The following comes from a Sept. 15 posting on marysaggies.blogspot,
- Fast before Mass. It is Church law that one fasts for at least 1 hour before receiving Holy Communion. Water and medicine can be consumed, of course. The purpose is to help us prepare to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.
- No Food and Drink in Church. The exceptions would be a drink for small children, water for the priest or choir (if discreet) and water for those who are ill. Bringing a snack into church is not appropriate, because we want to set the church apart as a place of prayer and reflection.
- Men take your hats off. It is impolite to wear a hat into a church for a man. While this is a cultural norm, it is one that we ought to follow closely. Just as we take off hats for the Pledge of Allegiance, we do so in church too; as a sign of respect.
- Don’t chew gum in church. It breaks your fast, it’s distracting, it is consider impolite in a formal setting, and it doesn’t help us pray better. Can you imagine the Pope popping gum in during Mass?
- Cross yourself with Holy Water on entering and leaving the church. This is a reminder of our Baptism, which made us members of Christ’s Church. Just try to remain mindful of what is happening when you do so and don’t do it without saying a prayer.
- Dress modestly and appropriately. Wear your Sunday Best. As Catholics we believe that God comes down to meet us at every Mass. So, why would we not dress up?
- Show up at least a few minutes early. If for some reason you can’t be on time, then try to sit in the back so you don’t disturb others. Getting to Mass early allows you to pray and prepare yourself better for Mass.
- Cell phones should never be used in Mass for calls or texting. The exceptions are emergencies (big ones, not everyday ones) and if you do use one, please walk out of church to do so. Also, if you are using the phone for readings or prayers, this is appropriate, but try to be discreet.
- Don’t sit on the edge of the pew if you sit down before others. Rather, sit in the middle so others don’t have to climb over you. Furthermore – Gentlemen offer their seats to a any lady (elderly, disabled, etc) who must stand. Some churches, like ours, get packed. We live in Texas (Howdy!). In Texas men don’t sit when a woman is standing.
- When we enter and leave Church, genuflect toward the Tabernacle. Christ is present for our sake. By allowing our right knee to hit the floor, we acknowledge He is our Lord and God. If someone is physically unable to genuflect, then a bow is sufficient. During Mass, if you pass in front of the altar or tabernacle, bow reverently.
- Please be quiet while in church. Once you enter the sanctuary – it is not the time or place to visit with those around you. If you must talk do so as quietly and briefly as possible. Remember that your conversation might be disturbing someone who is in prayer, which is much more important. Sssshhhhhhhh.
- Take loud children to the back. Every parent knows that sometimes the baby is going to have a bad day. Don’t make everyone else’s day bad as well. Sit on the end of a pew, if you can, and take the kid to the back quickly. Don’t wait too long before you make a move. There is no reason to be embarrassed about having to quiet your child in the back of the church. It is worse to allow them to disturb Mass continually.
- Prepare your offering before Mass. Christ tells us not to let your left hand know what your right hand is doing when you make your offering. Keeping the basket while you get your wallet out can sometimes become quite a scene. For tips on tithing, check this out.
- No bulletin reading during Mass. Imagine if you invited a guest to your house and before dinner (or during) they decided to read a magazine instead of talking to you. That is what is happening in God’s house when you read the bulletin.
- Respect boundaries others may have. You might want to hold hands to pray, they may not. They might be sick and not want to shake during the sign of peace. These are all OK. Do not make any unnecessary judgment because they worship differently.
- Bow before receiving Holy Communion. If it is God, then show your respect with a bow of the head. This is an ancient practice that has continued until this day.
- Do not receive from the chalice if you are sick. This is an act of charity and it is not necessary to receive in order to receive the entirety of Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity.
- Do not leave early. We should stay to the end of the recession and the hymn that accompanies it, if there is one. While there are certainly exceptions to this guideline, most who leave early don’t need to and ought not to.
- Pray after Mass, if you feel called to do so. It is a good custom, though not required, to offer a prayer of thanksgiving after Mass is over.
- Leave quietly. We encourage you to visit with others, but once you are outside of the main sanctuary of the church so you won’t disturb others who want to stay and pray. So, please leave quietly and then have then visit afterward.
To read the original posting, click here.
Not bad, but… One hour is not a fast. It is a joke call one hour of abstaining before Communion (not Mass) a fast. Since Communion happens at the end of Mass, this basically means don’t eat in church. Practice at least the 3 hour fast, but ideally the old fast from midnight (assuming you attend Mass sometime in the morning.) Second, we don’t bow our heads before receiving Holy Communion. We kneel and extend our tongue. Bowing and then sticking out your hands is no more reverent than one hour is a fast. And Catholics, except for the Eastern churches, have historically received the Body only.
I agree with JAM’s post! Our modern, secularized Church, desperately needs to return to its older, holier traditions, which honor and reverence God! Long ago, everyone knew the “basics” of assisting at the beautiful, old Latin Mass!
Jam, though I agree with you that these are the preferable things, the author is correct in his or her suggestions as they apply to today’s norms with regard to the Novus Ordo.
Thank you. Very well said. Also It is Biblical that males don’t wear hats and women should cover their heads. 1 Corinthians 11:3-16.
What you suggest is perfectly proper for your individual practice. It is not, however, the liturgical law of the Church and cannot be imposed on others. For example, the Church has made perfectly clear that reception of the Body of Christ either in the hand or on the tongue are both perfectly proper AND that the choice is the recipient’s (in the Roman Rite), which must be respected. Further, the Church—-in all Rites—strongly encourages reception of the Eucharist under both forms.
Goodness sakes, Father, with all respect, the notion that things cannot be imposed on others rings so hollow as much of the nonsense that makes for the necessity of such articles is the imposition of false liberty that happened post VII. And it was an imposition to be sure.
So while we must respect where others are coming from with regard to their practice of the Faith, we must also respect the intellectual aspects behind recognizing what led to where people are. The false aspects of free choice that have, in many way, annihilated instead of renewed.
IOW: There is much to be said for turning toward practices which bolster faith, piety, fortitude, etc.
I repeat: may of the suggestions made are proper WRT individual piety. Not being in conformity with the Church’s current liturgical law, they cannot be imposed on others.
No of course they cannot be imposed, Father. That was not my point, but rather the sad fall out of other impositions. And that is why the ‘current’ liturgical law leaves much to be desired even though, I’m certain, that there were many good intentions that preceded changes. But, in all honesty, I cannot help believing that there were some that were not so good, too.
Chickens coming home to roost with regard to the latter, Father. That’s all.
“IMPOSED liberty”? A contradiction in terms.
So why are you posting a contradiction in terms and attempting to present them as the sentiments of others, Father. Please, don’t misrepresent. That is argumentative. The reference, I believe you were speaking to, was the imposition of what leads to a sense of false liberty – that giving into those who push for change by way of abuse (not natural progression or customs) and then subsequently imposing ‘communion in the hand’ is not the best way to exercise authority. It establishes a precedence that change WILL come by way of abuse.
Much like a girl who would go out and get pregnant in order to push for the ‘marriage’ perhaps she is neither ready for nor should enter into by presenting her parents etc with ‘de facto’ situation that must now be dealt with. That said, you must understand that by virtue of the lessons learned by the flock with regard to how to press for change, wouldn’t you agree that the Church opened up the door of the above methods by giving way to those kinds of tactics in the first place?
And if so, how can you now, in all honesty, chasten Catholics who want to encourage a renewal of Catholic Faith and Morals and all that goes with it, by saying they should not employ those methods show to work – by the hierarchy?
But even so, Father, I never said I advocate for abolishing what folks have become accustomed to right off. THAT would be another cruel imposition. But stifling honest talk about it, no. Because Truth and understanding between Catholics is paramount if we are to be successful in evangelizing others…
Well said, Fr. Bob.
well said Father Bob = )
Well said, why? Because Father responded to previous posters as if they had questioned the Church’s authority to grant an indult for receiving communion in the hand and not the prudence in making such changes?
It is interesting, however, that folks are congratulating Fr. Bob for insisting that the Church has the right to legislate Church discipline – when no one was denying the Church’s right, but rather analyzing the prudential aspects of decisions made.
If lawful analysis were not permitted, why would Our Lord tell us to look to the fruits? Why would scripture warn us of blind guides or those who preach a different gospel? Fr. Bob’s diversion is a great way to shut down dialogue under the appearance of ‘authority’ when the opinion of other priests (in full communion with Rome) is quite different.
So shall we respond to Fr. Bob by stating, “God is love!” to get a round of support that has nothing whatsoever to do with the valid observation of previous posters?
Well said, “God is love!” And there’s an end to it. =)
If you smile when no one else is around, you really mean it. – Andy Rooney
Ann, I remember reading years ago on the EWTN website all the reasons taking the Host with our hands was not reverent etc. I looked it up today and it is worded quite differently . I had copied it to send to a priest who was against taking it on the tongue but the version I read today would not support me. Anyway, some of the quotes from this website are very helpful in supporting your post. When I first converted I learned that one of the first thing the heretic protestants did was start taking communion in the hand to prove it wasn’t the real Body and Blood of Christ…I have almost always taken it on the tongue since. I also try to avoid receiving from an “extraordinary” minister, as well…whose hands have not been ‘set apart’ as has a priest’s.
Dana, THANK YOU for caring, after having read what you did on EWTN originally, to give Our Lord the most by way of honor and respect. If we are not taught or never hear, we never know.
But unlike others are willing to admit, there are reasons why there is inherently more piety in the TLM and the practices therein. And why there is such an increasing lack today.
I once posted to you not to worry about following the TLM word for word months ago, but rather to allow your experiences be just that ‘experience’. The regularity of gestures and reverence speak to the soul, much like kneeling for Our Lord (when you can) is to honor Him. And receiving Him on the tongue as a sign of reverence and humility that keeps one in touch with the Who we are receiving.
But there are those that assert that other modes are *sufficient*. Sorry, but just that term with regard to Our Blessed Lord followed up by chancery bluster and a glass jaw looking to take offense in order to silence intelligent discussion is beyond the pale. As if the Bride of Christ should use Her authority to promote only what is sufficient with regard to Her Beloved Spouse. Dang, if my husband told my children to just give me what was *sufficient* I’d be ticked. And I certainly wouldn’t feel that my husband was making the best use of his teaching authority or example.
bizarrrrrrro. Either you receive the Body of Christ, or you do not. The hands from which you receive Him matter not.
I totally agree Ann. And that was an excellent point about showing ‘sufficient’ love and respect to our Lord by using the example of love we expect from others. Can you imagine the same people who promote taking the Lord’s body in the hand being in India and being served food and shaking hands with those using their right hand? (the hand used to take care of bodily functions) To me, that’s who we all are, unworthy and unclean. A priest has been given the authority and has been set apart, though he be a sinner himself, to administer the sacraments. To say that it doesn’t matter if an ‘extraordinary minister’ places it in your hand and you put it in your own mouth rather than have a priest dip the Host in the Blood and place it on your tongue is like saying it’s okay for just anyone to marry you, as long as a priest is in the room. Using an example by Frank Sheed, (I think) I could dress up as a cop and say you’re under arrest but it is only when a real policeman says “You’re under arrest” that you know you’re in real trouble. To me, this is so elementary, I don’t know why people cannot see this, but then, perhaps they secretly believe they’re just holding a ‘symbol’. If they really believed they were touching the sacred body of our Lord, how can they be so blase’? And of course, Ann, I very much doubt any of them troubled themselves to read any of the web links we gave.
