Rorate Caeli

When will the horror of Communion in the hand stop?

Leading by example is nice, but the general pontifical faculty of allowing Communion in the hand (extended to Poland, for instance, during this Pontificate) could be abolished in a single day...

From Costa Rica (this Presidential candidate lost in the recent presidential elections):

78 comments:

becket said...

Could be ended but won't!. This is exactly the irreverence that has pushed me to look at the Eastern Orthodox Church as my new home. Rome sets the example, but falls short of mandating anything.

Gerald said...

Father Anscar Chupungco OSB's question in his in Sydney Australia speech:

"Is receiving Holy Communion on one’s knees and on the tongue more reverent than receiving it standing and in the hand?"

Isn't it obvious????

LeonG said...

Not only must we demand that communion in the hand stop but also When will the horror of the vernacular service desist?
The Church has suffered forty one years of liturgical novelty; unorthodox praxis; vertiginous declining Sunday attendances; falling vocations; numerous emptying & closing NO seminaries; endless illicit behaviours with liturgical disunity & chaos on a universal scale. And still they continue to implement more changes to it.

Fr. Gary V. said...

Sacrilege!

Anonymous said...

This they tolerate, but the FSSP in Toronto they do not tolerate!

Seen this, and to think, it was only a few days ago in Rorate that the growth of the traditional liturgy was extolled!

http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2010/02/fssp-apostolate-in-toronto-comes-to-end.html

Anonymous said...

There is a better film of the incident here showing this lady approaching for communion. The Archbishop clearly attempts to place the Host on her tongue but she refuses and moves his hand back and begins to talk with the Archbishop. Very strange...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9t0f_9AsUM&feature=related

Anonymous said...

OUTRAGEOUS!!!!! Someone should have grabed these 2 and taken the host out othe pocket then thrown them out of the Church. Who knows what they were going to do. Desecrate the host!Communion in the hand is one of the GREATEST abuses. I have contemplated a vocation to the Priesthood but having to do give communion on the hand is a real dampener. I feel like I am complicit in an abuse!

M. A. said...

"I have contemplated a vocation to the Priesthood but having to do give communion on the hand is a real dampener. I feel like I am complicit in an abuse!"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, become a priest and refuse Communion in the hand. We need some priests with backbone. Most would rather be complicit in scourging Christ than offend the people!

Anonymous said...

What was the woman saying to the cleric giving Communion? She seemed to be saying a lot more than 'Amen'.

Anonymous said...

Our local (Canadian) Ordinary recently lifted his "recommendations" against communion on the tongue because of the 'flu. (The letters conveying these "recommendations" were signed by the diocese's Business Administrator, of all people...)

Our parish priest, who rejoiced in the recommendations and elevated them to the status of absolute commands "by the Bishops", was obliged to announce their rescinding, too. So he took the opportunity to declare his personal "vehement" opposition to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, and described publicly in contemptuous and icky detail how he the priest gets saliva on his fingers, conveys contagion to the next communicant, etc., etc.

So receiving on the tongue is not going to be a possibility at our parish, going forward.

AM

M. A. said...

I just watched the youtube mentioned by 2010 10:05.

Incredibly, the reporter states that church authorities deem the act of this woman as something "disrespectful" but not a sacrilege.

You hear that? It was not a sacrilege. So everyone, get over it. The proper authorities have made the call, so it can't be sacrilege. (sarcasm)

Anonymous said...

Yes, it was certainly an abuse but then one abuse does NOT invalidate the entire rule. Then again if she were to receive it directly on the tongue she could have just as equally not swallowed it and removed it ! The Church cannot revert permission to receive communion ofn the tongue - it is more than a simple ruling but the general tendency of the Second Vatican Council !

Jamie

Garrett said...

AM,

Of course it will be a possibility. It is, in fact, a right. No one at your parish can be denied it. If you are, write to the bishop (then to Rome).

Please don't let the Satanic influences of your priest in the matter scare you into not exercising your right to do so. Then the Enemy will have won.

Jordanes said...

AM, maybe we could all visit your parish so we can receive on the tongue at your fastidious germaphobe priest.

Jordanes said...

it is more than a simple ruling but the general tendency of the Second Vatican Council !

The infamous "spirit of Vatican II" under another name. Yawn.

Mark of the Vineyard said...

Lord have mercy on us.

Dan Hunter said...

Please let us pray with all the will and strength in our minds that this Holy Father abolishes the despicable and phenomenally atrocious crime of recieving God in the hand!

Bishop Athanasius Schneider pray for this!

Anonymous said...

I think it'd be great if a contingent of Roratarians came to my parish all at once. But seriously folks. The reality is that if I join battle in my parish about receiving on the tongue, when everyone currently receives standing, on the hand, and (apart from my family) with no visible gesture of reverence -- I'll lose on all fronts: parochial, social, domestic. That would be Satanic, if you like.

Better to receive as reverently as is allowed (kneeling, onto joined palms, no fingers) and die on a different hill.

AM

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"This is exactly the irreverence that has pushed me to look at the Eastern Orthodox Church as my new home."

From the frying pan and into the fire!

I hope that you will reconsider your very rash decision.

Paul Haley said...

Absolutely outrageous!!!
But there's no state of necessity, folks, and the perpetrators of this insanity have canonical status and faculties so move along and get with the program (sarcasm).

It will stop when Our Lord says He has had enough of this insanity through a Eucharistic miracle or some such event which turns the tables on the perpetrators. It reminds me of the Scourging at the Pillar when Our Lord's friends(sic) silently watched the abuse heaped upon the Son of God. My Jesus Mercy.

