The following comes from a July 12 Homilitic & Pastoral Review Magazine article by Father Regis Scanlon, O.F.M.Cap.:
Some religious leaders in the Latin Rite are pressuring Catholics not to kneel at the Consecration, or to genuflect at their reception of the Eucharist. This trend has gained a great deal of traction in recent years, and is causing alarm among those who see it as a restriction of religious freedom.
This restriction of kneeling, which is being fostered by serious religious groups and orders, is being promulgated in both explicit and subtle ways. Whether it’s by making an actual rule, or by merely showing disapproval, participants in these liturgies are no longer free to “fall to their knees” in adoration.
The urge to fall down before Jesus has always been there. This is so, whether it is the Magi “falling down” before the baby Jesus in Mt 2:11; Mary Magdalene in Mt 28:9 “embracing his feet” after the Resurrection; or St. Paul saying in Phil 2:9 that “at the name of Jesus, every knee should bend.”
By the time the Christians emerge from the catacombs (c.313), adoration of the Eucharist through bowing down and prostration was already in place. St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430) says that we are to adore the Eucharist prior to receiving it: “No one eats of this flesh unless he has first adored … not only do we not sin by adoring, but we would sin by not adoring.” 2 He also says: “Therefore, when you bow and prostrate yourself even down to the earth in whatever way you please, it is not as if you are venerating the earth, but the former Holy (One) whose footstool (i.e., flesh) you adore.”
In our times, from the Second Vatican Council onward, Church norms have supported and encouraged the tradition of “falling down” before the Eucharist. The Council’s direction in this matter must be taken seriously. Those who would deviate from its direction should ponder whether they even have the authority to eliminate a liturgical tradition such as kneeling. That’s because the Council clearly sets the authority for regulating the Sacred Liturgy “solely … on the Apostolic See and as laws may determine on bishops” and “within certain defined limits” on “bishop conferences.”
The New Roman Missal states: “But, unless impeded by lack of space, density of crowd, or other reasonable cause, they (the faithful) should kneel down for the Consecration.”
In no.11 of the Second Vatican Council’s 1980 post-conciliar document, Inaestimabile Donum, the Church says:
When the faithful communicate kneeling, no other sign of reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament is required, since kneeling is itself a sign of adoration. When they receive communion standing, it is strongly recommended that, coming up in procession, they should make a sign of reverence before receiving the Blessed Sacrament. This should be done at the right time and place, so that the order of people going to, and from, communion should not be disrupted.
But why does the Church only “strongly recommend” this act—why not require it? First of all, not everyone is able to make a genuflection and keep their balance. Some may only be able to give a bow, sign of the cross, or bow of the head. This is acceptable.
But there is a more important reason.
The Church understands the importance of the individual response at this most intimate moment of receiving Holy Communion. Pope Benedict XVI saw the importance of the option to stand or kneel when receiving Holy Communion. Towards the end of his office as pope, he had a kneeler brought out at his communion station to give people an option to kneel when receiving.
There is a time for unity, and a time for diversity. Here the Church wants the communicant to be free to authentically respond from the heart by kneeling, genuflecting, bowing the body, making the sign of the cross, or just bowing their head. This is preferred to the impersonal “herd instinct” where one mechanically does what everyone else is doing just because they are doing it, and to avoid appearing different.
What can we learn from this? That even the most modern, contemporary thinking in the Church is emphasizing the role of the individual at the time of worship! Therefore, it is clearly going against the grain to force individuals to give up the time-honored, natural, and very human impulse to kneel before God, if their conscience so dictates.
“At the name of Jesus, every knee shall bend..” (Phil. 2:10).
Uh. Except in the New Catholic Church. (Was that in the documents of Vat II, also?)
Not all story tellers speak the truth, they just make fun. Its foolish.
In addition to Phil 2:10 – ” that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ”
” O come, let us worship and bow down, let us kneel before the Lord, our Maker ! ” Psalm 95:6
” for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise to God.” Rom 14:11.