There is no need for them to read the web links, Dana, because THEY KNOW. Foolish me thought perhaps there was some light of dawn ahead. No. And yet it was so kind of the chancery office, however, to give yet more proof, and online even, as to the rigmarole condescension that is harbored in too many ivory towers. (Methinks those in the chancery seeking intelligent conversation on a website have given us a clue that there isn’t much going on at their office.)
As to the rest, I guess all of the graduate degree studies push out the ‘elementary’ at some point. Maybe that’s why Dr. Watson used to ask Sherlock Holmes such obvious questions – and with a medical degree no less :)
When you are at Mass, you are in the HOUSE OF GOD. Most especially there, you should obey the First Commandment THOU SHALT NOT HAVE STRANGE gods BEFORE THEE. At Mass, you are there to worship GOD and not have a tete-a tete with your pals. The Church is NOT McDonald’s, nor Starbucks, but a holy place. Our Lord threw the buyers and sellers out of the temple because proper behavior was not being followed. In today’s world, there seems to be more decorum at a bull fight or a football game than there is during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. If you come to Mass to be entertained, or to mingle with your buddies, or to catch up on the local gossip, than you have no idea about what going to Mass is all about. The third Commandment demands that you honor God and keep His day holy. What part of the first and third Commandment don’t you understand? Because everything goes and one can do as he pleases, there is chaos and confusion, which are effects of the demonic.
Thank you Father for a commentary devoid of ambiguity…an unfortunate mark of today’s modern church.
Dear Fr. Karl— The behaviors at Mass which you describe are totally impermissible. But I must say that I’ve never seen 10% of the behaviors/attitudes/foolishness to which you refer at any Mass I’ve attended—or celebrated during my 22 years as a priest. Might we lessen our credibility, and the strength of our message, by going overboard? “Demonic forces”: isn’t that a bit over the top? (By the way, I firmly believe that Satan is a fallen angel and a real person, and not merely some inchoate “force”.)
Good comments Fr. Bob
Why good, Abeca? Father Karl said that chaos and confusion are the effects of the demonic. They are. That could be said to be a paraphrase of Pope Francis.
Father Karl was also merely calling out folks who may come to mass for the wrong reasons/primary motivation. Father Bob was extrapolating into the area of certain behaviors at mass. Those are different things. (Even though there is a lot of confusing and, often chaotic, behavior that happens during mass time. Not every mass, mind, but nobody is saying that.)
Either way, I cannot imagine that anyone would negate the basics of striving for purity of intention or at least the need for a primary focus when attending mass. We are primarily at mass to adore, thank, offer propitiatory sacrifice for sin, and petition Our Lord.
Goodness, but you have been blessed, Fr. B, if you have been spared the above. That said, Pope Francis certainly doesn’t believe his message will be diminished by talk of supernatural realities. Father Karl’s certainly isn’t.
Father Bob B,
Over the many years, my entire family and many friends have also witnessed the things that Father Karl is speaking about. I only attend Masses within our diocese, so what I am describing has taken place under the umbrella of being in “full communion” with Rome. Starting with when our children were little and they watched our parish priest place a black hefty trash bag up on the altar. This was during Mass. He talked about putting our garbage sins in the trash bag. Then he yelled out loud, “Hey did you get any lately in that Monday morning talk in the locker room?” That was his “in full communion” excuse or permitted liscence to be able to scandalize many.
It was later discovered that at this particular parish more than one priest was convicted for molesting boys. Would it be considered over the top to watch the same priest who we witnessed defiling the Mass also defile little children? I suspect that Father Karl hasn’t even touched the surface in exposing what he has witnessed.
Regarding the defiling of the Mass, We wrote the bishop and we also asked a good priest to write to the bishop at that time and this good priest also wrote. There was no discipline, it continued. Then when our son asked another priest at the same parish why he was also doing things that were not a part of the Mass, the priest told our son, “Wouldn’t you get sick of Cheerios if you had to eat them or the same thing everyday?”
continued from September 25, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Father Bob B,
The priest who said this about the Cheerios was later one of the priests who was convicted molesting underprivileged boys at retreats. If I wrote a book describing the very same things that many of the faithful have witnessed at Mass over the years would you not believe us too? Father Bob B, The majority of Catholics remained silent and many criticized an ostracized those who stood up for the faith and had written the bishop as well as writing Rome. Many Catholics stood by the so called “cool” priests with the “cool” Masses..that is until they were later convicted. Meanwhile, human hearts were broken and the sheep were scattered. Where is the unfathomable mercy of Jesus for these brothers and sisters in Christ? If Rome can have encouraging dialogue with the SSPX then why can’t we admit that these abuses are taking place and not diminish the truthful comments of laypeople or another alter Christus.
Father Bob B, May I sincerely ask you, What do you believe would help to solve the problems of the world? I understand, the necessity of prayer and sacrifice but what I do not understand is the lack of willingness to admit that these abuses are rampant. It looks and feels like an even greater denial as the denial that the sex abuses were being committed. I believe that if our scattered brothers and sisters in Christ were told, “Yes, we want you to come home and you are accurate about these abuses that ARE taking place and we will do everything within our power to stop them” then Our Lord would so pleased with that truthful admission.
Taken from the Washington Post
A Modern Pope Gets Old School On The Devil
“We’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.”
– St. Catherine of Siena
Talking about spiritual realities is one thing. Attributing admittedly inappropriate conduct at Mass to demonic forces is quite another, especially when such conduct is more realistically (and charitably) chalked up to 40 yrs of poor catechesis or just plain boorishness.
You may want to reread what Fr. Karl actually wrote, Father B, instead of assuming you know because he mentioned the word demonic. That said, do you think there was no demonic activity surrounding 40 years of poor catechesis within the Church Herself?
Good grief, what do you think demonic activity is? The Catholic Church not teaching the basics to her children is not from God to be sure. And speaking plainly about it is not going overboard, but rather getting real about a serious problem.
Chaos and confusion ARE from the devil.
CS Lewis, in his book “Screwtape Letters” most assuredly thought even criticizing the way people dressed in church to be the wiles of the Tempter. He was being amusing but no less true for all that. Even if you’re sitting quietly at Mass looking like an angel, you could be thinking very impure thoughts about that young lady in the front pew, or thinking catty thoughts about your neighbor. As Ann wrote, “Chaos and confusion ARE from the devil.” I think all churches should have dress codes. It shouldn’t be necessary, but people are not afraid to shop at Walmart in their pajamas these days, and if going to Mass is to be a taste of Heaven then we should have ‘elevated’ tastes, for heaven’s sake!! People always point out that Jesus wore humble garments but I disagree. His mother and aunts and female followers would have dressed Him in beautiful robes…they would have made sure all was neat and mended. His seamless garment was fought over by Roman guards. Our best should always be for God. I’m very thankful that in the church I attend everyone genuflects coming in and going out of their pews. It is completely silent until the end of Mass and women leave when the baby gets too loud and listens in the entry room that has speakers and benches. One thing Catholic churches lack that protestant churches often have are attendance sheets at the ends of all the pews. A committee keeps track and if someone hasn’t attended for some time, someone goes to visit them and make sure they’re okay and that they’re missed. I know so many people stop going to Mass and no one even misses them or bothers to let them know how important they are to the Church body. I find it very disappointing at the total lack of interest Catholics have about their fellow Catholics. I see it here, as well. We’re a family…we should be concerned about each other!
A laugher of a list, in several ways. First, it is wrong, and omits “always at least genuflect before receiving our Lord in communion; kneeling is better and more reverential”. Second, “never receive communion in two species, take the host only; (this is a Protestant affectation established to make Catholics more like them — and how is that working for unification?? Answer: the only Protestants that become Catholic do so to avoid the craziness of Protestant services and beliefs, like homosexual marriage, women priests and all that). Third, “no hand holding permitted”; you are in Church as a penitent and worshipper, this is not grace before a pot-luck dinner (although many Francis-type Catholics believe so). Fourth, “loud children should be taken to the “crying room” or out of Church” (younger parents seem completely tone deaf to their obnoxious children; we attend Mass to pray, not to become de facto baby sitters. Fifth, “do not come to Church wearing recreational clothing” (ushers will ask those so attired to leave). Sixth, “no food or drink inside Church, including for children (except bottles for babies)”; if children cannot go without a meal or drink for one hour in the House of the Lord, then they should not be there. Seventh, “no breast-feeding inside Church” (yes they do). Eighth, “do not come to Mass and leave earlier”. Ninth, “Light a candle after Mass, or offer other public supplication”. Tenth, “receive communion only on the tongue”. Much better.
Holy communion in both forms isn’t a protestant affectation. It is what the Lord asked us to do to remember him. And he never asked us to receive on the tongue. He said “take this”. Taking is done with the hands, not with the tongue.
The Apostles were priests, Anonymous. And St. Peter was told to feed the sheep. Feeding can be done on the tongue, especially when the consecrated Host is Our Lord God, to whom we owe the utmost reverence and respect.
To Ann Malley. First, let me point out that the Sacraments were given by Christ to His Church, and not to us as individuals. Therefore the Church has the right to determine who can be admitted to them and how they are to be celebrated, provided that these determinations are not provably contrary to divine law. To hold that reception of the Eucharist in the hand is insufficiently reverent is to reject the Church’s valid decision that it is. (Of course, the Church holds that each recipient (in the Roman Rite) is free to choose which of the two methods of reception he/she prefers.) Doesn’t rejecting legitimate Church discipline in this area amount to being a “cafeteria” Catholic, which is (rightly) criticized in these pages?
Permit me one more observation. So many post-ers here seem to believe that the mandatory return of the Tridentine Mass would solve the world’s—and the Church’s—problems. If only that were so. By the way, B16 mandated the free use of this form of Mass and any Catholic who desires to assist only at that form is free to do so.
No, Father, calling into question the prudence of Church authority in allowing themselves to be manipulated into making an exception for communion in the hand, in this country at least, is not tantamount to being a “cafeteria” Catholic. It’s looking back at the abuse and false manipulation that brought it about and saying, “Maybe we should rethink this.”
Much like I would not discount the loyalty of my eldest daughter for making a quite right observation that me allowing a younger daughter to wear mini-skirts and spike heels abrades my authority. Of course, I would have the authority to make such a decision. That is not the question.
But would it be prudent for me to keep up the practice if my younger daughters studies and purity are threatened by a constant stream of ogling young men? And her own puffed up importance? What if her faith and moral began to decline? Should I rethink my decision? Ya think?
Wouldn’t I be rather caught up in my own sense of authority for authority’s sake if I defended my decision by merely stating, it’s my decision to my older daughter’s observations? And should I defend the ‘practice’ if, in addition to the obvious bad fruits, if it was well known that the only reason I allowed mini-skirts was because my sister bought them for her behind my back while I was on a trip and said just go ahead and your mother will cave after your new mode of dress has been sufficiently established.
What to do when the younger children want revealing tank top etc? A precedence has been set and, at that point, am I really any authority at all? Clothes are clothes, I could say. I don’t want to hear it.
To Fr. Bob B and Anonymous:
The following article explains far better than I regarding the practice of Communion on the Tongue:
And despite the threat of being falsely labeled, “cafeteria catholic”, the call of our Lord to know them by their fruits takes precedence. Pope Pius VI quite rightly alerted us that the smoke of Satan had entered the Church. In light of that observant and charitable declaration, those partaking at the buffet table would do well to stick to those foods known to be healthy and perhaps withdraw from those new and questionable dishes that, after 50 years, seem to contribute to making folks sick.