Dan Hunter said...

"Better to receive as reverently as is allowed (kneeling, onto joined palms, no fingers) and die on a different hill."

AM,
Why can't you recieve God reverently, kneeling, on the tongue and die with Christ?

For years when I used to assist at the Novus Ordo in a former parish, I was one of maybe three that recieved God on the tongue, after recieving Him this way for several weeks, several others followed suit and eventually about half the congregation of perhaps 100 were recieving Him on the tongue.

We are called by Christ to be exemplars of the Truth.

As Bishop Sheen said, "We must make sure our priests are holy priests and our bishops are holy bishops".

Stefan said...

Becket,
In my humble opinion, I wouldn't recommend a conversion based on reaction against abuses.

Anonymous said...

Sacrilege, intended or unintended, will happen where there is the will. Taking a host out of the mouth or from the hand is only a difference of convenience. The Eastern Orthodox always receive Holy Communion standing as a sign or respect. In the West kneeling was/is considered respectful. The Christians of the first centuries brought Holy Communion home with them. As to the Supreme Pontiff: I find it extremely eccentric that whenever he celebrates Mass he requires a select group kneel to receive Holy Communion from him whereas battalions of priests and deacons around him distribute Holy Communion to the faithful, standing and generally in the hand. A Papal Privilege? Do people in parishes routinely kneel during the offertory when they bring up the ciborium and cruets as they de rigueur kneel before the Pope? Are they required to have a little chat as they do it in Rome? This "Benedictine arrangement" will only be an historical fad unless an unwilling Rome writes something in stone. If it does it will only be a matter of time before they bring out the chisels. I have never seen photos of the laity receiving Holy Communion at Papal masses prior to VCII. What exactly was the practice? How did they do it then if they did it at all?

Anonymous said...

Here we go again with the Trads. Go to almost any parish and 99.9% of the people receive Communion in the hand. They have the option to receive on the tongue.

But 99.9% want Communion in the hand. They don't want to receive the other way. But here come the Trads again to tell the other 99.9% how to live.

I wish that bishops wouldn't be stingy with the Latin Mass. Just set up a Latin Mass parish in each parish and the Trads can have what they want.

And the other 99.9% of Catholics who love the changes can live in peace without being told what to do by Trads.

J.G. Ratkaj said...

It looks very doubtful that there will be an end of this practice in anytime soon. au contraire this practice becomes more and more rampant each year. Sadly also among rather conservative believers or the few nations, where catholicism still has a deeper rootedness. The pr

Jordanes said...

But 99.9% want Communion in the hand.

Truth and good are not determined by majority vote.

New Catholic said...

The people want Barabbas.

Anonymous said...

Anon 19:01

You must be from CAF - I can spot them!

Delphina

Dan Hunter said...

Anon,

The majority of voting American "Catholics" wanted Obama as President.
Just because these dissidents wanted a radically pro-murder man as Commander in Chief does not make it right.

Here is a link from an EWTN interview of Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Kazakstan condemning Communion in the hand, and he is hardly a "trad":

http://athanasiuscm.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

The same old problem within the post-Vatican II Church is present here.

That is, novelty has been placed on par with Holy Tradition and very simply, they cannot co-exist in harmony.

When placed side-by-side, novelty and Holy Tradition clash as they present jarring contrasts to each other.

There are posters who are 100 percent correct when they state that the reception of Holy Communion in the hand is approved by Rome.

There are posters who are 100 percent correct when they turn to Holy Tradition as a means to oppose the reception of Holy Communion in the hand.

Only Rome can end the crisis of Faith. Only Rome can restore liturgical sanity to the Latin Church.

Rome must side with either novelty or Holy Tradition.

If Rome is true to Herself, then only one choice is possible — Holy Tradition.

Tim

Salome said...

Becket,

Stefan is right. Convert to Orthodoxy on theological reasons not on emotional reactions.

Emilio said...

I truly believe that the abrogation of Communion in the Hand is a no brainer. The resistance would come from the Bishops and Clergy, not from the laity (just like Summorum Pontificum!). The majority of practiciing Catholic are practicing Catholics because we are OBEDIENT to authority. If authority instructs us that for our spiritual good Communion will no longer be administered in the hand (and a proper understanding and reverence for the Most Blessed Sacrament is indeed for the spiritual benefit, not detriment, of us all) ... then we will OBEY. Let us pray that the Holy Father will have the courage to resolve this matter once and for all.

LeonG said...

"The resistance would come from the Bishops and Clergy.."

Indeed, Emilio, you state correctly. It is the clergy & their bishops who lead the rebellion against legitimate authority. This is how it was at The Vatican Councils. Not satisfied with all Pope John XXIII's (RIP) excellent preparatory work the liberal modernist & socialistic rebels had all this effectively rejected & rewritten according to their cleverly manipulated dictates. Nothing that was apparent to them as traditional was allowed to remain uncontested or unrevised. This seed of division was implanted in due process and has afflicted the contemporary church systemically from within ever since.

The worst of it all is that such antagonists have had the audacity to accuse traditional Roman Catholics of disobedience to papal authority when in actual fact it is to such as these belongs the label of fractiousness, division and disobedience. This is the hypocrisy that is liberal modernism. Now we are able to see it for what it really is.

Rommel said...

I started an online petition to stop communion in the hand. We hope to send it to the Holy Father along with these videos as evidence.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stophandcommunion

Sign up!

Daniel said...

Another call for Reparation this coming First Friday and First Saturday!