” For this reason I bow my knees before the Father ” Eph 3:14
Let us not blame V II for evil Bishops and evil Priests, etc.
Everyone is responsible for his own actions.
Had it not been for VII we would not have evil Bishops and Priests in the numbers we have them today.
How do you know this?
We have always had good bishops and priests, and evil bishops and priests; but of course the same is true of the laity, such as you and me.
The only difference now is that every character with a computer can attack the Church’s leaders with the flick of a button.
I agree Virginia and some here bear false witness against Christ’s church.
Thanks for standing up for Jesus, Virginia.
Judge by the fruits, Virginia. Blind witness is no testimony of being for Holy Mother Church unlike many who post here have been lead to believe. If blindness were all that were required there would have been no need to warn the faithful of the coming of blind guides.
We have our Lord’s promises and we need to trust His word. Not what heretics and schismatics would want many to believe. The fruit is rooted deeper and our Lord has also judged and warned us about false teachers from within and out. Since Pentecost, Christ’s church began and since then we have read what sinful humans produce, betrayal, division, disobedience and whole lot more. Sin does not produce good fruit, since the time of Adam and Eve till when Luther and SSPX broke away and till now with modern day scandals. Regardless, Christ’s church is still standing and the faithful do not give blind testamony as they have you believe but instead remain faithful fighting the good fight. We are the true church militant. Praise Be Jesus…
Steve, are you aware of the history of the ecumenical councils? If so, you know that the Holy Spirit was active at the Council which is the highest level of magisterial authority in the Church. Furthermore, all the councils work together in unison. Therefore, to complain about the II Vatican Council is to complain about the church militant, which is part of the Body of Christ. Your problem shouldn’t be with the council but with what happened after the council.
God bless you MAC and Steve Seitz.
Mr Seitz, the term “church-militant” comes from the Catechism of S. Pius X (among other sources) and no where was cited at V2: so to claim a unity and continuity from the other Church councils through V2 inclusive is a contradiction. And perhaps you aren’t aware, as all the prior history of the Church and its tradition is being dismantled, that in Laudato Si, there is no reference to any pope or Council prior to V2: gar nichts, zilch, niente, nothing. Bergoglio is telling you that he is “moving on” from the past.
Also, Mr Seitz, I often hear your “silver bullet” claim: about the seemingly “infallible” ecumenical councils. Well, we know the 2nd Council of Ephesus (449 AD), the “Robber Council”, was invalid: so later, the “Catholic Truth” crowd declares it “non-ecumenical”, claiming “not all the bishops attended”. Neat.
Well, by that measure, the 2nd VC was neither an ecumenical council: because the Eastern bloc and Chinese cardinals and bishops, who were being imprisoned and tortured, could not attend. So, it is neither “ecumenically infallible”, or such nonsense as one would wish to claim, to cover for its defection from the Catholic truth.
Also, you are probably not aware that over 10% of the Council Fathers, in the pre-Council interrogatories, cited a need to condemn communism as the #1 need of the coming council—this proposal drew more than any other respondents by an overwhelmingly large margin.
But, knowing this, Card. Lienart and others orchestrated a coup against the Vatican in Oct. 1962, when the schemata were thrown out—esp. this one. Card. Ottaviani’s mike was turned off during his address—exactly like the Stalinists did in their “people’s hearings” in the USSR—drawing cheers from Congar and others (you can read about his conspiracy participation in his now-published memoirs). The revolution against the Church had begun.
Just for one example, Card. Mindszenty was imprisoned in the US Hungarian embassy (with good evidence that the Vat. secretariat of state collaborated in his entrapment), because he would have been a “problem” for the Council, insisting on a denunciation of communism, for example. Bp. Ignatius Kung of Shanghai was another: a modern-age martyr who suffered imprisonment for years. There are/were many others—all unknown to “the modern Catholic.”
So much for the “ecumenical character” of V2. Rubbish on stilts
God bless and thank you, Steve Phoenix, for your continued pursuit of honesty and fidelity. Blind obedience and just pulling the cover over VII only helps to perpetuate crisis and deep misunderstanding.
