Did You Know? The Privilege, Not the Right, to
Receive Under Both Species Expired in 2005
Father Z writes: “As I understand it, the 1975 edition of the Missale Romanum gave 14 instances when Communion could be distributed under both kinds. Since 1975 in some regions – including the USA – experimental privileges, not rights, were granted for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges, not rights, expired in 2005. These privileges, not rights, were not renewed by the Holy See. Therefore the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) for the 3rd edition of the Missale Roman and the 2011 Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America are now to be applied. However, diocesan bishops can to a certain extent lawfully establish other instances, such as important local feasts, etc., for Communion under both kinds. This is what Bp. Olmsted intends to do. He will implement the Church’s law.
. . .
The conditions for Communion under both kinds were matters for a test period. Communion under both kinds is now assumed, by some, to be an absolute right all of the time. On the other hand, conditions for the use of the Extraordinary Form are not matters of experimentation or a test period. The provisions of Summorum Pontificum, clarified in Universae Ecclesiae, are not temporary trial runs. They are actual laws for the whole Latin Church. Stable groups have the right to make a request and pastors have an obligation personally to respond positively or to find another way to see to their needs.”
This comes from the Phoenix Diocese. Bishop Olmsted has issued a press release and “FAQ.”
Why is this news now? Has something recently changed?
Yes, something has changed: there have been some new changes in the “GIRM” (General Instruction on the Roman Missal), which is the “how to” book for the Mass.
Why is Holy Communion under both forms only permitted at certain times and under certain conditions?
One of the Church’s basic duties is to establish norms or guidelines for her liturgical practice. With respect to Communion under the form of wine for the faithful, she limits the practice for a number of reasons:
- To protect the Sacred Species from profanation (careless treatment, spillage, swilling, etc.);
- The practice is not in any way necessary for salvation — it is a fuller sign of Holy Communion, but not a fuller reality of Christ Himself than what is received under the form of bread alone;
- The practice is used to emphasize special feast days and other special moments in the lives of the faithful;
- The unity of the practice throughout the world is an act of solidarity in the universal Church — rich and poor countries alike; and
- In normal circumstances, only priests and deacons are to distribute Holy Communion; when both forms of Communion are used frequently, “extraordinary” ministers of Holy Communion are disproportionately multiplied.
Bishop Morlino Takes the Strongest Stance.
Bishop Morlino is instructing his priest to re-catechized the faithful.
Please help your people to know and understand the beautiful gift we have in the Eucharist, to know our obligations of preparing for reception of the Sacrament, both in terms of our preparation through the Sacrament of Confession, our observance of the pre-communion fast, our attending to our attire as best we can, and the like.
Please help them to know of Christ’s presence, fully and entirely in the Sacred Host. Our people know well, the aspect of the Mass which is the Sacred banquet, but help them to know the Eucharist at the Memorial of Christ’s loving Sacrifice for them. Help them to understand your role in laying down your own life as the minister of Christ’s Body and Blood, present in the Host.
Here is the official press release.
Here are some of his concerns.
“In practice, the need to avoid obscuring the role of the Priest and the Deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion by an excessive use of extraordinary ministers might in some circumstances constitute a reason either for limiting the distribution of Holy Communion under both species…(Norms, 24)”
“The Diocesan Bishop is also given the faculty to permit Communion under both kinds whenever it may seem appropriate to the Priest to whom a community has been entrusted as its own shepherd, provided that the faithful have been well instructed and that there is no danger of profanation of the Sacrament or of the rite’s becoming difficult because of the large number of participants or for some other cause (Roman Missal, 283).”
However, I have been told of, and have personally experienced, the reality that the provision both that the faithful be well instructed and that there be no danger of profanation of the Sacrament, is not being met.
- The official press release from the Diocese of Phoenix. Here
- Questions and Answers: Norms for Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Forms – Diocese of Phoenix
- Father Z’s commentary here, here and here (I like this one the best)
So what are your thoughts? Do you agree with the bishops? Did this surprise you? Neither comments below. Thank you!
This comes from Fr. Z’s Blog – What Does The Prayer Really Say? The first part is his writings, followed by his emphasis in bold and his comments in red.
From the website of the newspaper the Catholic Herald of the Diocese of Madison, where H.E. Most Rev. Robert Morlino reigns, comes this piece about the manner of reception of Holy Communion. I must add, as the writer does not, that this pertains to the Ordinary Form, or Novus Ordo.