God bless you both.
“Fr. Bob B”: Confused by your answers, which seem overtly political. Certainly Christ started His Church through the Apostles, but His great commission was to evangelize the world, which most assume included providing the Eucharist to actual people, not only to the “Church” (however you might mean this). No, the “Church’s” insistence on (1) no kneeling, (2) receiving communion in two species, and (3) not receiving on the tongue, is overtly political, and inconsistent with Church Tradition for centuries. Your bias against Tradition is clear, but you should be able to do better than to compare someone who believes — rightly — that tearing out altar rails and demanding that everyone receive standing up, no genuflecting (as many, many bishops and pastors insist, notwithstanding present Church direction), is no better than a “cafeteria Catholic.” Let’s see, who is on the “cafeteria” list: virtually any Kennedy; John Kerry (pro choice, pro homosexual marriage), Joe Biden (same, and with a vote, too), Nancy Pelosi (who believes that the right to abortion is “sacred ground”) — many others!! You see, Liberal Catholics just cannot understood personal devotion away from the collective, and they cannot understand the notion (and do not) of personal sin. “Ann Malley” is not a “cafeteria Catholic” and is not in danger of becoming one. Too bad that the Church — through Francis — continues to make simply awful choices for its leadership, including, most currently, Abp. Cupich (for Chicago). Flaccid, weak, dithering, and questionable on implementing the True Faith, men like Dolan, Wuerl, Cupich, Maradiaga, and others are simply wretched bishops, who promise to lead many, many to continue sinful behavior. Too bad your focus was not — as theirs is not — on the proper application of Canon 915, and how the Church’s glorious history was far superior to today when full Tradition was observed (yes, your comment on the TLM was hugely off the mark; it was hijacked because of its divine nature and superiority to other forms of worship). Your comments are most disappointing.
No, actually, Fr Bob B, they are not free to do so. There are very FEW of these Latin Masses allowed and people who want to attend them have to travel many miles and hours to do so. Why do you think many people go to Pius x and other Latin Mass rites? Maybe every diocese should have one of their Sunday Masses be in Latin, and have it be one of the morning Masses in the morning. I agree with Ann Malley too that it is insufficiently irreverent to receive Christ in the hand. Many particles fall to the floor and Christ is being stepped on. I have for 15 yrs only attended the Tridentine Mass, and when I used to attend the Novus Ordo Mass people man-handled Christ and it was a sacrilege to see. I used to see people grab it from the Priest or Eucharistic ministers. Total lack of reverence to see!!!!!! I don’t think not wanting Christ man-handled is being a cafeteria Catholic!
to Fr. B cont:
So what is it, Father? Do we just press on without permission behind the back of authority to get what we want after the fact? Or do we risk being mislabeled to uphold authority which, too often, lacks the salt of protection and guidance for which it is given in the first place? What is truly being humble? Admitting the experiment went awry or attempt to mask error by citing authority.
That’s my question to you, Father, and why I have such a hard time with the psychological manipulation of being silenced for fear of being labeled “cafeteria Catholic.”
And whereas you may believe Fr. Karl loses credibility by going overboard, going underboard with regard to connecting the dots as far as cause and effect does far more damage.
BTW: B16 pointed out that the TLM was never lawfully suppressed which is why there should be free access to it. There isn’t, however, for many as the Pope’s authority often does not hold any weight whatsoever with his Cardinals and Bishops. “Cafeteria” Catholicism is not a respecter of persons or assorted stations. And children have the inexorable habit of following the monkey see, monkey do methodology.
Thank you St. Christopher and RR for your posts. I appreciate the support as many would have us deny the realities all around that can and are experienced everywhere in the Catholic world.
For while I do cleave to the TLM and all that goes with it, I do not advocate pulling the rug out from under those who have been reared on the Novus Ordo – despite what Fr. Bob and others may think they perceive. The ‘why’ is that such action would be very cruel and unthinking as to the potential damage that could be done – similar in nature to the 180 degree shock of foisting the Novus Ordo on an unsuspecting flock. (Much like the educating of young folks to understand the sanctity of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament one year only to disabuse said youth of such silly piety so that they will now receive in the hand. Very damaging that, and naturally abrading to any maintaining of authority when a smiling hierarchy attempts to teach two different things as if they are the same. Citing tepidity or lack of obedience negates the onus of the one tasked with maintaining the integrity of said authority.
But continuing the masquerade and stifling any talk about what is more conducive to piety and edifying the faithful is similarly damaging. And blatantly dishonest, IMO, in light of the decline in faith, morals, etc. One cannot legislate away being hungry for the fullness of Truth and the desire to treat Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament in a manner consistent with KNOWING He is there.
That said, I very much appreciate Fr. B’s posts and all those who disagree openly with whatever I think.
St. Christopher—- In your 23 Sept blog, you refer to “Francis-type Catholics”—-and not favorably. I’m confused. Please describe what a Francis-type Catholic is and what he/she believes that is contrary to Church teaching. Bet you can’t. Bet the quoted phrase is one you just made up to refer to any Catholic who disagrees with you.
Why the baiting argument, Fr. Bob. Why the ‘betcha.’ You mistake St. Christopher if you believe him to be wanting anything but what is good and holy with regard to fellow Catholics.
And accusing someone of ‘making up’ a phrase to use against Catholics who disagree with him is tantamount to someone saying you are likely no priest at all and are merely seeking to use the name ‘Father’ because your other attempts at poor theology fell short.
You certainly do not dialog like a priest.
Ann— Please point out precisely where my theology is “poor” rather than merely being in disagreement with your views.
Fr. Bob B, you miss the point. You accuse St. Christopher out of frustration while completely missing that which *could* be said of you. Please reread for content *and* meaning:
“…And accusing someone of ‘making up’ a phrase to use against Catholics who disagree with him is tantamount to someone saying you are likely no priest at all and are merely seeking to use the name ‘Father’ because your other attempts at poor theology fell short.
That said your position: (3) After due consideration, the Church, in the exercise of that power, ruled that receiving the Body of Christ in the hand is appropriate and sufficiently reverent;* is poor theology (perhaps ‘theology’ is the wrong term and I should have said reasoning, but I’m certain you take my meaning.)
Poor because it is unresearched, but rather taken at face value from your days in graduate school (those were your words, I believe) or out of a sense of loyalty. But the ‘repeat the phrase’ and repeat and repeat while citing credentials doesn’t work to explain away the reality of how Communion in the Hand came about in this country. Or the reality that kindly asserted objections is any recourse at all.
to Fr. Bob cont:
While I do not believe that you are her or the others who dialogue similarly, the style of stone wall and the glossing over any and all substantiating links, quotes, examples or any logic whatsoever does lead me to believe that you are the priest who I asked to be brought onto this forum. I hope so because perhaps by your exchange here an avenue of actual ‘understanding’ can be opened. Understanding that those who would be otherwise marginalized as not trusting Holy Mother Church are actually possessed of a deep and abiding love of their Mother and want to see Her children have free and full access to all of the lessons She has to offer. In that way, the children will be properly catechized and strengthened against the storm of this current age.
And that is NOT to marginalize your efforts or those of your flock, but rather to promote true UNITY within the Church. For if there is true and not force unity – one that derides real dialogue – evangelizing will be the natural fruit. And WITHOUT A WORD BEING SPOKEN.
Fr. Bob B,
You are a Catholic priest so you are held to a higher standard of example when showing charity when you dialogue even when you disagree. The laity can see how the clergy bends over backwards in kindness to not hurt the feelings of many who call themselves Catholic while they abhor specific teachings including God’s natural law. Our priests are human and we are praying for all of our priests who have the greatest responsibility in leading all souls to heaven. A good priest should not fall into the prideful trap of name calling if his first interest is the salvation of each individuals soul. A good priest will be remembered for the charitable way that he publicly and privately discoursed and yes with even those who he disagrees. I am sure that amongst the 5,000 that Jesus miraculously fed that there were some who did not fully understand or believe. Did Our Lord refer to them as “the Greek Choir” or other names that were meant to sting instead of teach? That is “poor theology” in charity because you are being given the opportunity to listen as well as teach. Our Lord did not feed the hungry crowd with digs. He fed their bodies with the loaves and the fish and fed their souls with the Beatitudes. Yes, our priests have also been given the free will to choose to try and always follow the example of Christ, but when the digs and name calling become the example, then the true example of Christ does not shine through.
For teaching purposes….Please consider the example of a Catholic priest who generously drives a great distance each Sunday to offer the TLM for the faithful. If privately this same priest promotes Feenyism, would that be considered cafeteria Catholicism, poor theology or privately promoting a heresy? Please respond.
Luke 8:17 For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. Douay-Rheims Bible
“Fr. Bob B.”: (1) the “quotes” are to emphasize a point, as in, these are the preferred rules to observe at Mass (you know, Father, things like kneeling to receive communion, taking communion in only one species instead of the slobbering communal cup or in your filthy hands, that sort of thing); and (2) regarding the notion of redefining what it means to be “Catholic” under the Reign of Francis, the literature for same is large and growing; a most interesting, although harsh, treatment of “Bergoglianism” is in the aptly-titled article, “The Rise of Bergoglianism,” by Christopher A. Ferrara (Sept. 26, 2014) (See the website, https://remnantnewspaper.com). Simply put, the Pope is going about trashing everything that Benedict has attempted to do regarding assisting in the restoration of the Church’s heart and soul of Tradition. Further, the Pope is irresponsibly attacking innocent, and highly beneficial, Traditional orders, such as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (the priests and soon the sisters) for no reason, except the absurdity that “they pray too much” and that they were cloistered, and that they were focused on centuries old prayer and way of living. And, of course, the senior clergy that the Pope has chosen to reflect is beliefs is truly astonishing: men who praise “coming out as a gay man” (Cardinal Dolan), or who refuse to withhold giving communion to unrepentant public sinners.
The way the word “sanctuary” is used in this article is more appropriate to protestant churches. In Catholic Churches the sanctuary is that part of the church building in which the altar is located and which is separated from the nave (where the people are located) by the altar rail, or where, in a modern church building, an altar rail would be.
The wife and I attend daily mass. On the weekends we drive the extra miles to attend the Latin Mass.
This article is so right on so many counts.
1) the church asks us to fast for one hour before communion, not three hours or from midnight. Let’s do it.
3) Men wearing hats indoors is not the cultural norm. Hats should never be worn inside, in a restaurant, in front of women. Fathers could teach their kids these manners. By the way, the bill of a cap goes in the front.
4) Never chew gum in public. It makes you look cheap or like a baseball player
9) Good idea
10) 12) 13) 14) 15) Yes!
16) I think GRIM calls for a profound bow
11) I have belonged to several parishes over the years. Some are very quiet before Mass. Others are very noisy with all the people greeting each other, building the community. While both are appropriate, I like the community building parish better. It does, I know, interfere with those who want to pray silently. But the Mass, the Sunday worship experience is a community community coming together to praise God together.