The promulgation that the ‘Holy Ghost’ was present at VII and therefore is beyond legitimate, accurate examination is utterly absurd. It negates the reality of free will given to every man. But what a wonderful tool to use against those who are so easily cowed into believing that understanding/examination automatically means to lack Faith.
Ignorance is no friend of Faith.
Steve, I have to apologize for not having enough time this evening to respond to your comments. I’ll be able to reply tomorrow evening.
Dear Steve P: You made a number of statements but I’ll synthesis things. As I see it, your argument is that Ephesus II was not an ecumenical council; therefore, Vatican II can be in dispute. You also said that councils are not infallible. These two statements are not a Catholic understanding.
I’ll reply by giving the Catholic view. The highest levels of promulgation at a council are dogmatic and infallible. Like the bible and some doctrines, our concept of the ecumenical council was not given to us by Jesus when he walked the earth, but it has been revealed to us by the Holy Spirit over time. We see a prefigurement of it at the Council of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles.
[1 of 3, Continued]
For a council to be an ecumenical council, it must (a) be called or agreed to by the Pope and (b) it’s findings must be approved by the Pope. If not, the council ceases to be. In the case of Ephesus II, this was called by the Roman Emperor and presided over by the Patriarch of Alexandria. Pope Leo and his legates were prohibited from speaking and its findings were never approved by the Pope. Therefore, Ephesus II was not a council. Admittedly, knowledge of what makes a valid council was not universally known back then as it is today, thus causing confusion. But we now know what has been revealed, and Vatican II was validly called and approved.
[2 of 3, Continued]
Regarding attendance, a council doesn’t have to be attended by all bishops or all patriarchs. So the fact that some bishops didn’t attend Vatican II doesn’t affect its legitimacy. In fact, there was one ecumenical council were the majority of bishops didn’t attend. Regarding foul play, I’ve never heard of any such thing at Vatican II. But if there had been, Vatican II was still called and approved by the Pope, thus underscoring its validity.
Steve, we need you on our side. Things are getting tight and it doesn’t help the Church when good people bolt from her.
[3 of 3, End]
God bless you Steve Seitz. You are most charitable and you answer with clarity. ????
And God bless you, too, Steve S: but it is a matter of concern that you appear unaware of the traffickings of a demonstrable conspiracy at Vatican II, at the very least.
I would highly recommend you obtain and read Iota Unum, by Romano Amerio: Amerio, an eye-witness to V2, documents the “convergence of harmonious forces” (he calls it) that hijacked schemata and as well, the shocking silence of 2 popes who abdicated their role. Also to be read: Roberto de Mattei’s “V2: An Unwritten History”; M. Davies “Pope John’s Council”, and R. Wiltgen “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber.” More information is now known about the V2 conspiracy than ever before in history.
Also, Steve S, please don’t presume I do not attend (although it is like chewing nails weekly) the standard N.O. fare—although I prefer by far the Traditional Latin Mass (TLM), whenever it is possible to attend it. The TLM is the true legacy of the Catholic Church (just as the Mass of St J Chrysostom is the legacy of the Byzantines). The priest there however shows his orthodoxy (he was ordained prior to V2, by the way: not a coincidence) and does his best with the Bugnini “work of human hands”. But as I have pointed out before, Trent and its many statements (“On Sacrifice of Mass, Canon 3) emphatically states the TLM was instituted by Christ. That Mass is the divine Mass: thus why V2 never abrogated the TLM in fact. Read up, and…
We need Catholics, Steve S, who do not bolt from the truth about what is and has been used to harm the Body of Christ from within. Do not be fooled by the flattery of how charitable you are by others who are equally fearful of looking at the facts as they are. If you don’t understand VII shenanigans, you should.
I doubt you would say, “I haven’t heard of Fr. X’s groping children, but he’s a priest and the parish needs your help so don’t bolt or speak out We need folks to stay.” But when you negate the realities of what’s going on inside the Church, aided by way of VII novelties, you only aid those who would continue to abuse.