It is a good, concise presentation of some of the issues which frequently arise and the writer is, in the main, on target. I will, however, add my own two pence before beginning to add my emphases and comments. I think that people who are physically capable of doing so, should always kneel and receive Communion directly on the tongue. I think the permission for Communion in the hand should be abolished. In advance of it being abolished, people should be urged, taught, persuaded to receive on the tongue while kneeling. So there.
Remember that this is in a diocesan newspaper. Something like this would have been unimaginable, say, 10 years ago.
What is the correct posture for receiving Communion?
Written by Paul M Matenaer, For the Catholic Herald
A few weeks ago a friend had asked about the Church’s law on the proper posture for receiving Holy Communion. Should we receive on the tongue or in the hand? Kneeling or standing?
Over the years, I have heard various answers with slight differences, so I decided to look into it myself. As with my previous articles on the rite of exorcism, I hope to dispel some of the myths and clarify the issue.
My intention here is not to give a complete historical overview of the various practices, nor even to treat the theological reasoning behind them. Rather, I hope to simply and clearly explain the ius vigens, that is, the law presently in force regarding the posture for receiving Holy Communion. [Keeping in mind that Universae Ecclesiae derogates from laws which conflict with the liturgical in force in 1962. This article is a good look at the situation for the Ordinary Form.]
In the hand or on the tongue?
Though many may tell you that the Second Vatican Council “did away” with Communion on the tongue, the truth of the matter is that the council fathers did not address such concrete subjects.
Rather, the many liturgical questions following the Second Vatican Council were handled by the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Sacred Congregation of Rites, groups which were later merged to create what we now call the Congregation for Divine Worship [and Discipline of the Sacraments].
The question of receiving in the hand or on the tongue was first treated in an instruction entitled Memoriale Domini, published in 1969, just four years after the conclusion of Vatican II. In this instruction, the congregation stated that the Holy Father has decided not to change the universal practice of receiving on the tongue for three reasons: it had “many centuries of tradition behind it,” it avoided the possibility of profanation, and it expressed a proper “respect, decorum, and dignity” for the Eucharist.
However, the document noted that if the discipline of receiving in the hand prevailed by popular practice, then an individual conference of bishops could request an exception from Rome to allow Communion in the hand provided that the traditional usage of receiving on the tongue was not excluded. [NB: it is an exception which can be granted.]
Following this instruction, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) did indeed request permission that Communion in the hand be allowed in their territory. [And, gosh, how fruitful it has been.] For this reason, the 2002 General Instruction [Institution] of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the official instruction manual for the Mass, states that in the U.S. the communicant “may choose whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue.”
Two years later, the Congregation for Divine Worship published another instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, which states that one “always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice” and that if anyone wishes to receive in the hand where this permission has been granted, he is allowed.
From these documents, it is quite clear, therefore, that each individual may receive on the tongue, or in territories where Communion in the hand is allowed, he may receive in the hand.
[Nota bene…] However, it must be noted that the permission which allows Communion to be given in the hand does not create an absolute right for the communicant. The instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, mentioned above, notes that if there is a risk of profanation of the Eucharistic species, Communion should not be given in the hand, but only on the tongue.
Kneeling or standing?
The question of whether one should kneel or stand when receiving Communion is a slightly more complicated one. As with the case above, the Second Vatican Council did not address this specific question, but it was left to be worked out in the period after the council.
In 1967, the Sacred Congregation of Rites promulgated an instruction entitled Eucharisticum mysterium, which stated that “the faithful may receive Communion either kneeling or standing.” It went on to say, however, that one or the other posture was to be chosen by the conference of bishops to be the norm for their territory. The USCCB decided that the norm for the dioceses in the United States would be standing, which is reflected in article 160 of the GIRM as adopted for this country. [And reverence for the Blessed Sacrament has, no doubt, attained new heights.]
The GIRM, though, immediately adds two qualifications. First, it states that communicants “should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel.” [And yet that does happen. We have heard the horror stories.] Secondly, it notes that “such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.” [I think proper catechesis would have to include why it is better to kneel.]
