New rules on the Holy Eucharist on Holy Thursday

Catholic Herald ^ | 03/15/2004 | Luke Coppen

[lrslattery]

The Vatican will publish strict new norms on the Eucharist next month, permanently changing the way Mass is celebrated throughout the world.

The Pope has authorised the publication of the norms on Holy Thursday, April 8, a year after his landmark encyclical on the Eucharist.

The final draft of the document, which is now being translated from Latin, will be a carefully edited version of the draft text leaked last September. The draft, which discouraged the reception of communion in both kinds and limited the role of altar girls, provoked an angry reaction from bishops in the English-speaking world.

After intensive episcopal lobbying, the Vatican is understood to have simplified the document and moderated some of the more controversial proscriptions.

The Catholic Herald has learned that the new norms will address some of the most divisive liturgical issues in the Catholic Church today. A source close to the Vatican said the document was part of a drive to "solemnise" the celebration of Mass and to counter a perceived lack of reverence for the Eucharist among Catholics.

It is also likely to challenge the view that the Second Vatican Council gave local bishops the authority to adapt the liturgy. It will also emphasise that Rome must guarantee the universality of the Mass.

[heyheyhey]

Whew, that's a load off my mind.

I am happy to know that. :)

Some tried to blame the (homo)sexual clerical scandals on the post-Vatican 2 changes. The John Jay report showed that the rise of abuse took place many years prior to the Council. Personally, I blame the so-called "sexual revolution." Although the Catholic Church was hand-picked, for obvious reasons, the whole society was badly affected by it.

I think, it is heretical for any authentic Catholic person to doubt in the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church. On the two extremes there are "catholics" who acknowledge nothing but Vatican 2 and "catholics" who acknowledge anything but Vatican 2. Both are part of the same heresy, both are wrong and need to familiarize themselves with the teachings of Jesus Christ as proclaimed infallibly in the Roman Catholic Church, watch the Passion of the Christ and repent. :D

[ultima ratio]

You need to look more closely at the Latin text in the original. It has gutted the ancient Offertory, as well as the sacrificial structure of the Mass. There is little difference between it and the vernacular in terms of its theological underpinnings--which are Protestant, not Catholic. It puts a Paschal Meal theology before the re-presentation of Calvary--exactly as Trent repudiated. In other words, the Mass itself is subversive of the Catholic faith. No amount of tinkering with it will remedy this. It is an abomination.

[dsc]

"There is no proof that this is happening because of licit adaptations."

I don't know what kind of proof you're looking for.

If one of our cats poops on the floor, I know the cat poop is causing the stink. I don't look for further proof.

[dsc]

"I think, it is heretical for any authentic Catholic person to doubt in the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church."

However, given what we know of the way God does things, it is hardly thoughtful to discount the possibility of mortal men rejecting and acting contrary to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

God gives us free will; that includes the freedom to act wrongly. Nowhere does He say He will protect any man from all possibility of error or malfeasance.

[m4629]

Ahhhh, the good ole days (even though it was twenty some years ago) :-) FReegards.

Ah yes. I remember the good old days where the air was clean, and sodomy was dirty.

[rogator]

"The John Jay report showed that the rise of abuse took place many years prior to the Council. "

Are you sure about this? I have not read the whole report but section 2.2 says that 75% of the abuse incidents since 1950 occurred between 1960 and 1984. The worst year group of priests was ordination year 1970 with 10% accused abusers.

[Maximilian]

I stand somewhere between you and the Amchurch freaks. And I am equally unlikely to move to either of your extremes.

The problem is that you see yourself in relative terms. You compare yourself to other people along a scale. But the only thing that matters is the objective truth. God's single viewpoint is more important than that of every man on earth. So it makes no difference whether you are the last person on the edge of the scale, or whether you are right in the middle. The only thing that matters is whether you are standing with objective truth.

[GirlShortstop]

Ah yes. I remember the good old days where the air was clean, and sodomy was dirty.

Yep, now we have  "Up is Down, Down is Up".  Here's a rough draft description of that alternate reality:  its leaders are the finest from the liberal/socialist, atheist, and/or media whore circles.  If a resident is inclined to believe in anything, he/she/it must believe and be obedient to:  mother earth, creator; peta, nambla, GLTA, ACLU etc., the denominations; gay pride, or diversity day serve as the day of obligation, when everyone shall join together and share the hatred (very deeply held among the holy) towards TRUTH, the enemy which holds the power to penetrate and dissolve their world.  Of course sodomy still is dirty, but it is anathema to even consider bringing it up, lest facts escape and adversely affect the alternative lifestyle.

Blech!  Instead of a shower, I'll head off to prayer for a spiritual rinse.  Goodnight and FReegards.

[ultima ratio]

It doesn't matter how "beautiful and reverent" it is when said "properly"--it is still a danger to the Catholic faith. It undermines Catholic dogmas. This is as near to a Protestant service you can get without being actually Lutheran. Sorry, but Paul VI substituted a Mass which was called the "Mass of St. Peter" because some of its parts went back to apostolic times and St. Peter himself, for a concoction designed to appeal to Protestants. Since its institution, in fact, two-thirds of all Catholics have stopped believing in the Real Presence. It is very bad news and will never be acceptable to traditional Catholics.

[kstewskis]

It is also likely to challenge the view that the Second Vatican Council gave local bishops the authority to adapt the liturgy. It will also emphasise that Rome must guarantee the universality of the Mass.

/sigh of relief

After a little "tidbit" which was sounding contrary from what I heard Fr. Fragomeni say this evening, this is wonderful news.

Have faith in The Church, not the human failings that occur in it.

(stay tuned, I'll update you all later when I have a chance to compose my notes from these last two nights with Fr. Fragomeni).

[kstewskis]

So, I was pretty scandalized when, after the Consecration, the priest left the altar to work the crowd during the meet and greet.

Ugh, I frequently see my parish priest do this also. Drives me nuts, and saddens me how the reverence seems to slip away at each of his masses.

I no longer try to attend his, opting for the younger priest, who follows more reverence and tradition.

Among other things, continuously bowing to "the altar" (there is no Crucifix) when there is no Eucharist present.

Is this just carelessness on the part of the priest or laity? I'm not sure, but it still is annoying to say the least.

[ultima ratio]

It is at best disputable whether any pope ever had the authority to replace one Mass--which had come down to us from ancient times--with a wholly new one made by a committee of humanists. Nor is it a matter of what I think vs. the Pope. It is a matter of what the Church herself has traditionally taught and what previous popes had always taught. I do not argue either Paul VI or John Paul II are formal heretics. But neither do I believe they are wholly orthodox since they have clearly departed in major ways from Catholic Tradition.

[ultima ratio]

Vatican II clearly relaxed standards within the Church which permitted the sex abuse scandals to occur. If you check the statistics, you will see that while a great many of the clerics were ordained before the Council, most of the cases of abuse occurred AFTER the Council.

[ultima ratio]

Nobody's picking a fight. Nor do I accuse this Pope of heresy--though he is certainly heterodox. This is not a pope who respects tradition. And by the way, when did Christ promise that a pope couldn't ascribe to heresy? He promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church--not against Peter. In fact, popes can succumb to heresies. As for the protection against error (infallibility), this is a gift of the Holy Spirit that is only granted under very limited conditions.