Act of Reparation to the Most Blessed Sacrament


With that most profound respect which divine Faith inspires,
O my God and Saviour Jesus Christ, true God and true man,
I adore Thee, and with my whole heart I love Thee,
hidden in the most august Sacrament of the Altar,
in reparation of all the irreverences,
profanations, and sacrileges, that I,
to my shame, may have until now committed, as also for all those
that have been committed against Thee, or that may be ever committed for the time to come.

I offer to Thee, therefore, O my God, my humble adoration, not indeed,
such as Thou art worthy of, nor such as I owe Thee,
but such, at least, as I am capable of offerings;
and I wish that I could love Thee with the most perfect love
of which rational creatures are capable.

In the meantime, I desire to adore Thee now and always,
not only for those Catholics
who do not adore or love Thee, but also so supply the defect,
and for the conversion of all heretics, schismatics, lebertines,
atheists, blasphemers, sorcerers, Mahomedans,
Jews, and idolaters.

Ah! yes, my Jesus, mayest Thou be known,
adored, and loved by all and may thanks be continually given to Thee
in the most holy and august Sacrament!

Anonymous said...

Rome wants people to follow, leading by example then do nothing to stop such scandal under people's noses. This would be horrifying for me to see in front of me or next to me. 99 % of parishes go along or do things this way simply because they were muscled into it in the first place. 99% did not petition ROme for this. It was a novelty people went along with thinking it would be cool, new, modern, updated, etc. I bet more were and still are denined Communion on the tongue than those denied to receive in the hand. This has nothing to do with trads or liberals it has everything to do with suppression and intimidation on the part of parish Priests to deny the faithful receiving on the tongue. People who receive in the hand are not forced to witness such grave abuses from people who receive on the tongue, so why should we have to be scandalized time in and time out? There was a time when everyone just received and no one was scandalized and that was before in the hand was introduced. Is it really worth it people? It is not the "trads" way of doing things, as if they thought it up, it is the norm for the Latin Rite Church. Period.

St. Rafael said...

Communion in the Hand will never end until the laity take action.

They must write to the Holy Father over and over again, pleading that he ends the indult of Communion in the Hand.

Pastors of parishes must push Comunion on the tongue and preach about it in their sermons. Having altar servers use the Communion plates will encourage many of the faithful.

Anonymous said...

Emilio is right. Each holy and loyal Catholic would obey the Pope if His Holiness this very second consigned to oblivion Communion in the hand.

Only the disobedient would resist the Holy Father's directive.

In any matter regarding the restoration of Holy Tradition, such as Mass ad orientem, the Faithful would follow the Holy Father's lead.

The notion that the restoration of Holy Tradition must involve a painfully slooooow, brickkkkkk-by-brickkkkkk process is false.

Christ's holy and loyal Faithful long for a Pope who will restore Holy Tradition throughout the Church.

I wish that His Holiness would realize that.

Tim

P.S. Dear Holiness, millions of your subjects beg you to offer the Traditional Roman Mass.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Truth and good are not determined by majority vote."

Which is precisely why democracy is a bad idea and a constitutionally-limited monarchy is the right way to go. If the people vote constantly for their Head of State, they will come to believe by degrees that all power comes from them instead of from God.

What is better is an hereditary monarchy with mostly negative but still real power (meaning a real veto), a constitutionally-limited scope for state action, and mostly the rule of common law, of precedent, by panels of judges who respect precedent. The place of government is to protect us from murderers and foreign armies and to collect the garbabe and repair the roads but esp. to adjudicate among citizens in private disputes. Anything more than this leadeth to Obamacare and that massive form of larceny called 'redistribution of wealth'.

P.K.T.P.

Dan Hunter said...

"The resistance would come from the Bishops and Clergy.."

Exactly.

I was at Byzantine Catholic church for Mass this Sunday and in his sermon Father said that it was the Heirarchy, Cardinals and Bishops who supported the Iconoclasm of the 5th century, and not the regular faithful Catholics.
The regulars were against the destruction of icons.

Jordanes said...

I think you may be misremembering what he said. Iconoclasm was not a heresy of the 400s A.D., but of the 700s and 800s. Furthermore, while there were many turncoat clerics and bishops who adopted the Emperors' heresy, at least as many refused to approve it and were persecuted for it. It really wasn't a heresy that resided chiefly in the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but was instead another of the heresies promoted by the Emperors. It was the Emperor and his party, not the hierarchy, that wanted to impose Iconoclasm on the Church. The Roman Pontiff never wavered in this matter.

M. A. said...

Thank you, Rommel. I signed the petition.

God bless.

Jordanes said...

The notion that the restoration of Holy Tradition must involve a painfully slooooow, brickkkkkk-by-brickkkkkk process is false.

Easy for an armchair Pope to say, who is not charged with safeguarding the unity of the Church and spiritual wellbeing of the sheep he is charged to pastor.

Really though, something can be broken in a single moment. Nothing in this world can be built, or rebuilt, in just a moment.

Anonymous said...

"Easy for an armchair Pope to say, who is not charged with safeguarding the unity of the Church and spiritual wellbeing of the sheep he is charged to pastor."

It is extremely easy for me to say. Monumentally easy.

Really though, the sloooooow brick-by-brick approach is dreadful.

Tim

Dan Hunter said...

Jordanes,

I do apologise for getting the date wrong for Iconoclasm, but I am absolutely 100% sure that Father Rick Rohr a great priest at St Cyril and Methodius Byzantine Catholic Church stated that it was Cardinals and Bishops that were the primary perpatrators of iconoclasm and not the people.

If Father is wrong that you may take up with him.
But the Liturgy was just this past Sunday and my wife and mother both verify that this is what he said.
I did not mishear Father.
God bless.