“Ecumenical” as defining a council’s infallibility is highly contrived: so do we accept the mutual anathemas and denunciations of the many
“ecumenical” councils as infallible and in effect? Is it valid because a pope called it? Is a pope always “orthodox”? Hardly: Peter was corrected at the “1st Council of Jerusalem” by Paul (AD 50, Acts 15), where Paul has to “withstand Peter (Cephas) to his face” (Gal 2:11) when he was just plain wrong.
How ’bout we agree that councils and synods are determined, like people and popes, by their ensuing fruit in later years? Synod of Tyre–bad. Robber Council–bad: Vatican 2: you make the call, don’t put all the reality treatment on me.
No, The validity of ecumenical councils are not determined by the events that follow them. That is a fallacy.
SP your arguments are very Lutheran.
Apparently you don’t actually understand the concept of an ecumenical council. All of the bishops throughout the world of all rites of the Church, acting together with the Supreme Pontiff, who bridges (supremely bridges) all differences whatever they may be to confront all the issues and heresies of the day.
Is that contrived? No, I don’t think so. If VII was contrived, then most prior councils were contrived, all of which had far lesser participation amongst the universal Church. Do you REALLY believe, for example, that all the bishops gathered physically at Jerusalem? at Nicea? At Trent, even?
Steve P: Regarding allegations of issues at the Council, it’s not that I’m not concerned. But my focus was defending the legitimacy of Vatican II. Regarding your Catholicity, I’m very happy that you’re still in the Church. I sympathize with you, though, about Mass. I, myself, have rarely ever attended the nearest parish.
The questions that you raised about the infallible parts of an ecumenical council are beyond my knowledge base. That’s why I left it very general by saying that it’s the highest levels of a council that are infallible. If you look at Vatican II, most of the documents from the Council are neither dogmatic nor infallible.
[1 of 3, Continued]
In fact, large swaths of the dogmatic constitutions from the Council are probably not dogmatic and infallible. Complicating matters further is that the Council was not called to settle disputes of dogma and heresy.
Regarding what makes a council valid, what I stated earlier are the necessary components. So I can’t agree with you. But is the pope always infallible? Of course not. What you stated about St. Peter changing his mind is true. It’s also true that the Holy Spirit guided Peter by giving him a vision coupled with a set of events that changed his mind. What the Church teaches is that the Pope, when he makes a statement regarding doctrine either ex-cathedra or as part of an ecumenical council, is infallible.
[2 of 3,…
If you have some time and want a detailed history of the Church that traces the paths of the ecumenical councils, I can recommend several church history books that were published with imprimaturs before Vatican II. Just let me know.
[3 of 3, End]
THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH 891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility…
The liberals, who hate God and all things that are good, holy and true, are behind this movement. Unless someone cannot kneel because of an illness or physical disability, kneeling should be done during the Consecration and the reception of Holy Communion. To demand or encourage the faithful to stand at these sacred times is modernism at its best. When God becomes present on the altar or when He comes to you at Holy Communion, kneeling is the traditional way of showing respect, devotion, and honor. Anything else is Protestantism.
“The liberals, who hate God and all things that are good, holy and true…”
Well, folks: there we have it!
Straight from the horse’s mouth.
Be liberal with your praise of this loving insight… :)
.along with the exclusion of the eastern bloc/Chinese bishops, makes its claim of “ecumenical council” a farce. The “Travesty Council” is a better name for V2.
You are such a heretic, calling the Most Sacred and Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church (aka “Vatican II”) a ‘farce.’
When Holy Mother Church comes together for an Ecumenical Council, this is the HIGHEST teaching authority she has: [Catechism of the Catholic Church 891] “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical…
….that is why it is insulting in the extreme to pretend that the novelties foisted upon the faithful via compromise language is somehow holy, Anonymous. It was and is an abuse of that which is holy. Much like abuses that are allowed to go unchecked at the holy sacrifice of the mass.