Unfortunately the reason for this norm is not contained in article 160 itself, as one might expect, but occurs earlier in article 42 regarding the importance of a uniform posture during the sacred liturgy. [How about uniformity with tradition?] Article 42 states that a common posture is to be observed throughout the whole of Mass — not just during Communion — since a uniform posture signifies the unity of the Christian community. [How about unity with our forebears?]
[QUAERUNTUR…] From these statements in the GIRM, a number of important questions arise. Does article 42 of the GIRM imply that there can be no variance whatsoever in the posture of the faithful at Mass? Can a pastor of a parish, after having provided the aforementioned catechesis, refuse Communion to those who still wish to kneel? Are those who choose to kneel being “disobedient” to the norm created by the USCCB?
These questions are not merely theoretical or abstract ones, but are real questions that were addressed to the Congregation for Divine Worship in the years following the publication of the GIRM. Thankfully, the congregation made their replies known, publishing them in their official journal Notitiae and thus allowing us greater insight into the proper application of these norms.
Can there be no variance in the posture of the faithful? [No. There can be.]
This question came to the Congregation for Divine Worship from Cardinal George of Chicago in 2003, who asked whether the GIRM forbid one from kneeling in personal prayer after receiving the Eucharist even though the rest of the community sat or stood.
The congregation replied that article 42 of the GIRM meant to “ensure within broad limits a certain uniformity of posture” while not seeking to “regulate posture rigidly.” Though the question itself does not directly pertain, this response gives us some insight regarding how article 42 is to be applied throughout the other parts of the Mass, including at Communion.
Can a pastor refuse Communion to those who kneel? [No. He must not.]
This question came to the congregation in 2002 from a parishioner whose pastor had instituted a policy of refusing Communion to those who presented themselves kneeling.
The congregation responded forcefully, [mirabile dictu] stating that they consider “any refusal of Holy Communion to a member of the faithful on the basis of his or her kneeling posture to be a grave violation of one of the most basic rights of the Christian faithful.” Furthermore, they issued a warning to priests who “should understand that the congregation will regard future complaints of this nature with great seriousness.” [I wonder if there are any instances of the Congregation acting “with great seriousness” in this regard. That would be interesting to know.]
Are those who kneel for Communion disobedient? [No. They are not.]
Following the promulgation of the GIRM, many held that those who chose to kneel when receiving were being disobedient to the norm created by the USCCB. This very question came to the congregation in 2003, who indicated that they had received “more than a few letters regarding this matter.”
The congregation was unequivocal in stating that “the faithful should not be imposed upon nor accused of disobedience and of acting illicitly when they kneel to receive Communion.” [Get this…] This response corrected the misinterpretation found in a July 2002 newsletter from the USCCB’s own liturgy committee, which stated that “kneeling is not a licit posture.” It is now quite clear that kneeling to receive Communion is a licit posture and not one of disobedience, as some had previously thought.
From everything that has been said above, we can conclude the following.  First, the faithful always have the right to receive Communion on the tongue, according to the centuries-old tradition. However, those in the United States are also permitted receive in the hand, provided that no danger of profanation exists.
 Secondly, the norm in the United States is to receive standing, but those who wish to receive kneeling may freely do so. Any refusal of the Most Holy Eucharist to those who kneel is a grave violation, and no one may impose upon them nor accuse them of disobedience.
Therefore,  no pastor, no youth minister, and certainly no employer may prohibit or deter any member of the faithful from receiving on his knees if he so chooses. This is the current law of the Church, to which we, as Catholics, are all bound by conscience.
Allow what the Church allows
A general principle to follow is this: teach what the Church teaches, condemn what the Church condemns, but allow what the Church allows. Unfortunately, this last point can sometimes be the most difficult, especially in liturgical matters. Because our worship of God is both communal and personal, each one of us has our own unique liturgical preferences.
Whatever one’s personal preference may be, we must be careful to allow what the Church allows, while nonetheless always striving for greater holiness, devotion, and reverence in worship. Or else, we risk usurping the seat of Peter and imposing our own preferences on the whole of the Church. The difficult task of allowing what the Church allows requires both humility and obedience, two virtues perfectly modeled in the Person of Christ, Whom we receive in the Most Holy Eucharist.
Paul Matenaer holds an M.T.S. from Ave Maria University, teaches for the Seat of Wisdom Diocesan Institute in the Diocese of Madison, and is currently studying canon law at St. Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario.