Anonymous said...

"...it was Cardinals and Bishops that were the primary perpatrators of iconoclasm and not the people."

Based upon my study of Eastern Orthodoxy, bishops most certainly played an important role (negatively) during the iconoclastic controversy.

Emperors, however, spurred the controversy.

The excerpt below is found on the Orthodox Christian Information Center's Web site.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/bishop-atanasije-homily-on-the-sunday-of-orthodoxy.aspx

Homily for the Sunday of Orthodoxy, given in the Cathedral of Trebinje, 2007 by the Most Reverend Atanasije, Retired Bishop of Zahumlje and Herzegovina

"This is the feast that Orthodoxy celebrates today.

"Godless iconoclast emperors and godless mighty men tried [to fight against icons], sadly, with the help of a few bishops; very few Christian laity were on the side of iconoclasm, and not a single monk, but there were a few bishops and priests.

"It was mainly the iconoclast emperors, fighters against God and against Christ, who gave the orders to remove the Holy Icons from Churches."

Jordanes said...

Really though, the sloooooow brick-by-brick approach is dreadful.

It was the approach God took in laying the groundwork for the coming of the Messiah-- five and half millennia from Adam to Jesus if we follow the Septuagint chronology.

The Pope isn't a magician who can wave a magic wand and make all these problems disappear by decree. The only way the breaches in Jerusalem's walls will be repaired is if we get out there and work from sun-up until the stars come out.

Dan Hunter said...

"The only way the breaches in Jerusalem's walls will be repaired is if we get out there and work from sun-up until the stars come out."

Jordanes,

What can we laymen do, other than prayer,to overthrow the tyranny of Communion in the hand?
I am most willing to listen and act!

Jordanes said...

We can set an example to our family and friends, and instruct our children. We can talk to our priests, write to our bishops, and to the Pope. Above all, we can and should pray without ceasing, because nothing good is ever successfully accomplished without prayer.

Anonymous said...

"The Pope isn't a magician who can wave a magic wand and make all these problems disappear by decree."

In the first place, what is the Holy Father's liturgical vision for the Latin Church?

Certain folks have speculated as to where the Holy Father isheaded liturgically.

Do we have concrete Papal liturgical statements and exhortations From Benedict XVI?

I know that he doesn't envision the TLM to gain a great deal of traction within the Church (confer Summorum Pontificum).

Other than that, I'm not certain as to what the Holy Father has in store, speaking liturgically, should he desire, so to speak, to wave his "magic wand."

Anonymous said...

I agree. I saw abuse myself for the first time this Sunday. A woman who was sitting several rows in front of me came back to her seat holding something in her hand which I thought was the host. It was confirmed when she moved her other hand ever so briefly out of the way. I wondered if we had a witch on our hands and was ready to react if she left the church. Fortunately, she knelt in her pew and then placed the host in her mouth. It was an outrage but at least she appeared to be acting out of ignorance and wasn't willfully defiant like this woman.

Jordanes said...

Certain folks have speculated as to where the Holy Father isheaded liturgically.

And their speculation is reasonable and almost certainly correct, since it is based on what he's written and said before becoming pope, and what he has actually done as pope.

Do we have concrete Papal liturgical statements and exhortations From Benedict XVI?

No.

I know that he doesn't envision the TLM to gain a great deal of traction within the Church (confer Summorum Pontificum).

No you don't. You merely believe that, based on his observations regarding the current state of affairs. What he actually envisions for the extraordinary usage of the Roman Rite can only be surmised -- probably no more than the addition of a few new prefaces and adding some of the new saints to the calendar. He's certainly not going to mandate an immediate return to the 1962 Missal. As for the ordinary usage, we know that he has appointed a committee to look into ways to improve and simply the Pauline Missal. It remains to be seen if anything will come of that.

Anonymous said...

"And their speculation is reasonable and almost certainly correct, since it is based on what he's written and said before becoming pope..."

They are almost certainly correct?

Regarding the Mass, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) said that the "Roman rite of the future should be one, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular."

Do you wish to speculate on that?

1. One Roman Rite.
2. May be in the vernacular.
3. May be in Latin.

Based upon Cardinal Ratzinger's (our Pope) statement, I am certainly correct to argue that His Holiness will lead us to a vernacular Roman Mass.

Of course, the Catholic down the street is also on solid ground to speculate that the Pope plans to lead us to a Latin Roman Mass.

So much for "almost certainly correct" speculation based upon the Cardinal's writings.

Anonymous said...

I know that he doesn't envision the TLM to gain a great deal of traction within the Church.

"No you don't."

Yes, I do. The Pope made it clear that he does not envision a great many TLM celebrations to transpire within the Church as he stated the following:

"The use of the old Missal presupposes a certain degree of liturgical formation and some knowledge of the Latin language; neither of these is found very often.

"Already from these concrete presuppositions, it is clearly seen that the new Missal will certainly remain the ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, not only on account of the juridical norms, but also because of the actual situation of the communities of the faithful."

Anonymous said...

Do we have concrete Papal liturgical statements and exhortations From Benedict XVI?

"No."

That is why I don't place a great deal of confidence in folks who traffic in Papal speculation.


"He's certainly not going to mandate an immediate return to the 1962 Missal."

That is about the only thing that I agree with you in regard to the Pope's liturgical "plan."

He has made it clear that he's 100 percent in the corner of the Novus Ordo.

He has made it clear that the ability to offer the TLM (or even Novus Ordo Latin Masses) is not found very often within the Church.

Therefore, the Novus Ordo is here to stay.

Based upon the Pope's declarations, the TLM will not gain a great deal of traction throughout the Church.