20) Same as #11
Being noisy before Mass is not building community, Bob. I’ve been to those kinds of churches and it has NOTHING to do with community or faith…it is the same thing as a tree of monkeys or a murder of crows on the grass: mindless, idle, pointless and timewasting. As a matter of fact, I left one such church in Seattle. One woman (really keen on building your community) was even sitting on the back of my pew shouting to her pals about her recent trip to Ireland. Needless to say, I left before my throbbing head became a full blown headache. The whole point of Mass is to worship and adore God and be fed our spiritual sustenance for life’s journey. Community building is reserved for those lovely times before and after. There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
a time to tear and a time to mend,
A TIME TO BE SILENT AND A TIME TO SPEAK
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Three years ago, while visiting a Catholic Church, where a ‘service’ was held for a deceased priest, refreshments, which included coffee, soft drinks, bottled water, as well as rolls and donuts were available at the last pew in the back of the church. The undertaker asked both my brother priest and I if we wanted anything to ‘munch on’, and of course we said no as we looked puzzled and upset that this behavior was going on in a Catholic Church. Before the 1960’s, nonsense such as this would NEVER have happened, and from an early age children were carefully taught how to act in church. Adults also would never dare do anything improper inside the church because not only it would offend Our Lord, but also it would give scandal to the others trying to pray in church. After I was ordained, thirty five years ago, a monsignor who held a high position in the chancery office told me YOU DO NOT GO TO CHURCH TO WORSHIP GOD, BUT TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY! With absurd and illogical statements like that, it is no wonder why many Catholics no longer know proper etiquette when attending Mass or visiting a Catholic church.
Ff Karl—– I agree with you.
Another spot-on observation of cause and effect, Father Karl. Thank you and God bless you for illuminating history and the realities behind our ongoing crisis.
Fr. Karl, that is probably why so many Catholics have left the Faith – when many teachers in the Church put GOD second to man.
Some people dress inappropriately for church and need to be told what to wear. No one (man, woman or child) should wear shorts or tank tops to church. Women should not wear very short skirts, tight pants or plunging necklines. If the cost of clothing is a problem, appropriate clothes can be purchased in a thrift shop. How we dress does have an effect on our behavior. A person should go to church dressed the way one would dress to go to dinner at someone’s house.
Sarah, you obviously don’t live on the west coast. Here you wear shorts to someone’s house for dinner about 9 months out of the year. Tank tops, no. In Hawaii, dress is generally informal. Along the southern coast dress is informal. I’m not advocating improper dress, but what is appropriate today is not the same as 40 years ago when, in the mid-west, we wore ties and jackets for a backyard BBQ, Clean and neat is a good rule.
Would you meet the Queen of England in a public ceremony wearing shorts and casual attire? Good grief, I’d hope not. But what you point out Bob about the lower of standards and, in fact, the complete abolishing of what constitutes proper deportment and dress is likely why Kim Kardashian is haled as the big hoorah in the States while Her Royal Highness Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is what they have to look to for some guide of deportment overseas.
Maybe Church would be the best place to at least try to get back to what is right and fitting. We go there to meet God Almighty, after all, and it is a planned engagement at His own house.
…and I lived in CA the first 23 years of my life. Been to Florida and Virginia, too. Even with humidity folks know how to dress with dignity when the occasion merits. And that’s the point.
A real Priest – on what to wear to Mass –
We are going to visit the King of Kings, so we should dress accordingly.
Our God – the most important One.
The One worthy of our best.
I live in FL and you will be sent home to dress properly in our parish if you wear shorts or dress immodesty.
One should not go to Mass to tempt others.
There are also frequent articles in the Parish bulletin, regarding appropriate dressing for males and females.
Just because society has become sinful, does not mean we should dress that way for Church.
I do not agree with the tips on titheing.
10% of gross income is where you start, the minimum.
Yes, it is mostest important as Catholics to make sure that the money flow to the Bishops is never interrupted. The Bishops are the bestest, greatest, and holiest and are always on God’s side. They are the bestest, ever, ever, ever.
The Bishops (USCCB) CCHD, Catholic Charities, and CRS need to stop taking Federal Grants – about $63 Million annually so they will not be beholding to the government, and those in power.
Respect is the Key, and the Forms mentioned in the article are a good guide…
However – for quite a few people Kneeling / Genuflecting is a Physical Challenge’ one that can properly be exempted by a reverential bow – although some probably find amusement in watching others keel over when trying.
For the latter – those amused at the physical frailties of their fellow Worshipers, I suggest simply skipping the whole service; as Mockery of the Faith, Faithful has no place in God’s House anyway.
If everyone followed these rules the holiness of the mass would be greatly improved. Does anyone know why some people stand during,”Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.” They stay standing until after communion is over.It is usually older people or Hispanic people.
And PLEASE can we stop the clapping at the end of Mass for the choir/pianist!!!
We are NOT there at an entertainment event, we are there in the House of Our Good Lord to worship and adore Him!!!
And also in our parish ont he San Francisco peninsula, at the very beginning of Mass the cantor says….so no one will be a stranger please welcome the people around you!!! Oh my goodness!!!
“IMPOSED liberty”? A contradiction in terms.
Elizabeth, I agree with you 100%. The Mass is worship, not entertainment. No clapping for the organist, cantor or choir: if you truly want to show appreciation for them, donate additional $$ specified for the music ministry. Nor should the Mass be the “Fr. XYZ Show”. Some priests (few, I hope) make it so with their “Good Morning”s, opening monologues and the like. Tell them in the kindest way that you didn’t come to see an amateur Johnny Carson. Besides, the liturgy contains its own greeting: “The Lord be with you”, or something similar in tone and content. And are you really welcoming people when you’re dragooned into it by a cantor? I neither hold that the TLM Mass is the only true form and the Novus Ordo a sham, nor that the TLM Mass shouldn’t be available to those who prefer it. I’ll admit this: People’s behavior at Mass was much more reverent back in the TLM days.
Reverence is an interesting thing, isn’t it Fr. Bob B? Some who claim to seek the utmost reverence for the Body of Christ refer to fellow members of it with made up names with the clear intention of disparaging them. Names like “modernists”, “gaystapo”, “homosexualists”, “homofascists”, “sodomites”, and the like. If you haven’t yet noticed this slander in the posts of CCD, you soon will. We feign reverence for the Body of Christ if we first demand that people ignore each other in Church, then call them slanderous names after we leave.
To “Your Fellow Catholic”— Thanks. I went in thinking I could have a stimulating intellectual discussion buttressed by logic and supporting evidence. Boy, was I wrong: now it’s questioned if I’m really a priest; even if so, I sure don’t act like one; my articulation of Church teaching is all wrong, but my accusers won’t say why or how, etc., etc. I haven’t been called a sodomite or a Modernist yet so I’ve disengaged before they get around to it. I don’t know why the Church even holds Conclaves: there seem to be a good number of infallible, self-appointed “Popes” out there already.
If your intellect is only stimulated by those who agree with you, Father B, no, CCD is not the place for you. Although you may get an education here.
“…. but my accusers won’t say why or how, etc., etc. I haven’t been called a sodomite or a Modernist yet so I’ve disengaged before they get around to it.”
If this glass jaw priggishness is an example of what the chancery does to a priest, GO, RUN, FIND A PARISH somewhere and get a taste of what it mean to talk with someone outside of a blatant sycophant.
As for ‘disengaging’, it would appear that you did that years ago or at the very least, prior to your posts here on CCD.
NO, Dear Ann Malley, you disengaged when you chose the schismatic catholics over those in full communion.
HOLY COMMUNION while KNEELING – for those who are physically able.
“. that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”.
“O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker !”
We stand at football games, and when we are really angry.
We should kneel before our God – out or respect, love, adoration, and awe.
It was a mistake to do away with Communion rails in the Churches under the leadership of Bernardin, Mahony, Deardon, etc.
I wish the Bishops would put them back.
To those who read and understood my logs, thank you for listening. And thank you for your support. I strongly urge you to read members of the Greek chorus response to me. You’ll find that their responses are quite lengthy and argumentative—against points I never made. They deny the Church’s sole right to be the decider of who can be admitted to the Sacraments and the manner in which they are to be administered. They refuse to accept the Church’s considered decision that receiving Communion in the hand is appropriate. They arrogate to themselves the right to make that decision. Some would even go so far as to impose their preferences on all Catholics, again contrary to Church teaching. When asked how such a stance differs from being like the “cafeteria” Catholics with whom they so strongly (and rightfully) disagree because these pick and choose which teachings they’ll accept, they resort to ad hominem attacks. I’m said to try to shut down discussion (looking at the length of their blogs, it seems I’ve failed). My posts are called “political” and “threatening”. Say what? Point to where. Ann tells us that in opposing Communion in the hand, she is following Jesus’s direction not to follow “blind guides”. Who are these blind guides? When you read the context, it’s the Church, when it won’t accept her preferences as normative.
Here’s the bottom line. They think they’re the “illuminati” and the Church would do well to do exactly as they say. No dissent allowed—except when they do it.
… you may want to check my post, however exhaustive, sorry, written at: September 25, 2014 at 9:22 am if you believe I’m one of *those* who want to impose the TLM! Or anything else for that matter.
And when directing folks to read the context of what I write, let them read for content and understanding, without you providing the *approved* Fr. B conclusion. That’s political, Fr. B. Or perhaps ‘leading the witness’ as they say.
The bottom line is that your argument, outside of the-Church-says-so, is lacking. That is why your intimating (won’t use the word threat) that I am a “cafeteria catholic” will ALWAYS fail despite your very concerted effort… and those who dialogue with a similar style. Not unless you can use theological arguments and logic to prove your position. Consider me a hard sell, Father. But there’s a whole world out there that needs convincing and converting. And plenty of Catholics to cut your teeth on. So let’s go!
In the words of Eliza Doolittle, ” Don’t talk of love, don’t talk of flowers, if you love, SHOW ME. Show me now!” I hope you respond.
To Ann Malley— Re your 25 Sept post. My theological arguments have been stated in every one of my blogs, and I learned them at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, where I was sent for graduate work. Please re-read my own 25 Sept blog. My frustration with you and the Greek chorus is that your blogs throw in everything but the kitchen sink but don’t address the centrality of my argument: (1) The Sacraments were given to the Church, not to us as individuals; (2) Therefore it is the Church, and not we, who has the right to determine how they are to be celebrated; (3) After due consideration, the Church, in the exercise of that power, ruled that receiving the Body of Christ in the hand is appropriate and sufficiently reverent; (4) If one believes that the Church’s teaching, while valid, is imprudent, the proper recourse is to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority, requesting a change in the current discipline and giving reasons. I cannot make myself any clearer.
You say you’re “a hard sell”. (To repeat a tactic you used in you’re blog, I’ll stick to “hard sell” rather than “closed mind”.) No problem. Now tell me precisely which of the above statements you dispute—and if you do dispute them, on what substantiated bases. And please, no more reading my mind, attributing to me what I don’t hold and never wrote, and diversions into matters not directly addressing my specific argumentation.
@Fr. Bob writes:
“…If one believes that the Church’s teaching, while valid, is imprudent, the proper recourse is to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority, requesting a change in the current discipline and giving reasons.”
That is precisely what I have done and do, Father B. But unfortunately, as is true with many in the position of ‘ecclesiastical authority’ there is no reading of the reasons or credence given to said observations. Even when bad fruit is given in evidence. Rather there is a dismissal as you have exhibited here and a citing of Pontifical Gregorian University credentials. Sorry, but that is the problem the ‘Greek Chorus’ has when being told to kindly correct or express concerns. (The result is public marginalization.)