A good effort. Hopefully this will be useful for the Diocese of Madison and, now, a wider audience yet.
Fr. Z Reveals That Bishops Are
At War With The “Magisterium of Nuns!”
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf (WDTPRS) – In the debate about Obamacare, many catholic women religious failed in their Catholic identity test. They rather chose to give cover to catholic pro-abortion democrats in Congress so that they could salve the consciences and vote in favor of legislation that would fund abortion. All this despite the admonishment and warning of the Catholic bishops of the United States.
These women religious set themselves up as an alternate, parallel “magisterium” over and against that of the bishops’ authority to teach. This is their Magisterium of Nuns.
The National Catholic Fishwrap (Reporter)has chosen to underscore one of their favorite topics by running a story provided by the Religion News Service.
The story, by Daniel Burke, is entitled “Catholics face ‘mutiny’ over teachings on gay marriage“.
I will spare you the details of the article which you can read on your own.
But this is the salient part.
After describing initiatives to defend the true nature of marriage, for example, Archbp. Nienstedt’s good project to send 400,000 DVDs to Catholics in Minnesota, we read:
Catholic gay-rights supporters have been emboldened by the example of nuns who bucked the bishops by supporting the health-care overhaul Congress passed last March, said Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, one of the groups involved in Equally Blessed.
“People are using that as a touchstone,” he said. “They see that the nuns were courageous and they feel like they can be courageous. Courage is contagious.”
The abortion issue is now feeding into the unnatural “marriage” issue. Are we surprised? Really?
If the Catholic bishops in the United States needed a little reminder about how many of the communities of women religious are not on the same page, look no further.
To any bishops reading: There is no common ground with the women religious who are trying to undermine your authority. Dialogue serves the purposes of the left. They are at war with you.
The Magisterium of Nuns does not teach for the Church. Our bishops teach for the Church.
MO Priest calls Pope Benedict, Bishops and the Faithful,
“Faithless and Hypocritical,” and “Whitewashed Sepulchers”
Fr. Wissman in Bolivar, MO writes in his parish bulletin some of the most outlandish comments. It is hard to believe he but it in writing. Fr. Z takes issue with the post and shares his thoughts. Of course Fr. Z comments are in red.
Happy Pentecost! The Easter Season comes to a final crescendo with this glorious feast! The Holy Spirit is the Person of the Holy Trinity which we seem to neglect. [Really?] But still, the age we live in since the Ascension is the AGE of the Spirit. [Hmmm….] It was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that Vatican Council II happened. History making and world shaking, the Church came up to date under the Spirit’s guidance. [I think you are getting a sense of this fellow’s age and basic formation.] The history of the Church since those moments is the successful or unsuccessful implementation of that wonderful coming together of the Church. [Here we go…] Those who have resisted the Council have resisted the Spirit. [Is that so? Fr. Wissman knows this? We can at least affirm that Council’s are guided by the Holy Spirit when they, with the Bishop of Rome, teach concerning faith and morals. In Acts 15:28 we read, “It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us ….” But when the matter does not have to do with faith and morals, does the Holy Spirit guide a Council? Also, the Second Vatican Council is considered a “pastoral”, rather than “dogmatic” or “doctrinal” Council, even though it issued a “dogmatic constitution”. What does that mean for the involvement of the Holy Spirit.] It is sad [Get this…] that the implementation did not take place in many places and that [!] has led to a great decline in true membership in the church and the increase of the powers of divergence from the Kingdom of God. [This is loaded with problems, as I am sure you have already seen. First, the writer wants you to accept a premise: problems have come about in the Church where the Council was not implemented. On the other hand, “Council” – especially from a liberal – could mean just about anything, including suggestions that have nothing to do with the Council’s documents. I suspect that the shift above from the use of “Holy Spirit” to just “Spirit” in relation to inspiration for the Council was telling. Next, what does “true membership” mean? Is he suggesting, for example, that there is some sort of additional litmus text, known to the writer. This smacks of gnosticism. Notice also that phrase “powers of divergence”. I think that means any influence exerted by anyone who does not share the writer’s outdated and rigid understanding of the Council. And note that the writer seems also to have insight not only into “true membership” but also who belongs to the “Kingdom of God”. This goes beyond pompous to dangerously judgmental.]