Anonymous said...

"...and what he has actually done as pope."

His Holiness has not offered the TLM. That is very telling.

Actions speak louder than words.

Anonymous said...

"And their speculation is reasonable and almost certainly correct, since it is based on what he's written and said before becoming pope, and what he has actually done as pope."

What has he done as Pope? The following is simply a list of facts, not criticisms:

1. The Pope has offered Latin Masses (Novus Ordo).

2. The Pope has offered vernacular Masses.

3. During his liturgies, and to just a handful of communicants, the Pope has administered Holy Communion on the tongue (communicants kneeling).

4. A great many communicants at Papal liturgies receive Holy Communion in the hand.

5. Communion in the hand has been extended to Poland.

6. Communion in the hand, EMs, altar girls, pianos, drums and guitars have remained in place at a great many parishes.

7. The Pope has visited synagogues.

8. The Pope visited a mosque.

9. The Pope will visit a Lutheran church to pray with Lutherans.

10. The Pope has offered Mass ad orientem.

11. The Pope has offered Mass vs. populum.

12. The Pope has issued Summorum Pontificum.

13. The Pope has not offered the TLM publicly.

14. The Pope has expressed his unwavering attachment to the ecumenical movement.

For better or worse, those are some things that have transpired during the current Papacy.

Jordanes said...

Regarding the Mass, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness) said that the "Roman rite of the future should be one, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular."

Do you wish to speculate on that?


No. There's no need to speculate on it. It means what it means -- one Roman Rite that may permissibly be celebrated in either the original Latin or in the vernacular. It's precisely what he spoke of in SP -- one Roman Rite, not two.

Based upon Cardinal Ratzinger's (our Pope) statement, I am certainly correct to argue that His Holiness will lead us to a vernacular Roman Mass.

Newsflash: we've had vernacular Roman Masses for 40 years. You have no evidence whatsoever that the Pope intends to lead us to a vernacular-only Roman Mass. All available evidence shows that he will do his duty of safeguarding the Latin Rite, not help turn it into a No-Latin-Allowed or completely non-Latin rite as you erroneously believe.

Of course, the Catholic down the street is also on solid ground to speculate that the Pope plans to lead us to a Latin Roman Mass.

Based on what this Pope has actually said and actually done, there is be no doubt that he will continue to allow the Mass in Latin as tradition demands, and will continue to allow the Latin texts to be translated into vernaculars.

Yes, I do.

No, you really don't. As I said, you're only making an inference based on things he wrote in SP.

The Pope made it clear that he does not envision a great many TLM celebrations to transpire (sic) within the Church

Apart from the fact that Mass celebrations cannot "transpire," practical reality is that there won't be a great many Johannine Masses for now. That may change in the future, however.

That is why I don't place a great deal of confidence in folks who traffic in Papal speculation.

Wrong -- you place a great deal of confidence in one person who trafficks in papal speculation: yourself. Unfortunately your speculation is not well founded on a good understanding of what this Pope has said and done regarding the Roman liturgy.

He has made it clear that he's 100 percent in the corner of the Novus Ordo.

He's the Pope -- he couldn't be anywhere else.

That doesn't mean he won't work toward needed reforms of the Pauline Mass. Based on what he know of his attitude toward and beliefs regarding the liturgy, we can expect that he will.

He has made it clear that the ability to offer the TLM (or even Novus Ordo Latin Masses) is not found very often within the Church.

One hardly needs to refer to his observations on the matter to know that.

Therefore, the Novus Ordo is here to stay.

True -- at least for the next several decades or more.

Based upon the Pope's declarations, the TLM will not gain a great deal of traction throughout the Church.

Maybe, maybe not. Nobody can tell the future, and the Pope was only describing present realities, not predicting the future or prescribing the way things must be done from here on out.

His Holiness has not offered the TLM. That is very telling.

He did offer it before his election. That also is very telling.

He also sent Piero Marini packing, and brought in Guido Marini. That also is very telling.

7. The Pope has visited synagogues.

8. The Pope visited a mosque.

9. The Pope will visit a Lutheran church to pray with Lutherans.

14. The Pope has expressed his unwavering attachment to the ecumenical movement.


None of these things has anything to do with the future development of the Roman Rite.

For better or worse, those are some things that have transpired (sic) during the current Papacy.

No, it is impossible for those things to "transpire." They "happened" or "have been done." Transpiration has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous said...

"You have no evidence whatsoever that the Pope intends to lead us to a vernacular-only Roman Mass. All available evidence shows that he will do his duty of safeguarding the Latin Rite, not help turn it into a No-Latin-Allowed or completely non-Latin rite as you erroneously believe."

You stated earlier that "speculation is reasonable and almost certainly correct, since it is based on what he's written and said before becoming pope, and what he has actually done as pope."

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the future Roman Rite may be in the vernacular.

As Pope, he said that knowledge of Latin isn't found very often within the Church.

Therefore, it's validd to speculate that the future Rome Rite would be a vernacular rite.

Right? Right. Rite.

"Unfortunately your speculation is not well founded on a good understanding of what this Pope has said and done regarding the Roman liturgy."

Fortunately, my speculation is well grounded.

That is why unlike certain fantasy land conservatives, I simply accept reality and do not buy into the notion that the Pope is a staunch Traditionalist who will end the Church's liturgical and spiritual collapse.

As long as ecumenism, interreligious "dialogue" and the Novus Ordo — particularly the Novus Ordo — remain in place, the collapsed state of Catholicism will continue.

Unfortunately, His Holiness has made it clear that he's a staunch supporter of the Novus Ordo, ecumenical movement and interreligious "dialogue."