Father, again with respect, you seem to want to paint me and others as not acknowledging what you say. I have no objection to 1,2,and 4. I do not, however, concur with your assertion in number 3. “After due consideration, the Church, in the exercise of that power, ruled that receiving the Body of Christ in the hand is appropriate and sufficiently reverent.” That is precisely what my ‘kitchen sink’ explanation to you was all about for while a mini skirt is clothing, it is not modest which precludes the very nature and aspect of why one would ‘clothe’ themselves at all. Even God the Father gave our first parents fur robes in lieu of fig leaves.
As for your accusation of ‘no more mind reading,’ I would ask you to follow your own parameters of engagement for you have attributed much to me by way of supposition and unfair stereotyping, Father. Including me in the collective ‘they want.’ Also, your intimation that I do not address the centrality of your position is a false one, albeit born out of misunderstanding for whatever reason. Your intimating that I have a closed mind by way of backhanded sleight was also not missed, Father. But tell me, how is being open to everything healthy if we are to protect the Faith as a Pearl of Great Price?
That said, thank you for your reply.
I do hope you read more on Communion in the Hand and the nature of how it came about in the United States. I hope, not because I desire to taint your sensibilities with regard to the allegiance you owe to Rome and Holy Mother Church, but rather so that you will be better prepared to engage with the Greek Chorus (also part of the flock). That Chorus is growing, Father, in knowledge and zeal. Not in an attempt to ‘turn back the clock’ to the ’50s or to upset those who ‘prefer’ the Novus Ordo or know nothing else. That is a false and unproductive narrative. But rather to root cause and, God willing, aid our children and ourselves in learning that traditional practice had meaning far beyond the modern notion of scaring folks or enforcing a rule for the sake of rules.
To Fr. B cont.
Having said as much, if your graduate studies in Rome were undertaken after ‘Communion in the Hand’ was imposed upon the faithful, then you must understand that the nature of said education has deprived you of the historical facts surrounding what came before and why. Again, that is not to fault Holy Mother Church, but rather a logical observation and understanding of the nature of education. One educates leaders to lead in accordance with what whichever organization they belong to now wants to teach.
So consider the following links an unexpected, but ecumenical necessity: https://communion-on-the-tongue.org/
You may also want to review: https://www.therealpresence.org/archives/archives.htm
God bless and I hope you continue to engage with me. If anything, it may renew my abraded sensibilities with regard to polite discourse when having very real and *substantiated* issues pertaining to the practices allowed in Holy Mother Church and where they lead.
To Ann— Are you saying, with respect to (3), that the Church hasn’t ruled that reception on the tongue is not only permissible but should not be denied?
“Father”, stop being obtuse. You say you want, “… intellectual, stimulating dialogue buttressed by logic and supporting evidence,” but your inability to read for understanding is so lacking that I fear you will only misinterpret another explanation and then use said explanation as a carcass meant only to be picked for further argumentation of something you already completely understand.
Would you have us believe that those who take an advanced degree at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome are that incapable of understanding what, for all intents and purposes, is a straight forward dialogue? Really?
That said, your disengaging for fear of being labeled a sodomite or a modernist, precludes further dialog. Save to say that you have provided sufficient evidence of your modernist leanings as gestures mean a lot, much more than what people think they are.
For what you think, Father, you think. What you do (to include omissions) you become. I hope that that is a *sufficient* answer as your demonstration of dignity tells me that I’ve done more than what is required in your regard. Your Fellow Catholic can help you navigate further… as long as you do not cross him with regard to his unyielding promotion on a Catholic website for homosexual ‘marriage’.
God bless and I pray He keeps you well.
Ann Malley, you don’t even attend a Catholic Church. Stop picking on a priest, for crying out loud.
Okay, Mr. Magisterium, keep the chancery locked up in the ivory tower of the untouchables. But keep in mind, if anyone posts on a public forum, they are the ones exposing themselves and their doctrine to public scrutiny. Could be that Fr. Bob was stepping down from the parapets as Pope Francis suggests. Kudos to Fr. B.
Perhaps you should read what the Holy Father is writing and take it to heart, letting a shepherd do his job. For crying out loud :)
Fr. Bob – we are all the Church. CCC 751.
Perhaps you mean to use the word Magisterium in your post. Yes, the Magisterium has a lot of power and responsibility.
CCC: ” 86 Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God,
but is its servant.
It teaches only what has been handed on to it.
At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully.
All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”
CCC: ” 81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.
And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve,
expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
Therefore – It is also necessary to go back to the Bible –
1 Cor 11:27-30
” Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
“Fr. Bob B”: A chief issue with your posts, Father, is that they assume that the Catholic Church began with Vatican II, a very similar ideal that wonderful Benedict XVI attempted to expose. No one is the “illuminati” except the Holy Ghost, and the Tradition of the Church, which provides direction how the awful implementation of Vatican II might be corrected (and much rejected). You criticize while providing digs against believers that only want the glory of the Church restored, not remade in their own image. This is a true case of the pot calling the kettle black. You say that it is up to the Church to decide who gets communion, and how it is to be offered, yet it is highly likely that you oppose application of Canon 915 to stop the unspeakable sacrilege of giving communion to, say, Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Biden, or Gov. Cuomo (your pal, Cardinal Dolan, refused to say that Cuomo was in any way not in “good standing” with the Church — meaning that we can, with our jobs, support homosexual marriage, abortion rights, and live with our babe, while receiving communion from a beaming Cardinal, on his way to leading the great St. Patty’s parade, now with a bunch of professed homosexuals in tow). No, Father, the present Church no longer works well in that it rejects its glorious past and wants to run away from it as far as possible (or at least as far as the imagination of C. Kasper permits). The Church needs only to return to its Christ-centered roots, not because any of the bloggers here say so, because it is what Jesus ordered.
St. Christopher—- RE your 25 September post. Once again, you pretend to read my mind (e.g., I believe the Church started with V2; I oppose the application of c.915, etc.) and attribute to me things I neither hold nor wrote. You make accusations without substantiation. Logical argumentation seems to elude you. In your last sentence, you write that the Church “needs only to RETURN to its Christ-centered roots, . . .because that is what Jesus ordered”. Where did Jesus order the Church to RETURN to its roots? Unlike you, I believe that the Church never left them.
Father, again, try to understand that St. Christopher’s intentions are pure even though, like you, he is FRUSTRATED. So while you vehemently defend that the Church has never left her roots, please, do not discount the very valid and substantiated (if only by the fruit of growing crisis and Faith not taught for 40-50 years) bad fruits you yourself admitted to – in addition to the reality that the TLM seems to promote.
“…People’s behavior at Mass was much more reverent back in the TLM days.” YES, Father, and there are valid clues behind the phenomenon.
So yes, the Truth, the ROOTS, are always there within the Church. St. Christopher is not implying that the Church itself is lost – THAT CAN NEVER BE. But the True root or Truth is often obscured by the 40-50 years of outreach that has left a faithful unknowing of the Faith. Put in the analogy of education it would be choosing to educate children by opting to focus on art, music, and recess (ANYTHING to keep students interested and engaged) as opposed to valuing the multifaceted benefits of teaching math, science, grammar, and classic literature which are the subjects required to engage successfully in the world. Discipline of the mind is also completely underrated these days as if ‘free thought’ and expression were everything. But the ability to concentrate, think, discern, use logic and reason etc are taught by way of math, science, and grammar and those epic tales that many would dismiss today. Yes, they seem rigorous, but much like physical exercise – they work to form the individual.
The same can be said of traditional Catholic practice. It is more than what it appears on the outside, for gestures mean a lot. Just ask any husband or wife when they first began thinking their marriage was in trouble – gestures or the lack thereof. Very important.
… and with regard to music, I would amend that teaching students the ‘easy’ method of tabs instead of teaching music theory is the error in the long term. For when one knows music theory, the option to compose because one understands the language of music is untold. Tabs and easy methods often stunt growth and limit the ‘musician’ even though they may be happy to be able to play only those pieces they want.
Of course you do not, “Fr. Bob B,” as, by your words, you are clearly in sync with Vatican II implementation. Wonderful Benedict thought to say that all hermeneutics were not of rupture, but, as he knew, this was and is not so. Where you are incorrect, Father, is that he ignore that Vatican II implementation is a true institutional revolution, no different than Russian Communists killing the Czar and then “starting over”. You go on and on saying, “prove this and prove that” which, of course, is not provable by anyone. But you are known by your words and by your complete devotion to the ruins of the Church that have transpired since Vatican II. Does it mean anything to you that many (most?) Catholic orders will soon die out, except those that profess to follow Catholic Tradition? How many seminarians are flocking to the crazed bishops around the world, like Cardinal Godfried Danneels (that Francis loves), and how many Catholics are revolted that “Liberation Theology” priest, Miguel D’Escoto (who finds Jesus through Fidel Castro) has been reinstated by Francis. These are your new rulers, Father. Finally (space does not permit more),what is wrong with returning to “Christ-centered roots” of the Church, those inspired by the Holy Ghost, and implemented by the Apostles. You know Father, things like believing that the Catholic Church exists to lead its members to Heaven. Were you even taught what Christ commissioned his Apostles and Disciples? He did not say go and be pals with everyone, Christ said: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.//Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you[.]” Matt 28:18-19 (DRA). This is not what the present Church clergy works toward, Father, not at all.
Father B, when you read the context of what I wrote, minus the assumptions of what you think I think, you may come to understand that I have never intimated that the Church has no right to make decisions – quite the opposite. I also provided you with a solid reasoning and a link that provides more than enough example. Not that you couldn’t find adequate information in support in an online search. Or even by speaking to a more traditionally inclined confrer.
But if you do not want to read in depth or look beyond what you ‘fear’ I might be saying, then there is no understanding. I do not know if that is your objective as I do not know you. With regard to being political, it is often the tactic in politics to rewrite the narrative of one’s opponent (no opponents in this scenario) to undermine their voice and their actual message. Like Democrats who insist that those who want to exercise their religious rights are actually mounting a war on women and seeking to take away access to birth control. THAT is a false narrative. An intentional misconstruing of the disagreement for the purpose of building up one’s support base. In that sense, your response to me did, despite your believing it so, come across as political. This last one most especially as it takes intentional misinterpretation and pumps it up with victim-hood and then a subsequent smear of the the baddie. Look at ‘her’!
To “St. Christopher”—–
1. You write that my blogs are “overtly political”. I challenge you to point out where.
2. It is indeed Catholic teaching that the Sacraments were given to the Church and not to us as individuals. Therefore it is the Church’s
sole prerogative to set the rules for who can be admitted to them, as well as the proper way to celebrate them.
3. Of course the Eucharist was given as spiritual food for believers. I never suggested otherwise. No 3. is not inconsistent with 2.
4. Your statements in clauses 1), 2) and 3) directly contradict Church teaching and practice. First, no liturgical law forbids kneeling at
Mass at the times specified in the liturgical books. Second, the Church encourages–but does not require–the faithful to receive under
both species. Third, not only does the Church NOT forbid receiving on the tongue, it requires that this choice on the part of the
communicant ALWAYS be respected.
You write that my posts disappoint you. I’m sorry. To be candid, your willingness to accuse others of error (in light of your own faulty knowledge of Church teaching) offends me. You might want to check your facts before writing with “ex cathedra” certainty.
Again, very disappointing and highly argumentative. No seeking understanding.