In the United States, however, for the most part the implementation took root and has made the U.S. Catholic Church very vital and a shining example of true Christianity. [Has the writer not reviewed lately statistics about Mass attendance, use of the sacrament of penance, marriage, and belief in doctrines of the Church? Unless, though it is hard to imagine this, the plummeting statistics are what he is talking about.] The recent efforts of faithless and hypocritical people to make the church go backward are ill conceived and will fail. [So, anyone who has what Pope John Paul II referred do as a “legitimate aspiration” is faithless and hypocritical. Benedict XVI is also “faithless and hypocritical” by the fact of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and his statements about “continuity” and the clear explanation that what was sacred in the past is sacred also now.] What a mistake it was for the Pope (who had the best of intentions) to lift a ban on those reactionary groups who want a dead church of Latin language and a rejection of Vatican II. [Once again, the example of a liberal who invokes a Council he has never read: Latin remains the language of the liturgy, something required by the Second Vatican Council. Furthermore, the word “ban” is inaccurate. The writer is no doubt poorly imformed.] One of the Bishops of one group even publicly takes a stand saying that the Holocaust is a myth. [That would be SSPX Bp. Williamson. Now get this…] These people [He is no longer talking about just SSPX Bp. Williamson…] who may appear very pious (as the Pharisees did!) are really whitewashed sepulchers (to use the words of Jesus). [I think he just called John Paul II, Pope Benedict, every bishop who has ever granted use of the older Mass, or participated in one, every priest who uses the older forms and all the lay people who desire the opportunity to participate in the older forms… or even in the Novus Ordo in Latin… “whitewashed sepulchers”. Does that set well with you? Does that set well with the Bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau? I think I recently saw His Eminence Card. Baum at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception on 24 April – a former bishop of the writer’s diocese – participating at a Pontifical Mass with the older form. He must be a “whitewashed sepulcher” also.]
The Holy Spirit always leads us into the future, not into the past. [What confused claptrap. The writer pretends to know what the motions and urgings of the Holy Spirit are. This is part of the writer’s gnostic approach.] As we celebrate this faith-moment honoring God, the Holy Spirit let us be aware that trust as well as faith is needed…trust in the leadership of the Holy Spirit, trust in the Spirit’s healing powers as well as creativity under the Spirit’s egis. [sic]
It is the Spirit who guards the church from the powers of hell. [Not content with “powers of divergence”, now he refers to anyone who has a vision that differs from his own as “powers of hell”.] Jesus tells us: fear not, the Father will send you the Spirit… The great and powerful God the Spirit blows throughout the universe seeking souls open to the new creation, seeking hearts open to its promptings, seeking to uphold those whose knees are weak and confirming those who seek God. And it is not just the Catholic Church that is gifted with the Holy Spirit. Every good inspiration, every good act, every humble prayer has as its source the one and same Spirit. All religions ancient and new are impacted by the Spirit and are made ready for advancement toward truth, unity and peace. [“Not just the Catholic Church… all religions…”]
Liberal Nuns Support Abortion Funding
in the Name of Social Justice
Father Z reaches out to correct disillusioned Nuns in an article he called A Magisterium of Nuns.
Fr. Z – In this matter of contingent, prudential judgments, whose judgment will in time prove to have been the more prudent?
The Catholic bishops with pro-life groups or their opposition, the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) and Catholic Health Association (CHA) and National Catholic Reporter (NCR), etc?
I happen to think the bishops are right and the CHA and NCR and LCWR are wrong. I think the bishops are right this time, not because they are bishops, by the way, but because they happen to be right. Even if there really is a barrier between federal money and the procuring of abortions, a barrier which might allow a Catholic legislator in this byzantine tangle to vote for the bill, is that barrier going to stand?
Or will it – as I fear it will – open the gates to direct federal funding for abortions?
At this point I doubt many people are going to change their minds about their positions.
Therefore, I have this to say to those Catholics who support the passage of this bill.
I am speaking especially to the women of the LCWR and the CHA and the dissenters of the NCR.
No one is going to forget that you supported this bill when, in years to come, your barrier did not hold and children are being killed with tax-payer funding.
In years to come, you will be held accountable by Catholics on the street.
You will be held responsible for this and you will be made to answer for this down the line.
You will be responsible for federal funding of the most extreme form of child abuse.
