Posted on 06/02/2005 11:17:53 AM PDT by Pyro7480
On 21 May 2005, I attended the bacculareate Mass at Villanova University in southeastern Pennsylvania. My sister was graduating from this school, which was founded by Augustinian priests in the mid-19th century.
The Mass took place in the early evening at the university's stadium, and other than a brief shower, the liturgy started well. A choir sang Palestrina's Tu es Petrus prior to the beginning of the Mass. I was delighted to hear that particular piece of music. However, I should have a heeded a warning of sorts that was right in front of my eyes. There was a table close to the stage were the Mass was going to be offered, and sitting on top of the table were glass chalices, which obviously were going to be used during the Mass.
The atmosphere of the Mass shifted quickly as the processional hymn began. The line-up of the ministers began in a normal fashion. At the very beginning of the procession was a graduate in academic garb carrying a censor. However, not far behind were other graduates carrying multi-colored banners. They were the oddest things I had ever seen processed in during a Mass. It wasn't clear at all what their point was. The colors used weren't Villanova's colors. In fact, they used bright pastel colors. But they didn't have much to do with the Mass itself, so it was a forgiveable error.
The banners, however, was just the beginning of events that could be described as the results of lapses in judgement. The music during the Mass itself belonged to typical post-1970's composing, so that wasn't exactly unexpected either. But when the time for the offertory came, my heart began to sink. The hosts that were to be consecrated were brought in to the stage where the altar was in large wicker baskets. It wasn't immediately clear at that point but inside the larger wicker baskets were smaller wicker baskets, lined with white cloths of some sort, which actually contained the hosts. The wine that was going to be consecrated were brought in large glass/crystal containers.
Both the hosts and the wine were left in their containers during the entire Eucharistic prayer. When time came for communion, baskets containing consecrated hosts were brought to each side of the field. The smaller wicker baskets containing the hosts were taken out of the larger baskets, and most of the distribution of the Blessed Sacrament was taken care of by lay people, most of whom were college students.
When one of them came with the basket, the rest of my family went for Communion, but I decided not to go. I prefer to receive Our Lord's Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, from the hands of a priest or deacon. Anyway, at that point, I was feeling rather offended by the manner Communion was being distributed. They were treating Our Lord as if He were an appetizer that was being served at a restaurant. When my dad sat back down next to me after receiving Communion, I told him what was wrong about what was taking place.
As the distribution was winding-down, I noticed that some of the students who were distributing Communion were committing more abuses. I saw one of them self-communicate. Some of them stacked the baskets on top of each other, and it was probably the case that on top of the clothes, there still rested small fragments of the consecrated hosts.
After the Mass concluded, my family went to a nice Italian restaurant nearby. I brought up the issue of the Mass. My mom seemed to understand why I was feeling offended. My sister on the other hand, said in response to my complaint (in a rather sarcastic manner), "I'm sorry my liturgy offended you." She couldn't understand why it was wrong to serve the Blessed Sacrament in that manner.
My final thought on this issue: If it is possible for papal Masses to accomodate hundreds of thousands of people during Communion, and do it properly, then an American institute of higher learning which has Catholic roots can afford to do take the proper steps to accomodate a few thousand during a bacculareate Mass.
You stated: "It's up to each rite as to how far they go in returning to their own traditions."
And it's up to the Holy See in Rome to determine what is best for them. Pius XII warned about archeologism in 1947. The Liturgical Renewal that led to the Novus Ordo is proof that the warning was warranted. But, if some particular rite decided to go back to extreme penances for example. The Holy See would have the duty and every right to quash that if they deemed it necessary.
Also, many of the supposed "enforcements" of "latinizations" were freely adopted by the Maronites and may have had practical considerations.
Rome also intervened with great respect for the married clergy as a tradition held. What Rome stomped on was the "re-marriage of Maronite clergy" Since celibacy for the clergy was orginally adopted totally in the East and then became and abuse that was tolerated by the Holy See. Give them an inch and they take a mile.
Rome also had to regulate the number of bishops they were consecrating. They adopted mentioning the name of the Pope in the prayers. The Filioque was also added to reinvorce the understanding of the Trinity and keep them on the straight and narrow regarding orthodoxy.
And, since the U.S. was missioned by the Latin part of the Church, and married clergy is a prime issue among the enemies of the Church, it is wise that the Maronite clergy are forced to adopt a practice that the Orientals once held and is of a higher order in spiritual practice than the married clerical state.
It's actually a brilliant pastoral move. It reinforces the teaching and wisdom of celibacy and reinvigorates the spirituality of the Eastern rites. That prevents the enemies of the Church from playing one part of the Church against the other.
I said the latinizations "have kept" not "did keep" the Maronites from Schism.
As I stated in the subsequent post those latinizations are still meritorious. (not all but they are not by any means "long gone")
A societies religions tend to "kill" the language that they have reserved for Sacred/sacred worship. That's just a fact of history.
From Judaism to Buddhism and Shintoism, languages that start out practically as the vulgar tongue tend to die. It's a human characteristic.
