through the history books, are usually either wholly secular (the majority it's true) or anxious for a return to the faith that the preciding couple of generation robbed from us. That a majority are so secular, by the way, is I'm sure is due to the incipit kumbayaa we are church religion that they were taught which no one can really take seriously.
Tom, let me get this
Tom, let me get this straight. You are objecting to me defending the Real Presence?
"REAL PRESENCE: The UNIQUE,
"REAL PRESENCE: The UNIQUE, true presence of Christ in the Eucharist under the species or appearances of bread and wine. The Church invites the faithful to deepen their faith in the real presence of Christ through adoration and communion at the Eucharistic liturgy, and through adoration outside its celebration (1378-1379). " The above definition is from the Catechism (though I changed "unique" to all caps for emphasis. If you were defending this defintion and the dogma it expresses, my apologizes; I misunderstood. If so however, I have no idea what you were getting at there. My interpretation was based on your reference to the real presence of Christ in the gathering. I have a pastor who likes to say that when distributing the Eucharist, when he says, "the Body of Christ", he doesn't look at the Host but at the communicant, because we are "the true Body of Christ". I may have read his attitude into your words unfairly. To him I'd like to say (but haven't) if I'm God-Incarnate then you should get your butt over to my apartment on Sunday's and worship me there; why should I haul @55 over here. Christ promised to be present when we gather, but that's more a kind of hovering spirtual presence. The consecrated Host and Blood under the species of bread and wine are the UNIQUE Real Presence, so I don't know what you meant by the gathering. But again I did unleash on you, what I should say to my Pastor, though I usually go to the more orthodox University Chapel anyway.
My comment on The Holy Father stands!!!
Peace, Tom.
The church says CHRIST IS
The church says CHRIST IS TRULY PRESENT in the Word, in the presider, in the Eucharistic elements, AND IN THE ASSEMBLY during liturgy. We are called to take and eat what we already are and to be formed more fully into the Body of Christ.
BigBear...in case you don't
BigBear...in case you don't know VATICAN II says that Gregorian Chant is the norm.
Anonymous, I happen to love
Anonymous, I happen to love Gregorian Chant. It certainly was the norm at the time of Vatican 2. However, much excellent Church music has been written since, and our liturgies would be reduced in their impact if we only listened to Chant. I have no problem with a balance of musical styles.
"This is exactly what
"This is exactly what happened 40 years ago"--really? What happened to whom? Who did what? And why? Have some doubts you know.............
Shocking. Hey to all NCR
Shocking. Hey to all NCR readers:
Remember the 60's and 70's where tons of Catholics traditions (gregorian chant. communion on hand and in the tongue, ,ad orientem, high altars, etc..) were removed? Remember how the people who wanted those things were effectively sneered at and told that thet would just have to get over it? You people shock me. I want an answer to this message here because I don't understand you people. You yell about the need for the Church to be more "inclusive" yet us traditional Catholics need to be told to shutup and get into a corner. We should be confined to minor parishes that are away from areas where we will be seen too much. Also any mention of us should have the words "nostalgic" or "unable to move on" as a prefix.
Get off the high horse mates. Liturgical experimention (liturgical dancing, etc...) has been goiong on for 40 years except one type of experimentation: traditionalism. That must be banned and mocked constantly. The Church needs to rebuild a sense of the sacred and Catholic identity. Mass should be about lifting peoples minds and hearts up to God and creating an atmostphere of reverence and awe for the Wholly Other.
Yet whenever you hear about traditional Catholicism the insults and mockery come out. Why? No one is forcing this on you. We are not yelling at you to go to a traditional mass or attend an ad orientem liturgy and telling you that you had better get used to it...like you did to those who thought like us in the 60s and 70s (only vice versa).
"Remember how the people who
"Remember how the people who wanted those things were effectively sneered at and told that they would just have to get over it?"