God bless you moving forward, but evangelization requires sterner stuff, Father. That said your emphasis on respect for choice is disturbing. Not because I believe you to be ‘pro choice’ but rather because that buzz has caused such error in the world as a whole as if we can choose everything. That is choose without resulting consequences.
Ann— Re your latest 26 Sept post. So now you conflate the CHURCH’S discipline that gives the faithful the choice to receive on the tongue with enabling/leading to/ resulting in a “pro-choice” attitude toward abortion. Are you serious? That’s an inference for which you have not one shred of evidence. I notice, however, that you did not accept my invitation to point out any errors or mis-statements in my 26 Sept articulation of Church teaching. I’m sorry you didn’t. Again, you throw in everything–including the kitchen sink–but never address the argument. I’m “argumentative” and you”re “disappointed”? Sorry, but I took this blog to be an arena for intellectual discussion, with logic and facts to support arguments. Instead I’ve found non sequiturs from some who hold themselves “more Catholic than the Pope”.
I wish you well, but nothing fruitful will come of further dialog. You never miss a chance to miss the point.
P.S. I am a priest who’s long held a post in the Chancery Office.
“Fr. Bob B”: Your position appears to be that (1) Christ gave the sacraments to the Church, (2) so the Church can do what it wants with them, and (3) you, the receivers, pretty much don’t count in this (a very political statement, particularly as your identity of authority harkens back, oh, about 50-years). In fact, I think that Canon Law (Canon 840) says that the sacraments were “entrusted” to the Church by Christ, not “given”. And why is that? Because the true work of the Church is salvation. Of Whom? Of all of Mankind, Father. Christ gave the sacraments to Mankind, via the agency of the Church, to foster holiness, and to assist in attaining Heaven. Your worldview is a harsh one, Father, but understandable to the NewSpeak Catholics of Cardinal Dolan and Company. Tell me if I am wrong, but didn’t Pope Francis refer, in his Mass with newly appointed Cardinals in February 2014 that they were to consider themselves “servants’? And, as to the rights of the laity to “speak up,” you need a refresher, Father; take a look (without limitation) to Canons 212, 221§3, 298§1, and others: looks like the Church, even the post-Vatican II version, wants to hear from us.
St Christopher perhaps you missed Father Bob’s prior admonitions to the “laity”, that is you and I and others here…to bring our concerns to the appropriate ecclesiastical authority?
Not missed, “Anonymous,” not answered. Anyone knows that you need leverage to convince those in power from doing something that they do not want. Having first-hand experience in communicating with Cardinal Dolan (as then-Head of the USCCB) about bishops needing to affirmatively respond to Summorum Pontificum, the response received was, “it is up to each bishop”. Of course, this is wrong, but you simply cannot get a Totalitarian Leader (you can fill in the blanks with the many happy faces of same in the 20th and 21st centuries) to make changes to their beloved “rules and procedures” (which themselves were changes to existing rules and procedures, often of centuries duration, as with the Church). The sole exception is obtaining leverage: with bishops (the true power-center in the Post-VII Church), you need to (1) stop the money flow, and (2) raise examples of their embarrassing statements or behavior to a level of public awareness that the Vatican (to save greater embarrassment or liability — see the delayed responses to the unbelievable decades of sexual predation by priests and bishops) will finally do something. Many conservatives and Traditionalists are already considering (or starting to implement) what Michael Voris calls “an authentic Catholic uprising” (and he is not alone).
I completely understood your point. You were saying that often when choice is allowed, it may lead to unintended problems and even disasters. This is why a mother of a family cooks only one dinner. By allowing each child to have the freedom of choice for dinner there would be a much greater chance of preferential chaos and confusion. If the mother holds on to the long held tradition of the family by just having the one meal to choose from, then it is simple and unified. You were not saying that the choice to receive Communion in the hand is the same as the pro-choice of abortion. I think you were saying that the freedom of choice to choose something does not in anyway ensure that this newly given choice may not come with other unintended consequences.
“Communion in the hand, and the lack of solid Catholic formation, has certainly attributed to this loss of faith. Fr. John Hardon has affirmed, “Behind Communion in the hand, I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can, is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.” The Servant of God, Father John Hardon SJ
continued from September 26, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Defending the respect and the belief in the Real Presence of Blessed Sacrament does not mean that someone thinks that are better than the Pope. In this case that is a deflecting response made perhaps from clergy who have not challenged their own orders and brother priests for the disrespect they have witnessed amongst each other. You will know them by their fruits or by their lack of new vocations. Instead of challenging those who should be challenged, it is much easier to use that expression on the faithful in order to salve one’s own conscience for remaining silent after witnessing a brother priest behave like their own Pope. Many of Our Lord’s beloved clergy must think that martyrdom is only for others. Yesterday, a teacher telephoned me to say that he just met with a woman whose husband was let go as a candidate in the diaconate formation program in the Diocese of Orange after he defended the Church’s teaching that women could not be ordained. Many women working in long held posts in the chancery also want that freedom of choice and they are sure rattling the gates to receive it. BTW, What does the length of time of serving a post at a Chancery have anything to do with anything if it is not what is most pleasing to God?
Luke 14:11 ” Because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled; and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.”
Most importantly though is the respect due to Our Lord when conveying the belief in the Real Presence. This is the same diaconate program where an instructor told the group of candidates that the belief in the Real Presence was tantamount to “cannibalism ” The candidate respectfully went up after class to privately speak with the instructor after class and he (the candidate) brought up the fact that what the instructor had taught, (comparing our belief to cannibalism”) was not the Church’s teaching. The instructor simply listened. The man was informed before the next class that he was no longer a candidate in the program. Yes, one can clearly see that if you only believe that Jesus is present symbolically instead of Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, (then it also stands to reason in the case of this instructor teaching that our belief is “cannibalism”) that Father John Hardon’s prophetic warnings were accurate.
This article is really informative…I knew Bernardin was at the heart of taking communion in the hand in this country
My response to you got cut, Catherine. Poor CCD editors are kept pretty busy by me these days. Precisely because they are kind enough to offer a venue for valid Catholic dialog. A worthy ministry that is too often not part of diocesan offerings.
Anyway, thank you for clarifying that there was nothing derogatory in my highlighting the modern crisis of believing that personal ‘choice’ has myriad consequences. I’ve no doubt the chancery office understood this point which is why it was so deftly misconstrued.
That said, perhaps the chancery should come up with an approved list of sufficiently respectful behaviors as pertains to the above list and distribute it. Promoting choice leaves the promoters with the reality of the many choices, after all, including eating in Church, low cut tops, chatting up friends, etc that likely precipitated the above *instruction*.
But if choice (especially as a buzz word) comes before catechizing, there will be nothing but more of the same in years to come. And nobody at all left to understand when, why, or how precisely we reached the point of not knowing the basics of even how to dress appropriately. Even those tasked with teaching.
RE Catherine’s 11:18 AM, 26 Sept blog.
As you requested me to, I’m responding.
1. Thanks for calling my tone to my attention. I’m not snarky by nature and I should have been more gentle. Put it down to utter frustration. Over and over I’ve cited well-established Church teaching that Communion in the hand is a proper way to receive and, moreover, that this option cannot be withheld from the faithful. This is true, as anyone with theological training knows. But others accuse me, without substantiation, of peddling false theology. That’s a serious accusation to make against a priest. In response, I’ve asked my accusers, over and over, to show me, specifically, where I’m wrong. They never do so. The fact is this: Jesus entrusted the Church alone with the authority to determine how the Sacraments are properly administered, and the Church has done so and allowed Communion in the hand. One can question the prudence of the Church’s decision, but not its validity or binding nature. I’ve suggested to those who think this decision imprudent to petition ecclesiastical authority to change it, citing their reasons. They respond that they have done so, but complain that the Church has declined to change its discipline to suit them. So what they really object to is that the Church, and not they, have the final say. You see, they insist that Communion in the hand be FORBIDDEN FOR EVERYONE, no matter the Church’s decision or the fact that millions of equally faithful Catholics want to keep it. You called me to task for lacking charity, and I accept that. Now ask yourself where THEIR charity is when they’d both usurp the authority which Christ gave solely to the Church and, to boot, impose their own preference on every Catholic.
2. As to your question on Feeneyism. The Church has declared that it is incompatible with the faith and may not be held by any Catholic. That’s description enough for me. No need to decide which, or all, of the 3 suggested labels to put on it. (By the way, Leonard Feeney, S.J. himself retracted his error and died reconciled with the Church. RIP).
Father B – you promote frustration as you recast the responses to the narrative you expect. Like bringing baggage into a new relationship. Not good.
That said, I do not disagree with:
“…One can question the prudence of the Church’s decision, but not its validity or binding nature.” *I actually agreed with you on that score.*
If you read what was written you will see, frustration notwithstanding, that I never once stated that receiving Communion in the hand was invalid or not binding with regard to its legitimacy under current Church law. Quite the contrary.
So whereas you now level the charge that it is a very serious thing to call into question the theological integrity of a priest, I would put to you that you tempt your children to rebellion and perhaps a lack of charity by your own refusal to understand what is actually being communicated to you. Intimating one need ‘theological training’ to understand that is similarly inflammatory. You know this. That makes you culpable in the seriousness of whatever sin or error you ascribe to me, Father.
Also, “…but (they) complain that the Church has declined to change its discipline to suit them.”
I did not complain that the Church has declined to change its discipline to suit me. I clearly stated that I would absolutely not rip away those practices of the Novus Ordo as it would be cruel, but that I cannot understand, especially in these times of failing Church numbers and reverence, the dismissal of root causing the problem.
Thank you for your consistent, well thought-out comments on here Fr. B. May God bless you in your priestly ministry!
Catholics who bring attention to the dismantling of Church teaching such as the belief in the Real Presence and the disrespect that is being shown to the Blessed Sacrament are in true essence simply following the example of St. Tarcisius. *Cookie worship or cannibalism.* Who is guarding the deposit of faith? Look how St. Tarcisius defended the Blessed Sacrament with his own life rather than see the Blessed Sacrament profaned.
Taken from Wikipedia
“St. Tarcisius preferred death at the hands of a mob rather than deliver to them the Blessed Sacrament, which he was carrying.
A poem in Latin, composed by Damasus, serves as the only positive historical evidence of the saint’s existence:
Par meritum, quicumque legis, cognosce duorum,
quis Damasus rector titulos post praemia reddit.
Iudaicus populus Stephanum meliora monentem
perculerat saxis, tulerat qui ex hoste tropaeum,
martyrium primus rapuit levita fidelis.
Tarsicium sanctum Christi sacramenta gerentem
cum male sana manus premeret vulgare profanis,
ipse animam potius voluit dimittere caesus
prodere quam canibus rabidis caelestia membra.
Damasi Epigrammata, Maximilian Ihm, 1895, n. 13
The first five lines say that both Stephen (the protomartyr) and Tarsicius are equal in merit, and Stephen’s death (as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles) is retold poetically. The last four lines can be translated as:
“When an insane gang pressed saintly Tarsicius, who was carrying the sacraments of Christ, to display them to the profane, he preferred to be killed and give up his life rather than betray to rabid dogs the heavenly body.”
St. Tarcisius would have NEVER handed the Blessed Sacrament over to a rabid gang of pro-abortion legislators, let alone be photographed smiling while betraying Our Lord. “Legend is, that in spite of killing Tarcisius, those thugs were unable to pry open his hands to get control of the Body of Christ. ”
Today there is no need for the prying open of hands. Our Lord is handed over WILLINGLY by his own shepherds to the modern day rabid gang of obstinate pro-abortion politicians. Thank you for bringing up the example of a young saint who defended the Blessed Sacrament by giving his own life.
perhaps you should have explained that – – – “Communion in the hand,
and Communion while standing” – – – is perfectly LEGAL within the Catholic Church in the USA (and some other Countries).