"Since celibacy for the clergy was orginally adopted totally in the East and then became and abuse that was tolerated by the Holy See. Give them an inch and they take a mile."
Where did you get that idea?
Thanks for sharing that news! Though I'm not surprised. Just wondering what took them so long to discover the Maronite Church. Oh wait .. I know the answer. "The Maronites do not evangelize other catholics" (a direct quote from Bishop Mansour).
According to one Melkite priest ....
"Fr. Constantine Belisarius sees the recent influx of Westerners into the Eastern Churches as perhaps correcting a historical imbalance. He notes that in the New World, the Western Church was quick to declare its supremacy, and often Eastern Catholics were proselytized away from the rites of their birth into Roman Catholic churches. "There was ethnic tension. Some Eastern Catholic immigrants remember as children being told by Roman Catholic peers, 'You're not really Catholic.' That hurts."
Such tensions, most often fueled by misinformation, persist today. Fr. Constantine knows of a Ruthenian-rite Catholic who, while hospitalized, was refused Communion by the visiting Eucharistic minister. "You're not Catholic," she was informed. Fr. Constantine laments, "This is plain ignorance on the part of Roman Catholics. It's costly ignorance for the Catholic Church."
The Rite Switch: why Roman rite Catholics become Eastern rite
Jesus was a Jew. He spoke Aramaic. Does it not make perfect sense that all catholic liturgies should retain the words and language of our Lord at the Last Supper for the consecation?
"A societies religions tend to "kill" the language that they have reserved for Sacred/sacred worship. That's just a fact of history."
Didn't happen in Greece, though demotic is somewhat different from the Byzantine Greek of the Divine Liturgy or the Koine of the NT. It is understandable by most Greek speaking people.
You know that I'm being sarcastic, don't you?
I could make a strong argument that while proximity is necessary for the validity of confession and absolution it is not necessary for the validity of reception of the Eucharist.
IIRC, Bishop Sheen often told the story of a young girl who communicated herself by licking the hosts off of the floor of a desecrated church during one of the World Wars.
The priest was unavailable. She used her tongue only and returned each day till the Eucharist had been removed. She was shot on her final day and killed.
So, bishop Sheen did not seem to believe that the personal principle was the key to understanding the substantial "nature" of the Sacred Species or recieving the benefits of Holy Communion distributed recieved under unusual circumstances.
The the Council of Neo-Caesarea (314)warned Eastern
Council of Nicaea (325)---Can.3 (predominantly an Eastern Council.
The Easterns started to diverge from this after the Quinisext council(692)
Ignatius Press publishes a book by Stefan Heid CELIBACY IN THE EARLY CHURCH: The Beginnings of a Discipline of Obligatory Continence for Clerics in East and West.
Hope that helps. Gotta run now.
A language doesn't have to be incomprehensible to be considered "dead" or reserved for worship.
The Anglicans railed when there were talks of updating the Elizabethan English which no one speaks even though it is still understandable with some effort.
Koine and Modern Greek are more extreme examples of this same principle.
Great article you linked to.
"I always tell my Roman rite friends that they have to go to Divine Liturgy at least one time before they die so that when they get to heaven, they'll know what God is doing."
Love that line!
But we take 'em when God sends 'em our way!
Some Eastern Catholic immigrants remember as children being told by Roman Catholic peers, 'You're not really Catholic.' That hurts.
Very true. I remember hearing stories like that from my Sittie (that's "grandmother" in the anglicized broken Arabic our my Maronite family). She said that they were called "Turks", and this was especially offensive to them, for obvious reasons. She was especially upset by this because most of her family was killed by the Turks during the first World War (or "the Great War" as people of her generation referred to it).
When the Latin Rite Catholics would accuse them of not being Christian (I guess them saw us as some sort of quasi-Jewish sect or something), they would say, "We speak the language of Jesus! We lived on the very earth where His sacred feet trod! How can you say we are not His children?"
The Church administers the sacraments in person. The good bishop's anecdote relates a remarkable and edifying display of a little girl's faith, but does not address the personal principle because the Church did not intend to minister communion through the priest to the girl via the floor. Still, I do thank you for sharing the story and recalling one of my favorite scriptures:
Jesus left that place and withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. Then out came a Canaanite woman from that district and started shouting, "Sir, Son of David, take pity on me. My daughter is tormented by a devil." But he answered her not a word. And his disciples went and pleaded with him. "Give her what she wants," they said "because she is shouting after us." He said in reply, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel." But the woman had come up and was kneeling at his feet. "Lord," she said "help me." He replied, "It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the house-dogs." She retorted, "Ah yes sir; but even house-dogs can eat the scraps that fall from their master's table." Then Jesus answered her, "Woman, you have great faith. Let your wish be granted." And from that moment her daughter was well again.Matthew 15:21-28
When the matter is discussed, several documents in addition to the Missale Romanum are invariably cited ... lastly, a letter emanating from the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship addressed to the Bishop of Siena in 1999. ... the letter of the Sacred Congregation for the Divine Worship to the Bishop of Siena in 1999 acknowledges that “in the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum, no explicit formula of abrogation of the Roman missal so-called of St. Pius V occurs.” ... According to Canon 20 of the Code of Canon Law, a later law supersedes or, to use the technical word, “obrogates” an earlier law if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law, and supplants it. The letter of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to the Bishop of Siena in 1999 seems to maintain that the Tridentine missal would have been suppressed by a form of obrogation. ... This letter asserts in the first place that “if the will of the Pontiff had been to leave in force the preceding liturgical forms as an alternative that could be freely chosen, he should have said so explicitly.” ... This letter asserts that documents subsequent to the constitution Missale Romanum confirm the obligatory character of Paul VI’s missal. ... This letter asserts that “usage” manifests the obligatory character of Paul VI’s missal. ... This letter asserts that the obligatory character of Paul VI’s missal can be seen by comparing it to the situation described in Canon 6, §1, No. 4 taken together with Canon 19 [I think this was probably 20?].