You are in for a Dante-esque contrapasso in decades to come.
Dear readers, think about how these same people scream for the heads of bishops and priests who years ago harmed innocent children. Today those who support this legislation have in the past also relentlessly pursued bishops and priests who, 40 years ago, showed compassion – rightly or wrongly – in trying to rehabilitate priests who harmed children.
“If we only knew then what we know now…”, people will say in years to come, just as they do now about child abuse in years past.
“What harm we could have avoided if we, moved by compassion, had made a different prudential judgment!”
When federal funding for the extreme child abuse of abortion starts to flow, I suspect people will find you, Sister – Reverend Mother – Sister “President” – in the same kind of nursing homes in which various groups has searched out priests who abused children decades ago.
Organizations will be formed, seek you out, and extract your public mea culpas because of your “prudential” judgments today.
Sisters… what you are doing is WRONG.
Your magisterium of liberal nuns has told us that if only women had been priests or had been in power positions, then maybe there wouldn’t have been a crisis today with sexual abuse of children.
Is that so? Perhaps if there were men in power positions in the LCWR and CHA we might avoid the abuse to come.
You tell us, Sisters, that out of compassion for the poor we ought to take the risk that federal funds, in a worst case scenario, might go to pay for abortion.
I think that is the wrong prudential judgment.
The bishops are right and you are wrong.
They are right, not because they are bishops, but because they are neither naive nor governed by false compassion…nor false motives.
And I think we must, Sisters, question your motives.
This moment, Sisters, will come back to haunt you.
“Pray For More Priest!”
Fr. Z gives us a reminder that we need more priest.
We need more vocations to the PRIESTHOOD.
Let’s be careful about prayers for vocations.
At times we should pray strictly for vocations to the priesthood. PRIESTHOOD! Deacons are great, but they are not priests. Religious women are great, but they are not priests. Religious men are find, but that is its own vocation. Married people are wonderful, but with a super small number of exceptions it is morally tedious to recount, they are not priests.
Often prayers for “vocations” are all lumped together, probably so as to avoid one of the great modern mortal sins: not being inclusive.
Fine. Do that. Pray for “vocations”.
But let us pray for PRIESTS…. priestly vocations… vocations to the PRIESTHOOD.
And another thing… this is the Year for Priests. Yet I see this project and that effort for prayer for bishops, seemingly all the time. Great! Pray for bishops. Bishops are priests too. Bishops need constant prayers. I too am constantly telling people, imploring people to pray for our bishops, upon whom so much depends. I pray for a list of bishops after every Mass. But can priests have their year? Please? We pray for bishops all the time. It seems like every year is the year for bishops, right? At every Mass we pray for bishops by name, for heaven’s sake!
Okay… I must get back to work.
Thus endeth the rant.
“O My God, give us priests; My God give us holy priests; My God, give us many holy priests!”
Novus Ordo Translation Debate Is Heating Up!
Without a doubt, Liberal and Orthodox Catholics have discovered major theological differences, resulting in heated debates on changes to the Mass since Vatican II. What’s the heart of translation debate? This can almost be summed up in a debate over one word . . .
In the current Novus Ordo during the words of consecration the Blood of Christ “will be poured out for you and for all,” the new translation will have the correct translation and substitute “all” for the word “many.” It’s really simple. “Many” is the direct quote from an accurate translation of scripture. “All” was inserted by liberals believing the word “many” makes Jesus seem “intolerant.”
What is the Root of the Issue?
Liberal Catholics don’t want to believe in hell. Orthodox Catholics want the full accurate teaching under obedience to the Magisterium of the One, True Catholic Church established by Jesus Christ.
MANY = Hell
ALL = All are saved, but murderers and rapists of course.
Orthodox Catholic = “serious theological problems” of the 1973 missal currently in use.
Liberal Catholic = “I respond that Jesus died even for those who reject his grace. He died for all,” says Bishop Robert Trautman. The new translation could be a “pastoral disaster.”
The following comes from a Fr. Z post who discovered Bishop Mark Coleridge, a courageous bishop, who says the “Vatican II’s reforms were not properly implemented and were taken too far.”
As usual with Fr. Z, with his emphases and comments.