Yes, he favors allowing Catholics unfettered access to the TLM.

Unfortunately, as he has made clear, the TLM will not gain a great deal of traction.

Therefore, TLM celebrations will remain limited.


7. The Pope has visited synagogues.

8. The Pope visited a mosque.

9. The Pope will visit a Lutheran church to pray with Lutherans.

14. The Pope has expressed his unwavering attachment to the ecumenical movement.

"None of these things has anything to do with the future development of the Roman Rite."

Sure they do. They signify that His Holiness is attached to novelties.

His Holiness is willing to cast aside Tradition in favor of novelty.

Tha approach, for example, led His Holiness to destroy the ancient and Traditional Good Friday Prayer for the Jews to accomodate his novel Good Friday Prayer for the Jews.

You don't think that the above action is linked to the Pope's willingness to visit synagogues?

The tampering of the Roman Liturgy is linked to the mindset that embraces novelties.

The Pope permitted Communion in the hand to expand to Poland.

Again, we see that a non-traditional mindset — attachment to the ecumenical movement, interreligious dialogue, visiting synagogues and mosques, etc. — is what permits novelties to exist within the Roman Liturgy.

The future of the Roman Rite — whether such novelties as Eucharistic prayers other than the Roman Canon, altar girls, Communion in the hand, Mass vs. populum, lay distribution of Holy Communion (and so forth) remain in place — is linked to the Pope's mindset.

Therefore, I am puzzled as to why you stated that "none of these things has anything to do with the future development of the Roman Rite."

Should a Pope withdraw from the ecumenical movement, prayer services with non-Catholics, interreligious "dialogue" and the like, is the day that the TLM will return to its rightful place within the Church.

Again, the future of the Roman Rite has everything to do with the mindset that has led to the following:

7. The Pope has visited synagogues.

8. The Pope visited a mosque.

9. The Pope will visit a Lutheran church to pray with Lutherans.

14. The Pope has expressed his unwavering attachment to the ecumenical movement.

Anonymous said...

"Apart from the fact that Mass celebrations cannot "transpire"...

"No, it is impossible for those things to "transpire." They "happened" or "have been done." Transpiration has nothing to do with it."

Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: tran·spire

4 : to take place : go on, occur.

Jordanes said...

Your dictionary is wrong, Anonymous. Just get out your ink pen and strike through no. 4. Then flip to "impact" and if you find it presented as a verb, cross that out too.

Jordanes said...

You stated earlier that "speculation is reasonable and almost certainly correct, since it is based on what he's written and said before becoming pope, and what he has actually done as pope."

No, I never said that. I said, "THEIR speculation is reasonable and almost certainly correct, since it is based on what he's written and said before becoming pope, and what he has actually done as pope." I have also said that your speculation is not reasonable and not well founded on a good understanding of the pope's words and actions.

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the future Roman Rite may be in the vernacular.

No, he said that it should include the option of either Latin or the vernacular. He has never said anything at any time about a future Roman Rite that is entirely in the vernacular. Think: how could it be ONE Roman Rite if there are no Latin originals to be translated, but instead each language has its own vernacular liturgical texts?

As Pope, he said that knowledge of Latin isn't found very often within the Church.

True, but he hasn't said anything about the Latin Rite completely abandoning Latin as you prefer to believe.

Therefore, it's validd to speculate that the future Rome Rite would be a vernacular rite.

Right? Right. Rite.


Wrong. We know you're wrong because a future vernacular Roman Rite would have to be all in the same language. So which vernacular language do you think Pope Benedict supposedly is thinking about choosing in place of Latin?

That is why unlike certain fantasy land conservatives, I simply accept reality and do not buy into the notion that the Pope is a staunch Traditionalist who will end the Church's liturgical and spiritual collapse.

Who here said anything about the Pope being a staunch Traditionalist, or that he will end the Church's liturgical and spiritual collapse?

As long as ecumenism, interreligious "dialogue" and the Novus Ordo — particularly the Novus Ordo — remain in place, the collapsed state of Catholicism will continue.

Then I guess you'll have to get used to a collapsed state of Catholicism, because the Church just isn't getting rid of any of those things.

His Holiness is willing to cast aside Tradition in favor of novelty.

Tha approach, for example, led His Holiness to destroy the ancient and Traditional Good Friday Prayer for the Jews to accomodate his novel Good Friday Prayer for the Jews.


The traditional prayer was not an unchangeable Apostolic Tradition (which is not to say that it was a good idea for him to change it). His changing a tradition doesn't necessarily mean he'll cast aside Tradition.

Therefore, I am puzzled as to why you stated that "none of these things has anything to do with the future development of the Roman Rite."

They aren't actions that develop the Roman Rite or change the way it is celebrated, or affect its form and its rites. If you want to find out what this pope thinks about the liturgy, you look at what he has said and what he has done about the liturgy. You don't look at what he has said and done about non-liturgical matters, no matter what kind of indirect relationship there might be between them.

Anonymous said...

Hilarious, Jordanes writes, "As for the ordinary usage, we know that he has appointed a committee to look into ways to improve and simply the Pauline Missal. It remains to be seen if anything will come of that."

The Novelty mass made by a committee and is to be reformed by another committee. Enough with the committees, nothing will come of it. Pope stand up and be a boss. Scrap that novely mass afashp.

Jordanes said...

The Church never makes any big decisions without slow deliberation and gathering input. In addition, the liturgy is not the kind of thing that can be quickly reformed by a unilateral papal fiat. We saw something like that in the 1960s, but even that debacle of haste and hubris took several years to accomplish. If we want papal fiat, it will have to be a long series of them, each addressing a specific element or aspect of the liturgy: but those won't come without backup from a papal commission.