Might surprise you to know that the "neo-traditionalist" movement mostly started during the Civil Rights era when priests began to take a stand toward a desegregated society, not as any direct response to V2 reforms. People at that time were more curious and hopeful than resistant toward change, as you propose in this little diatribe of yours. There has been much re-writing of history by the neo-traditionalists since that time..
Friar Tuck, I too
Friar Tuck,
I too respect your opinions. Please don't think I want to ban the new mass mass of make things like ad populum illegal. I just want to see traditional liturgy be treated with the same respect as our contemporary liturgy is. Yes, there are radical trads. But I am not one of them.
Annie O,
ever hear of Marcel Lefebrve? He was a Catholic missionary in Africa who converted many Africans to the Catholic faith and founded missions. He founded the SSPX. Dietrich von Hildebrand? He fought the nazis and was almost killed for it! A great moral philosopher and man who really fought for the civil rights of the Jews when many of his brother Catholics in Germany refused to. They were both early founders of the trad movement. Trying to link us to racism or anything of the sort is just plain ludicrous and despicable. Yes, there are radical trads. I am not one of them nor are most of us.
A sinner, Huh? I'm talking
A sinner,
Huh? I'm talking about the post-V2 years and the reaction of people to the changes of V2 in the U.S. I keep reading about how unhappy people were then and that their feelings were being ignored, but that doesn't really seem to have much weight. As I said, it was changes in society that seemed to bring about the neo-trad movement, and that really showed in the Civil Rights Era in this country.
Am guessing you aren't clicking in with that because you weren't even there for it?
Sinner: I will not throw
Sinner:
I will not throw stones at you. Although I worship in a parish that worships in a more contemporary fashion, I respect your desire for a transendent experience and contact with the Holy (vs. the community gathering around the table). I wish the two could come together........perhaps one day they will. But, until then, take heart. Who we worship is the same JESUS.
Thank you! These days,
Thank you! These days, Catholics don't seem to have their priorities straight. The focus should not be how people feel about the liturgy or 'what they get out of it', because that is a very selfish, man-centered view. People forget that celebrating the Mass with reverence and awe for Christ is the most important issue in regard to the liturgy. Hopefully this will be the death-rattle for the 'Me-Church' mentality.
Max: It is not selfish nor
Max: It is not selfish nor egotistical to seek a rite, liturgy that connects the divine mystery with the human condition. Why did Christ take flesh, become human, come among us? Because we are sinners, yes; but also because that is how God created us and Christ honoured His Father and the magnificance of creation. You can attribute selfish "me" attitude if you will, and to some extent you may be right, but also and mainly, it is all about love, divine love enshrined in humanity, intended to touch us, be "tangible" as well as sacred. Christ did not establish the "Mass", (He lived, loved, died and rose again) man did and he did it with pedagogical intentions and representational objectives as well as sensual, perceptual actions that evoke a sense of what the mystery is. You are naive to pretend that the structure of the mass is not without politics. Is it of hierarchy, domination and power or is it of love, inclusion and reaching out to the present?
"Traditional Catholics" like
"Traditional Catholics" like you are fond of the last experimental liturgy before the current one. Another few years and the current liturgy will be older than the traditional. What you really want is to bring back your childhood like all "traditionalist".
Um Most of us Traditional
Um Most of us Traditional Catholics were born AFTER V2- At least I was. And there was a liturgical experiament before V2 - there was organic development which is always a good thingn.
You certainly have a point.
You certainly have a point. God bless Pope Benedict in his efforts to restore the Church.