This would be correct because the USCCB (formerly NCCB) under Cardinal Bernardin’s leadership voted to get a special indult from the Vatican to have it this way in the mid 1970s.
Those Bishops made the decisions.
Through the heavy-handed political maneuvering of Cardinal Bernardin, Pope Paul VI’s attempt to create a firewall preventing the spread of Communion in the hand had failed. This is historical fact.
What is “LEGAL” and what is “appropriate” to WORSHIP and ADORE the LORD can be two different things.
“That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” – Philippians 2:10-11.
” O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker ! ” – Psalm 95.6
CCC: ” 907 In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess, [lay people] have the right and even at times a duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church,
and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful,
with due regard to the integrity of faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.”
Also see Code of Canon Law : 212 #3.
We all should set the example for others – by
1. Receiving Our Lord from the Priest (not the unconsecrated hands of an extraordinary minister lay person);
2. Receive while kneeling (if we are physically able);
3. Receive on the tongue.
This is the story you guys on the right want to promote. I suspect there is more to the story than simply political maneuvering on a single vote by Bernadin. Besides, if Bishops had felt it unwise, they could have reversed themselves. You don’t like the decision, so you are sending around stories that it was corrupt. How about you respect the piety of those who were raised in the Church since then, or who accepted it as docile members of the faithful. If it is in your piety to receive on the tongue, go for it. But please stop trying to shut down a widely accepted practice in the Church today.
How about you do the research of the ‘stories’, Anonymous. If you truly wish to evangelize and be a service to the Church you would do as much, no?
That said, the piety of those raised during and after VII is absolutely something to be lauded for the snares that would impede it are legion. If indeed one is truly pious and faithful. So kudos to you for your fidelity. That is not the point. The point is root causing why, pray tell, the ‘faithful’ seem so poorly catechized. Dissent is rife within even the dwindling numbers that still attend mass.
Even Fr. Bob B admitted that the past 40 years of poor catechism could be to blame. That said, and in light of the critical nature of our very salvation, there should be heightened attention at examining each and every form of catechism. 40-50 years of outward gestures, or the lack thereof, should not be off the table.
Human beings are creatures with flesh and senses. Children learn by visible example. That is why the Sacraments themselves contain outward SIGNS. So that humans can tangibly understand that something is occurring. The same logic holds true for the outward sign of the untold dignity of Our Lord, whole and entire in the Blessed Sacrament. By underplaying the outward signs – that of kneeling, reception on the tongue so as not to touch the Host with unconsecrated hands, etc – we underplay the REALITY of God Almighty being truly present.
“Fr. Bob B.”: No one disagrees with your point that the Church, as presently operated, permits this and that practice. The screaming counterpoint is that these practices are wrong, are inconsistent with the Church’s Tradition, and represent the beliefs of bishops that have enormous moral failings that they wish to push onto all Catholics. As you certainly know, this is much like circumstances surrounding the Arian Heresy that St. Athanasius confronted. The good saint did not worry much about being out of power — momentarily — as he famously wrote, “For they hold the places, buy you the Apostolic Faith”. Traditionalists, and many, many Catholics, see little except bishops and groups of bishops wanting to impose serial Liberal belief systems on Christ’s Church. As one writer recently said, things like communion in hand while standing represent an indult born out of disobedience. See, “The Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing,” by Ben Yanke, “The New Liturgical Movement” (March 16, 2014). Certainly, the USCCB and Vatican could, and likely will (for a time) impose all kinds of new changes to the Mass, the Missal, various prayers (maybe they will finally get to the Rosary this time, as was tried), all of that — but these changes largely represent apostasy and their actions, scandal. Certainly — and no one disputes his right — Cardinal Dolan can lead any parade he wants, regardless of whether it glorifies morally repugnant sexual behavior. Your supercilious posts are not at all surprising, although they overlook many things, such as the refusal of the Church to even follow its own rules, such as the application of Canon 915 (and the smug assurances of Cardinals Dolan, Wuerl, and others, and of Abp. Cupich that they believe things are fine as long as someone presents themselves for communion in the Church, even though they may just have left voting to dedicate yet more public money for abortion rights). No wonder so few Catholics, including many priests, believe in the Real Presence (one sermon equated such belief to “idolatry”).
Father B, they are schismatics. They don’t believe in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Anonymous, Fr.B, at least according to the credentials he claims, knows the Faith and Scripture. So did the Pharisees….. that is why Our Lord chastened them for following the ‘letter’ of the law which kills, instead of the spirit which gives life.
Practices which are ‘legal’ within the Church may indeed be in accordance with the word of the law, but when the law allows that which came about by legal abuse and has proved, via bad fruit, to degrade the core of Faith itself, that, is an abuse of authority.
Much like declaring a string bikini sufficient clothing when the objective of clothing is to cover oneself and not be an occasion of sin for one’s neighbor. You get the idea. But, as Fr. B was projecting onto others, you just don’ like it. And Anonymous, I would imagine he doesn’t like it at all because the darned ‘Greek Chorus’ is precisely that united, body of singular voice necessary in Greek tragedies to lament/explain the action and tragedy taking place.
So while the chancery may believe this to be an elevated put down, Fr. Bob has put his finger on precisely the reality of the growing united body of singular voice that calls out to avoid ongoing tragedy. Tragedy within Holy Mother Church. The idea too that one couldn’t distinguish one member of the Chorus from another is also FANTASTIC as we are supposed to ‘put on Christ’, not press our own individuality so that WE can be the star, offering choice and vibrant differences and reinterpretations and everything under the kitchen sink.
So thank YOU Fr. Bob for bringing in the Greek Chorus analogy. It’s a keeper! Especially since the main characters are intent on following their ‘chosen’ path, despite the precipice of predictable tragedy.
Father B., by now you are realizing that you have been caught in the web of a troll.
You have responded well.
Thank you for your service to the Lord..
Thank you for being faithful.
Farther B, you are relatively new to this site, and thanks for coming. It needs someone who knows what they are talking about. It is too easy for many, myself included, to assume that what we like and favor should be the law of the church. You keep pointing out that our wishes and hopes are often contrary to what the church teaches or has ruled. Thanks. You will find, over time, that this site provides good opportunities for varied discussion. The folks who manage it work hard to find new subjects each day. Thanks. But, will few exceptions, it is the “1%” who most frequently responding in a way designed to make their/our beliefs the beliefs of the church, when they are not. Keep up your efforts, don’t get to frustrated but don’t back off creating frustration for those of us who are wrong. Thanks.
Absolutely, I would encourage Fr. Bob B to continue posting, Bob One, and being a presence on CCD. Pray God, he continues to post. We need to understand what the *chancery* perspective is. Very illuminating. Especially as the pat answer to ‘contact your lawful authority’ is proven to be nothing but a circular file response to root causing anything.
Fr. Bob B’s frustration inducing posts are, in reality, the BEST advertisement for the Truth behind the Greek Chorus. For while the Chorus speaks with the unified voice of Catholic Tradition – that is no respecter of persons, even the ones speaking – the odd logic of giving CHOICE to every bishop and chancery office with regard to teaching or rather interpreting is what has led to the absolute mess in the Church.
For while some posters attribute the Truth to ‘trolls’, those in the ivory towers refuse to reject the reality of the moles that, much like they did with castles of old, did not attack with slings and arrows, but burrowed very successfully beneath the foundation of those castles they wished to sack and unsettle.
I hope the letters of the law break the fall when the facade crumbles.
Bob One inaccurately writes…..”Farther B, you are relatively new to this site”
No, Bob One, once again you wrong. Father B has posted on California Catholic Daily for quite some time now. Hopefully this can be a teaching lessen. You are really not paying very close attention are you? This is what happens when you neglect to place God first and then defend that it is a bishop’s “pleasure” to be able to place (hide) a tabernacle anywhere he wants. You have also over the years been very critical of Cardinal Burke and you also criticize priests for wearing traditional vestments. It is not surprising to read that you are more attracted to a Protestant looking glass white elephant that it as “Ugly as Sin”. Now you are criticizing the 1%.
Luke 18:8 “I say to you, that he will quickly revenge them. But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? ”
Bob One, Wake up! You are asleep! Does that sound like the majority will still have faith or perhaps it is the !% who you are criticizing who will be found to still have faith. Just because the majority accepts or wants something, it does not mean that it is pleasing to God.
Thank you very much for responding. Also thank you for answering the question about Feenyism. I remember a while back how you spoke up on CCD and defended Church teaching when another poster on CCD was practically canonizing a clergy member who has worked with gang members but publicly supports same sex marriage. You were charitable and you even complimented this poster by telling this person that you usually agreed with their other reasonable posts . Regarding that particular post, you were the only priest on CCD who clearly spoke up in defense of the Church’s teaching. Father B, yesterday’s gospel focused on charity when pulling each other out of the ditch. Many good and faithful priests would agree with you that it is good to write the proper ecclesial authorities regarding receiving Communion in the hand. Yes, many of us have and sometimes the results are good. Mother Teresa said it is not our job to be successful but it is our job to be faithful. Many clergy members who have asked us to write to Rome also see a direct correlation between the loss of faith tying into the loss of many long held traditions. The posters who seem to be the most bothered by the posts that show a great love of the TLM or other traditions such as receiving Communion on the tongue are sometimes the very posters who are undermining the Church’s teaching on this website. CCD has provided an excellent forum to listen and teach in charity and in truth. Take for example: The Servant of God Father John Hardon SJ was not being imposing, disobedient or disloyal to the Catholic Church when he made that correlation between poor catechesis, receiving Communion in the hand and the loss of belief in the Real Presence. Father Hardon simply encouraged Catholics to be reverent and encouraged them to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.
continued from September 29, 2014 at 10:19
Father B, There are faithful Catholics who are knocking on the door like the persistent widow because they see heterodoxy being taught, irreverent Masses and the injustice that is being done to Our Lord. Father B, The voices who speak out against this devastation in the vineyard cannot actually impose anything on anyone because the Church allows the choice but yes, there are voices persistently knocking and their only motive is a LOVE OF GOD. I wrote earlier that the laity sees many of the clergy bending over backwards in charity to the homosexuals who want to IMPOSE PERVERSION on society, right down to marching in parades to not hurt feelings. Our clergy members are so kind and cautious when tiptoeing on eggshells around this evil imposition of the homosexual agenda and even on a Catholic website… BUT more often the guns really come out a blazing if a Catholic laments the great loss of faith especially when they consistently tie this confusion to the loss and the suppression of certain very important traditions in our Faith. There are many stories on CCD that show the crisis within the Church and the reason that this conversation is taking place is that instead of telling YFC that he is trying to IMPOSE an evil agenda on a Catholic website you decided that it was far more important to infer that Fr. Karl (who ALWAYS defends Church teaching) was imposing his “going overboard’ comments. You wrote, “Might we lessen our credibility, and the strength of our message, by going overboard?” Father B, Your post to good Father Karl looks like you are imposing an undeserved remark that lessened a good priest’s credibility when you suggest that he is “going overboard.”