Dan Hunter said...

Jordanes,

God bless you sir, but you have run out of gas.

Almost everything that Anonymous is saying is true.

Your little jousting session with him has produced nothing on your end of things except you have shown yourself to be genuinely confused as to seeing the crisis in the Church that so far is not being remedied or apparantly not even addressed, beyond what Summorum Pontificum has done.

Jordanes said...

"Almost" everything Anonymous has been repeating for the past few months may be correct -- but I've only corrected the things he says that are wrong, not the things he says that are right. As for being "genuinely confused as to seeing the crisis in the Church," I don't see how anything I've said in this exchange has shown me to be confused about the awful mess we're in.

Anonymous said...

"As for the ordinary usage, we know that he has appointed a committee to look into ways to improve and simply the Pauline Missal. It remains to be seen if anything will come of that."

"Improve" the Pauline Missal?

There is but one authentic — authentic in regard to Holy Tradition — and sensible action that Pope Benedict XVI should undertake:

Return (and return the Latin Church) to the TLM — the Mass that he was ordained to offer.

Offer the Traditional Mass in the vernacular if need be (at least until the restoration of Latin in the Church takes root).

Traditional Mass. Traditional Mass. Traditional Mass.

Tim

Jordanes said...

There is but one authentic — authentic in regard to Holy Tradition — and sensible action that Pope Benedict XVI should undertake:

Return (and return the Latin Church) to the TLM — the Mass that he was ordained to offer.


What measures should he, who likely will be pope for only a few more years, take to return the entire Latin Church to the pre-Vatican II Mass? Immediate suppression of the Pauline Missal the way Paul VI intended to, a practically did, suppress the traditional Roman Missal?

Offer the Traditional Mass in the vernacular if need be (at least until the restoration of Latin in the Church takes root).

I wonder if he'll be pope long enough for a restoration of the Latin language worship to take root.

Anonymous said...

"...the liturgy is not the kind of thing that can be quickly reformed by a unilateral papal fiat. We saw something like that in the 1960s, but even that debacle of haste and hubris took several years to accomplish. If we want papal fiat, it will have to be a long series of them, each addressing a specific element or aspect of the liturgy: but those won't come without backup from a papal commission."

Fine. Forget about Papal fiat. Keep the Novus Ordo in place.

But couldn't the Pope at least take seven seconds to urge priests to learn the TLM and offer said Mass at least once per Sunday at their parishes?

"I exhort you to learn the Extraordinary Form of Mass and offer said Mass at least once per Sunday at your parishes."

That's all. That's it. Just do that much. Can we not even receive that much from Rome?

Anonymous said...

"No, he said that it should include the option of either Latin or the vernacular. He has never said anything at any time about a future Roman Rite that is entirely in the vernacular."

http://cnsblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/21/new-italian-book-features-then-cardinal-ratzinger-on-liturgy/

Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (His Holiness):

"The Roman rite of the future should be one, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular..."
--------------------------

"The traditional prayer was not an unchangeable Apostolic Tradition (which is not to say that it was a good idea for him to change it). His changing a tradition doesn't necessarily mean he'll cast aside Tradition."

He cast aside Holy Tradition when he replaced the Traditional prayer in question.

Anonymous said...

"Then I guess you'll have to get used to a collapsed state of Catholicism, because the Church just isn't getting rid of any of those things."

That is correct. That is why I have accepted (unless a miracle...ummm...transpires) that Catholicism will remain in a state of collapse well into the future.

I need only turn to Pope Benedict XVI to receive a sober assessment as to Catholicism's vital signs.

In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI declared that "in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel."

Wow!

Anonymous said...

"If you want to find out what this pope thinks about the liturgy, you look at what he has said and what he has done about the liturgy.

"You don't look at what he has said and done about non-liturgical matters, no matter what kind of indirect relationship there might be between them."

I disagree with your final remark. I find your statement beyond belief.

A direct relationship most certainly exists between a person's mindset and his approach to Liturgy. Who would possibly argue otherwise?

Catholics who favor ecumenism, interreligious "dialogue," prayer and worship with non-Catholics and additional novelties embrace and promote the Novus Ordo and novelties associated with the Novus Ordo — Communion in the hand, altar girls, EMs...we know the drill.

Catholics who do not posses the above mindset attach themselves unwaveringly to the TLM and Holy Tradition.

That is simply a fact.

Pope Paul VI, who believed in ecumenism, "interreligious dialogue," and the like was moved by such a mindset to alter the Roman Liturgy radically.

Pope John Paul II embraced the radical liturgical reform and even added his share of novelties to the liturgical "reform."

Pope Benedict XVI has also embraced the Novus Ordo and, for example, even extended Communion in the hand to Poland.

His Holiness altered the Traditional Good Friday Liturgy — that is the mindset of interreligous "dialogue" at work.

A Catholic's approach to Liturgy is very much revealed by his attitude toward, to employ your phrase, "non-liturgical matters."

Again, I'm amazed that you would insist otherwise.

Describe to me a Catholic's attitude toward "non-liturgical matters," and I will tell you as to whether he embraces liturgical novelty.

Anonymous said...

My wife and I tried the "setting a good example" tactic in our local "ultra-liberal" Roman parish. It was very uncomfortable for us, especially our childen, who didn't appreciate being the targets of everyone's stares. It was very disruptive. I think the parish priest and everyone else wished we'd simply go away.

Which we did. We ended up joining a Byzantine Catholic parish 25 minutes away. We've been there ever since.