I am 24, and I was not
I am 24, and I was not exposed to the tridentine rite until a couple of years ago, and boy was it love at first sight. I don't get all the people who imagine only a few people who were alive before the liturgical reforms of Vatican 2 prefer the old liturgy. In fact, on the contrary, all the Tridentine Masses I have attended have been jam-packed with young people, university students and the like. There has been way too much liturgical experimentation and a sense of the loss of what one could say before that Mass is the same in every Catholic Church in the world. Nowadays, in one parish the priest plays a guitar at the front at the beginning of Mass as the altar boys lead a priestless procession to the front, and other things of this sort. Young people, the ones I came across, are looking for something deeper and more meaningful to face the great challenges of today: Moral relativism, ignorance of God even amongst the clergy, lack of respect for any authority whatsoever, hedonism, you name it, and the answer is not in emotional highs that come from good happy clappy music, it's in sound doctrine and real reverence for God. I have for the past many years been receiving Our Lord on my tongue, I honestly can't believe people are talking about it being unhygienic, there are people who've been receiving him like that since they were born. The discussion here has really bordered on the ridiculous at points, and even given way to massive anti-Catholic rants. I am all for returning reverence to the Mass, How many Catholics attend Mass nowadays and have no idea what's truly going on, that during Mass we are all united, with the angels and communion of saints?
Luke, you are too young to
Luke, you are too young to sound so stodgy. God is a God of joy and happiness. Take off your hair shirt and cilice and enjoy the life God has given you. Dave
Ah, the rumor mill churns on.
Ah, the rumor mill churns on. Motivated by a desperation to return to the old days.
Well, now, there's certainly
Well, now, there's certainly a thoughtful response from someone titling himself with education.
Yes, thank you for the
Yes, thank you for the compliment Annie! I always tell the truth in my comments.
Yes, the Pope (Benedict) acts
Yes, the Pope (Benedict) acts as a KING and not the first SHEPHERD by requiring lay persons and others to kneel before him to receive communion. Disgusting and regressive. This is another one of Benedict's measures to "restore" medieval practices which do not remotely mirror the real meaning of the Eucharist as a common meal around a common table. All of this will expedite the final crumbling of the decaying imperial Roman Church of the Latin Rite. Power grabs like this only speed up the process for radical reform of the Papacy, Clerical State, and rights due to The People of God. It makes the men in Rome look even more ridiculous , out of touch with Vatican II theology and just plain silly. They continue to shoot themselves in the foot when they are not putting their feet in their collective mouths. Nothing they do surprises me. Such is the dysfunctional nature of a reactionary mindset as portrayed by the men at the Vatican. It is they who are abusing the very nature of the Holy Eucharist. Christ INVITES EVERYONE to His table on a very equal basis. Down with the corrupt and decaying practices of ancient Rome!
I don't think they are "out
I don't think they are "out of touch with Vatican II theology". I think they understand it well, and just can't stand it. That's why we have experienced 40 plus years of trying to undo it. The Spirit spoke, and some listened, and then most said, "OMG, what did we just do? We've got to stop it..."
Yes! I find it most
Yes! I find it most interesting that those who shout most about obedience to Rome so radically depart from Vatican II. Was that not a Council of the Church to whicih we should be obedient. Or, like some just consider that the Council was not legal and should not be followed or that many have interpreted it incorrectly. How selective and useful.
It seems to me that on this
It seems to me that on this board the ones who are called "traditional" or "conservative: are the ones citing Vatican II frequently. The "liberal" viewpoint here never quotes from the Council at all. They from time to time look to the authority of some kind of spirit of the council, but never the Council itself. Did it every occur to anyone that the Holy Spirit may be working now to actually implement the Second Vatican Council after decades of ignoring the Council and following personal preferences.
It seems to me that the
It seems to me that the traditionalists or conservatives don't actually cite the documents they reference them generally. Those who have supported Vatican II reforms here appear to not only have read Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes...as well as the ancillary post conciliar documents on ecumenism and other faith traditions: Nostra Aetate....but have lived them....not out of personal preference but out of a belief that the Holy Spirit truly does guide the Church.
I think it's very sad that
I think it's very sad that all the cardinals, archbishops, bishops and pope worked for so long and as a college to reform the antiquated and hierarchical positions of the church. Now, a few men of the Vatican think they know better than that Vatican II conference and are determined to reverse it all. I think the Vatican II conference was inspired by Christ and the Spirit. These men are not.
What "antiquated and
What "antiquated and hierarchical positions of the church" are you referring to specifically? (I can't tell if you mean "position" in the sense of "office" or in the sense of "stance".)
Post new comment