Continued from September 29, 2014 at 11:00 am
Father B, Why would you lessen the credibility of another good priest when you are a trying to be a good priest too? This tells me that you are somewhat sheltered still to many of the realities that the laity witness and even the realities that some of your brother priests are facing. The reason that this may be Father is that you perhaps have kept silent about what you really think or else you would NEVER have held such a long post in the chancery. That is not meant to be critical of you Father because maybe this is the only way a good priest can maintain a post for that long by remaining silent in that corporate atmosphere when surrounded by the scandals that hit the Archdiocese. Father Karl has stated that he is a priest in good standing in his diocese. I think that Father Karl deserves our support and not the new imposition of being labeled as lessening credibility by “going overboard”. Father Karl is not lukewarm. What did Christ say about the lukewarm?
Father B, You were able to show patience and charity to YFC who for months has been attacking the faith by distorting and undermining Church teaching on CCD. YFC, has been CONSISTENTLY IMPOSING the destructive homosexual agenda including same sex marriage and homosexual adoption but our Catholics who speak up for their love of the TLM or receiving Communion on the tongue are called uncharitable simply because they believe what St. Paul wrote:
St. Paul 2:14] Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.  Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace. Douay-Rheims
Mary, make me an instrument in you hands to show forth the glory of God.
Our Lord to Mutter Vogel:
“I myself will be his judge, NO ONE BUT I!” “Whoever voices judgment over a priest has voiced it over Me; child, never let a Priest be attacked, take up his defense.” (Feast of Christ the King 1937) “Child, Never judge your confessor, rather pray much for him and offer every Thursday, through the hands of My blessed Mother, Holy Communion (for Him) (18.6. 1939)&nsp; “Never again accept an out-of-the-way word about a Priest, and speak no unkind word (about them) EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE! Every Priest is My Vicar and My heart will be sickened and insulted because of it! If you hear a judgment (against a Priest) pray a Hail Mary.” (28. 6. 1939)
Catherine, since you use my name, let me respond. You have never seen me distort Catholic teaching. To do so I would have to say, “the Church teaches THIS”, when in fact it teaches “that.” I don’t do that. What I do do is call attention to the aspects of Church teaching that you and others conveniently ignore, and in other places, I present my own opinion whithout making any claim that it represents what the Church teaches. And you will NOT find me disparaging the TLM or communion on the tongue (the latest banner issue of the Greek Chorus). I have defended both, so long as you all do not distort Church teaching by claiming that ONLY the TLM or communion on the tongue is beneficial and valid for the faithful. Please try not to spread unintended mistruths or intentional lies about me or anybody else.
If you truly believed those words then you would not hide in the partial darkness of anonymity.
In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus says:
“No one, when he has lit a lamp, puts it in a cellar or under a basket, but on a stand, that those who come in may see the light. The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore when your eye is good, your whole body is also full of light; but when it is evil, your body also is full of darkness. Therefore see whether the light that is in you isn’t darkness. If therefore your whole body is full of light, having no part dark, it will be wholly full of light, as when the lamp with its bright shining gives you light.”
When priests themselves are getting online in a public forum and disagreeing, the doors to discussion have been opened, Anonymous. For someone who advocates not living in the past, you must get with the times and understand that this crisis is nothing hidden. It is very much OUT and all Catholics need to deal with the resulting mess.
Speaking openly and charitably about it, and the root causes of it, is necessary if one has the capacity to join the discussion with a solid Catholic formation. And if one has a mind to get back on track.
That said, there is no judgment, but rather caution and a calling out for clarity which is very necessary as it is increasingly apparent that even the clergy harbor their own interpretations. But how can they not if the idea of ‘interpret as you will’ overcomes the sound teaching of the deposit of Faith.
Catherine, that scripture has to do with the Gospel, not with posting comments on a website. So the Gospel is this: that Jesus Christ died so that sins could be forgiven. You know the teachings on the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will have light. I worry about your lack of understanding and your lack of discernment and fidelity, but I surrender you to the Immaculate Heart.
Ann Malley, you make too many excuses for your doubts and your lack of docility. Sometimes, understanding will not be given until you obey.
Anonymous, you write, “Ann Malley, you make too many excuses for your doubts and your lack of docility. Sometimes, understanding will not be given until you obey.”
Misguided docility is blindness, Anonymous. Willful in many cases for want of courage.
I do not have to be docile in the face of that which is inferior, Anonymous, or dangerous. To do so is negligence. “Let those with ears hear.” So much like those who would petition *lawful* authority for a stop light at a corner where children (often their own) are mowed over and left dead in the street by speeding cars, I’m just asking, and rightfully so, how many must DIE before those in positions of power will understand that just a cross walk and looking both ways may be sufficient, but not effective.
You may not understand or accept this, Anonymous, but souls are falling into Hell for the promotion of that which is legal over that which is legitimate (The promotion of necessary piety by requisite action. For the cross walk and looking both ways was only deemed sufficient after a revolt that tore down the signal lights – by riot, Anonymous.)
And the notion that one can just go to a TLM parish and let others have their ‘CHOICE’ is tantamount to giving stop lights and signals to one neighborhood, while leaving another neighborhood vulnerable, their children open to slaughter because the authorities do not prefer to put in the signal lights that SAVE LIVES!! In this case, the matter is saving souls by rendering God His due, not just what is sufficient by looking both ways and hoping the cars will stop as they should. They don’t. Hence the squished and rotted fruits.
So while you may be called the docility of seeming obedience, God has tasked me with a different charism. Speaking Truth despite whether the judges like it or not.
ann Malley, I am sorry but you are incorrect. Obedience is humility in action and humility is the queen of virtues. One cannot go to hell by obeying the Church. One can go to hell for self-will. You do not understand the danger of your own thoughts and actions. You cannot render God his due in any Mass or any chapel that is not in communion with the Catholic Church. You are the one endangering souls.
Ann Malley – you might want to look more deeply into the very catholic notion of docility. We are all called to docility, as a core element of what it means to be Catholic.
The word docile especially in theological circles does not mean subservient. Docility is the quality of being teachable. Teachable. Open to learning. Listening. Changeable of heart and mind.
I have a feeling you won’t take kindly to this idea.
Ann Malley, I know that you think you are marching to a better drummer. I think you have gone astray. All you can do is make a decision to turn back or to keep walking and hope the two roads cross somewhere up ahead but if they don’t you may go further and further astray.
I understand that you do not agree with the Catholic Church in its entire teaching and that you acknowledge that you choose what you wish to believe. I understand that you are saying that you are so sure that you are right and the Catholic Church is wrong that you are trying to convey to others in the Church that it is wrong. The problem is you can never say what is wrong. You say you are sticking with Tradition but you’re not, because Tradition is to stick with the Catholic Church.
It would be helpful if you could cleanse your mind of trash thoughts and really clarify what you don’t like. Communion in the hand? It is a lot more irreverent to attend a non-Catholic chapel that to receive communion in the hand. You want the Catholic Church to be what it was in the 1950’s? Where? Urban American? Small town America? Rome? Or do you just want the Catholic Mass to be what it was in 1950? You do not want to go back to the beginning of the Church where they took communion in the hand and Mass was said the way the Novus Ordo Mass is, right? You want all the glitz and pageantry of European royalty and wealth that was embodied in the Church in the 1500’s, right? Or do you just want to pick and choose from each era and location that which most pleases you?
I’m not being rude. I really want to know how you decide what is suitable for you and your family.
Obedience in all but sin and the occasion thereof is indeed humility in action, Anonymous. Yes. And nobody is refuting the legitimate rights of the hierarchy to declare that which is legal. I hope you understand that. I’ve stated as much umpteen times and even Fr. Bob B seemed incapable, even with his grace of Ordination and his graduate credentials, of acknowledging as much.
As to docility meaning being ‘teachable’ – yes, that is true. But one must also be wary of what is correct so as to protect oneself from being open to ‘new’ ideas that while perhaps, allowed, are not the best for leading a soul to God. Would that all clerics were solid, trustworthy conduits of the deposit of the Faith, but that is not the case today. If obedience alone were expected then we would not be instructed to know them by their fruits. Or be cautioned against those who, at some point, may disguise themselves as an angel of light only to preach a different gospel.
So changeable to the point of following a ‘different’ Gospel – one that is not simply obey and do not question the disconnect from what came before – sorry. That docile I cannot be for I must retain the Faith.
I agree with you up to a point.
What different gospel do you think is being preached?
So Dear Anne Malley is that each person must decide for himself or herself what is good and holy. That is the very definition of cafeteria catholicism as so many others have tried to point out to you.
…just like some children had to decide whether ‘Father’s’ invitation to do ‘this’ or ‘that’ without any supervision is having to decide, yes. I was protected by the rightful discernment of a parent I perceived as ‘too strict.’ Others who trusted at face value were not. Many others. They and their families and the priest who abused them have had to live and die with that.
Sadly, the Smoke of Satan has not only crept into the Church, but was welcomed in by opening doors/windows/cracks. (Someone must bind the strong man before he can enter into his house.) So while it is no sin to eat all in ignorance, it is sinful when one knows better and yet eats of everything and raises no alarm.
Judas was a priest, too. And well versed in theology.
Anonymous, you may want to start reading here:
That is just one post to give you an idea of the oddity of today’s outreach. Or at least the progressive spin/push to mask being soft on morality and sin under the mask of outreach.
CMTV is also a good starting point to at least understand what others are saying. Even if you don’t agree, learning the arguments would be a charitable outreach even as understanding what ‘Buddhists or Jews’ actually believe is an outreach. You cannot truly dialog with someone unless you know their position and can speak their language.
Anonymous, being kind is not telling someone to rid their mind of ‘trash’ thoughts.
With regard to communion in the hand being a practice of old times – think. Those who may have received Communion in the Hand knew Jesus in the flesh or at the very least were catechized by those who did. They were also being physically persecuted.
That said, there was no concern over a lack of reverence or awe with regard to recognizing the mystery. (And yet even St. Paul had to chasten those who made a fun fest out of mass. Much like he had to upbraid churches for their unwillingness to eject unrepentant immorality from their midst.) Much like if your spouse died, but you learned that he was now truly present in a piece of bread. That intimacy that was created prior to the incident would pass over to your handling of the bread. You would defend that ‘piece of bread’ because you KNEW it was your spouse, especially in persecution, and because you loved your spouse.
But honestly, when you get down to it, how many Catholics who truly believe that they have a right to stand and shouldn’t have to be ‘made’ to kneel to receive Our Lord in peace time, would go the distance to be killed for love of Him in persecution? There are exceptions, yes. But really? If one feels imposed upon to kneel or receive on the tongue out of surfeit of love or even the acknowledgement of the utmost dignity of receiving God Almighty, how on earth would one draw the strength to suffer?
And that kind of persecution is coming, Anonymous.
At my Church, we have ushers watching to make sure communicants actually consume the Body of Christ. On more than a few occasions, the priest has gone after people walking out with unconsumed hosts. Communion in the hand is so open to abuse.
Take exception to the sit in the middle of the pew rule (maybe it should be a suggestion?). I am single and used to do this, but groups would then decide I was fair game to be made to move even more and then squished in and only allowed to use the kneeler when they decided. Single people are treated like nothing too often. I now sit only on the ends of an aisle but will gladly let people through.
Maureen, I agree , as I go to Mass alone. I’ve found that sitting at the front usually has much more room and I can hear the Mass better. And as much as I love children and babies, they’re usually at the back. :).