LeonG said...

This is one of Fr Ratzinger's perspectives on The Latin Mass - remember he claims that he has not changed as a conciliarist but he states it is the others who changed.

" The [liturgical] additions of the late Middle Ages were eliminated, and at the same time severe measures were adopted to prevent a rebirth. .... At that time, the fate of the Western liturgy was linked to a set authority, which worked in a strictly bureaucratic way, lacking any historic vision and considering the problem of the liturgy from the sole viewpoint of rubrics and ceremonies, like a problem of etiquette in a saint's court, so to speak.

As a consequence of this link, there was a complete archeologization of the liturgy, which from the state of a living history was changed into that of pure conservation and, therefore, condemned to an internal death. Liturgy became once and forever a closed construction, firmly petrified. The more it was concerned about the integrity of pre-existent formulas, the more it lost its connection to concrete devotions ....

In this situation, the baroque carved it [the liturgy] superimposing a people's para-liturgy over its true and proper archeologized liturgy. The solemn baroque mass, through the splendor of the orchestra's performance, became a kind of sacred opera, in which the songs of the priest had their role as did the alternating recitals. .... On the ordinary days that did not allow such a performance, devotions that followed the people's mentality were often added to the mass.
Fr Joseph Ratzinger, Problemi e risultati del Concilio Vaticano II, Brescia: Queriniana, 1967, pp. 25-27

I have a copy of this - it is his unchanging view of The Latin Mass. he has only issued the Motu Propriu as a matter of justice, not as a statement of personal preference for The Latin Mass of All Time. His penchant is clearly for the NO changed for the umpteenth time.

Jordanes said...

He has never said anything at any time about a future Roman Rite that is entirely in the vernacular.

"The Roman rite of the future should be one, celebrated in Latin or in the vernacular..."


Yes, yes, this is the same quote that you continue to reference, claiming that it means something that it doesn't mean. You are unable or unwilling to interpret those words according to their obvious meaning, so I'm not surprised that your understanding of their pope's views on liturgy, indeed your understanding of liturgy, shows itself to be deficient in other areas.

He cast aside Holy Tradition when he replaced the Traditional prayer in question.

It wasn't a "Traditional" prayer. It was a "traditional" prayer. That prayer was not handed down to us as a part of the unchangeable deposit of faith by Jesus and the Apostles. Apostolic Tradition and liturgical tradition are distinct though not separate.

But couldn't the Pope at least take seven seconds to urge priests to learn the TLM and offer said Mass at least once per Sunday at their parishes?

He could, sure, except, frustratingly, he seems not to prefer that kind of approach to things; and further, his main commitment and interest clearly is in the "ordinary" usage of the Roman Rite.

That is why I have accepted (unless a miracle...ummm...transpires) that Catholicism will remain in a state of collapse well into the future.

Hmm, it doesn't sound to me like you've accepted it all that much.

Jordanes said...

"If you want to find out what this pope thinks about the liturgy, you look at what he has said and what he has done about the liturgy.

"You don't look at what he has said and done about non-liturgical matters, no matter what kind of indirect relationship there might be between them."

I disagree with your final remark. I find your statement beyond belief.


I know you do. Nevertheless my statement is correct. When you can examine the actual "empirical" evidence of a person's thought on the liturgy, the sensible thing to do is to examine that rather than bringing up non-liturgical matters that may or may not be related to his thought on the liturgy. By the same token, if you want to find out a person's thought on ecumenism or interreligious dialogue, you look at what he has actually said and done about that -- you don't read "Spirit of the Liturgy" to find out Pope Ratzinger's take on ecumenism. If you want to understand the nuts and bolts of Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, you read what he wrote about it -- you don't delve into Newton's theological or biblical commentaries, no matter how much his theology spurred or helped to shape his scientific studies. This is all so blazingly obvious that one can only wonder what about those principles you find so hard to believe.

A direct relationship most certainly exists between a person's mindset and his approach to Liturgy. Who would possibly argue otherwise?

A person's mindset on what? His mindset on what constitutes a healthy diet?

You're confused -- you are looking at indirect relationships and are thinking they are direct relationships.

Catholics who favor ecumenism, interreligious "dialogue," prayer and worship with non-Catholics and additional novelties embrace and promote the Novus Ordo and novelties associated with the Novus Ordo — Communion in the hand, altar girls, EMs...we know the drill.

Yes, and Catholics who favor ecumenism, interreligious "dialogue," prayer and worship with non-Catholics and additional novelties also embrace and promote the traditional Roman liturgy.

Just because two things are often found together doesn't mean there is always a direct relationship between them.

Catholics who do not posses the above mindset attach themselves unwaveringly to the TLM and Holy Tradition.

No, some of them attach themselves to Eastern Catholic liturgy, and others distance themselves from the Church and the practice of the faith.

A Catholic's approach to Liturgy is very much revealed by his attitude toward, to employ your phrase, "non-liturgical matters."

Sometimes. Not always. Sometimes not at all.

Describe to me a Catholic's attitude toward "non-liturgical matters," and I will tell you as to whether he embraces liturgical novelty.

What was St. Pius X's attitude toward non-liturgical matters? After all, we know he embraced and introduced liturgical novelty.

Dan Hunter said...

"Hmm, it doesn't sound to me like you've accepted it all that much."

Jordanes,
Hmm,
That is not necessary.

Truth Center said...

Thanks for your efforts to :STOP -Communion in the Hand" as Fr. Hardon urged quite strongly.

Also please see "On the Restoration of the Communion Railing" at blog:
http://wdsublog.blogspot.com

Thank You, DCM