By Anthony Barich
PERTH, Australia (CNS) — The newly translated Roman Missal to be issued in Australian parishes in 2011 will help address the serious theological problems of the 1973 missal currently in use, said one of Australia’s most senior liturgists. [Get that? “Serious” theological problems. Remember: the way we pray as a reciprocal relationship with what we believe.]
In the process, it will more faithfully implement the liturgical vision of the Second Vatican Council [Because the liturgical vision of Vatican II was never really tried.] and also fulfill the reforms of the much-maligned 1570 Council of Trent, Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Canberra-Goulburn told approximately 200 liturgists gathered in Perth in early February.
Archbishop Coleridge is chairman of the Roman Missal Editorial Committee of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy; he is also chair of the Australian bishops’ Liturgy Commission.
While Archbishop Coleridge acknowledged that the missal used since 1973 has made gains in accessibility, participation, Scripture, adaptation and inculturation, he said it also has “serious problems theologically” and “consistently bleaches out metaphor, which does scant justice to the highly metaphoric discourse” of Scripture and early Christian writers. [It is important to remember the role that biblical positivists played in the liturgical wars. Blinkered by their approach to Scripture they effectively evacuated a great deal of the significance of the liturgical texts.]
This is the result of a misunderstanding of Vatican II’s reforms, he said. [Yes.]
Occasional claims of the Roman Missal revisions being a “merely political right-wing plot of the church” to turn the clock back miss the point of reform and of the purpose of the Mass, which is “a gift from God, not something to be manipulated,” he said.
“Nothing will happen unless we move beyond ideology and reducing the church to politics and the slogans that go with them, which are unhelpful,” he said. “Drinking from the wells of tradition passed on supremely in the liturgy is what this new moment of renewal is all about.” [Very well said.]
[Note this well:] Archbishop Coleridge’s speech to the liturgists came just two weeks after Benedictine Father Anscar Chupungco, a former consulter to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, said Jan. 22 that the reforms were part of an attempt to turn the clock back 50 years. [Precisely. Remember: Liberals want to control the narrative of the Council and the post-Conciliar reform. They must be set straight.]
Archbishop Coleridge said that one of the ironies of criticism of the new missal is that “we can fail to attend to history even though perhaps the most fundamental achievement of Vatican II was the restoration of historical consciousness to the life of the Catholic Church.”
“A claim that troubles me is that this initiative is somehow a retreat from all that Vatican II tried to promote and enact and a betrayal, therefore, of the (Second Vatican) Council and, by implication, the Holy Spirit,” Archbishop Coleridge said.
He said if that were true, he and thousands of others involved in the missal process “would not have shed the blood, sweat and tears of the last seven years.”
“We would’ve saved ourselves a lot of time and money if we’d just stuck with the Latin, but that’s not what the Spirit is saying to the church,” he said. [With due respect, I am not sure how that can be demonstrated. But let’s move on.]
However, Vatican II’s reforms were not properly implemented and were taken too far, he said, after the Latin texts were translated in 1973 with “breathtaking speed.” [And breathtaking incompetence.]
Since then, the liturgy has largely lost the sense of the liturgy as primarily Christ’s action, [YES!] as something received “not just what we do; a mystery into which we are drawn.” [Wow… does this sound like WDTPRS?]
“We can’t just tamper with it,” he said. “Celebrants sometimes act as if it’s their own personal property to do with what they like. You can’t.”
An overly cerebral approach to liturgy, loss of ritual, oversimplification of rites, loss of a sense of silence, beauty and an unwitting clericalism [No one is more “clerical” in the negative sense than a liberal.] have all led to the Mass lacking its full potential to catechize the faithful and renew the church, he said.
The Second Vatican Council’s “catechetical thrust” that encouraged priests to catechize in the process of celebration has led to the Mass “drowning under the weight of supposed catechetical verbosity,” he said.
The new translations will attempt to control “clerical verbosity and, dare I say, clerical idiosyncrasy,” he said.
“Let the texts stand as is and let catechesis draw out from the texts in a way that communicates to the community, rather than trying to build into the texts a catechesis that runs the risk of corrupting the texts or diluting their power,” he said. [Just Say The Black and Do The Red.]
The proposed English translation of the second Latin edition of the Roman Missal was never approved by the Vatican, and a translation of the third Latin edition promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 2002 is near completion, the Vatican said in late January.
What do you believe is the root of the problem? Tell us.