Hopefully B16 can conclude a universal indult if negotiations with the SSPX get going again, but the SCDW's arguments have convinced me that the "immemorial custom"/"Quo Primum never suppressed" arguments are bunk. Here are the referenced canons:
Can. 6 §1 When this Code comes into force, the following are abrogated: ... 4° any other universal disciplinary laws concerning matters which are integrally reordered by this Code.Can. 19 If on a particular matter there is not an express provision of either universal or particular law, nor a custom, then, provided it is not a penal matter, the question is to be decided by taking into account laws enacted in similar matters, the general principles of law observed with canonical equity, the jurisprudence and practice of the Roman Curia, and the common and constant opinion of learned authors.
Can. 20 A later law abrogates or derogates from an earlier law, if it expressly so states, or if it is directly contrary to that law, or if it integrally reorders the whole subject matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, does not derogate from a particular or from a special law, unless the law expressly provides otherwise.
B XVI himself disagreed with your assertion. So did the rest of JPII's commission of cardinals.
That's not really an argument, so I can't respond. Sorry. "The argument from an authority which is founded upon human reason is very feeble" - St. Thomas.
--------------
25) Due to the common misuse of the word "Indult," regarding the Tridentine Mass, we will quote this section of the book in its entirety: "Moreover, St. Pius V granted in perpetuity to all priests a specific indult, conceding to them the tranquil enjoyment of their perpetual right to celebrate publicly and privately the rite which he had codified. This indult could not be suppressed without express mention, for 'a universal law does not derogate from a particular or from a special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise' (Canon 20). By its silence on this point, the apostolic constitution of Pope Paul, leaves intact the privilege granted perpetuity by St. Pius V." (PLR, p.106 uses the word "fraudulent" for the Commission Ecclesia Dei because the Commission pretends that a priest needs to be granted a special indult [a special permission] to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. This permission is not needed, as all Roman Rite priests have the permission already. Both Cardini Stickler and Cardinal Oddi have stated openly that they were on a 1986 Papal Commission of Nine Cardinals that concluded that 1) The Tridentine Mass has never been abrogated, and 2) That a priest needs no permission from his bishop to celebrate the Tridentin Mass privately or publicly. Further, in the recent negotiations between the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican, Cardinal Hoyos, Prefect of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, admitted reluctantly, "Okay, we recognize that the Old Mass is not abrogated and is legitimate, but we can not say it publicly because there will be too much of a rebellion and dificulty with the bishops. We cannot say it publicly." (For Cardinal Oddi's comments, see CFN, Aug., 2 001. For Cardinal Stickler's comments, se CFN, Feb., 1998, p. 3. For Cardinal Hoyos' comments, see CFN, April 2001.
http://www.traditionalcatholicism.net/page36.html
I know you can't respond. You can only cut and paste. On that note I did a cut and paste for you above.
Also, most of your quote is from Vennari's comments, it is not in the book.
This is kind of off-topic for the thread anyway, so I'll let the matter drop.
Obviously the SSPX does not think that the TLM has been suppressed, as I noted: I have excised the SSPX arguments opposing it, which one can read in the book if he so wishes. If you are referring to the SSPX argument based upon the "Quo Primum" indult which you cite, Michael Davies and Count Capponi state, in the article "The Legal Status of the Tridentine Mass": "A strong case can be made that the new legislation of Pope Paul VI obrogated Quo Primum, and this could even include the perpetual privilege." Therefore the SSPX argument that Quo Primum's indult was never derogated is invalid. The problem with the "immemorial custom" that Davies and Capponi is that there's no reason to suppose that it stops at the 1962 MR - the old rite was updated until 1967, with the Prayers for the Faithful, removal of the Last Gospel, etc. There is also a Notification from the Sacred Congregation for Rites which rejects "immemorial custom" with an abrogatory "notwithstanding" clause.
Cardinal Stickler and Cardinal Oddi are not SSPX. Both have stated the results of JPII's commission many times in different places. I believe Cardinal Ratzinger did also and if I find a quote from him I'll post it.
I'm sorry you don't like the sources. It doesn't change the truth.
Michael Davies himself stated Paul VI never officially promulgated the Novus Ordo anywhere in the apostolic document despite the inference of the title.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.