The shame lies in pretending the abuse doesn’t exist, for in so doing you facilitate continued offense. Lest you forget it was those entrusted with the supreme authority who spit on Christ. Acknowledging the shamefulness of said betrayal is no disservice, but speaking the truth.
The Nicene Creed itself was “compromise language”, as you call it. It was probably the result of people comparing their local baptismal creeds and then assembling what they thought was a complete one, and added language to specifically counter Arianism. It was approved by the bishops present. But then, a few years later, at the Council of Constantinople, it was edited! Surely that is a compromise, is it not? Taking a binding infallible document and making changes to it?
So you may have some problem, Ann Malley, with the process of revising and editing the documents before they were voted upon by the Council Fathers, but apparently you haven’t studied prior ecumenical councils. You seem to think the documents should have fallen out…
Get on with your bad self, YFC, and thank you for bringing up the precision of language necessary to combat the rampant heresy of Arianism – a disease the Church suffered for quite some time. The disease of today is what you enjoy – so perhaps after subsequent years of suffering and the Church being beaten down and flailing by way of secular compromise, her leadership will indeed have mercy and seek God’s aid by returning to the Faith and letting one’s yes mean yes and one’s no mean no.
So bring on the EDIT! I nominate Dana to the task, a convert, a zealous Catholic, and who well understands, by profession, the power of language and the necessity of precision when conveying proper meaning.
Are you implying that Vatican II is above the other councils or just one of many?
You realize that only about a sixth of the bishops of the world attended the Council of Nicea, right? Was that a farce too?
Well, by that measure (“ecumenical” as “infallible”), the 2nd VC was neither an ecumenical council either: because the Eastern bloc and Chinese cardinals and bishops, who were being imprisoned and tortured, could not attend: Or the outcome would certainly have been different.
Just for one example, Card. Mindszenty was imprisoned in the US Hungarian embassy (with good evidence that the Vat. secretariat of state collaborated in his entrapment), because he would have been a “problem” for the Council, insisting on a denunciation of communism, for example. So much for the “ecumenical character” of V2. Rubbish on stilts.
I must confess that I don’t know what a “liberal” Catholic is. All that I know are pretty orthodox in their faith journey. I think the millions of people who go to Mass each weekend think of themselves as just normal Catholics. They are not horrible people, they are not part of a conspiracy, they don’t go around trying to see how much they can make TLM’s mad. I look around my parish and out of the 400-450 people in the pews at the Mass I attend on Sunday, I’ll bet there aren’t 50 old enough to remember VII, or a Latin Mass. Anyone under 50 wasn’t even born during the synod.
Le Catholique Liberal c’est toi Bob One. Look in the mirror.
Congratulations on your mass of 450 faithful attending your Sunday mass. At our Latin mass we are pressed to make 200, so you and the modern word win. Congratulations.
But kneeling might damage someone’s self esteem!
John your funny. Lol. You throw in a few words with some humor yet get the point accross.
The directive for the faithful to not kneel is from the devil. After all, satan was cast out of Heaven because he would not obey God. He is often depicted without knees since he would never humble himself before God. How can we not show our greatest adoration and reverence for our God? Perhaps those who are in favor of not kneeling have long ago lost their faith and desire to not see anyone express the faith they no longer have.
” The directive for the faithful to not kneel is from the devil ” –
Yes, in the USA it was pushed by Cardinal Joseph Bernardin.
Clinton R. in the US, if you are obedient you stand. Reverence is in your heart. Beware of doing religious acts for others to see.
This is what the GRIM says:
The people approach the altar and, bowing with reverence, receive Holy Communion. People may receive the Body of Christ either on the tongue or in the hand. The priest or other minister offers the Eucharist to each person saying, “The Body of Christ.” The person receiving responds by saying, “Amen,” a Hebrew word meaning, “So be it” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2856).
BobOne why do you get so many things wrong?
GENERAL INSTRUCTION of the ROMAN MISSAL (GIRM) that every Clergy and Laity is required to adhere to:
# 160 “The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling.”
#160 “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”
Mac, sorry if I caused confusion with my post. I simply copied the paragraph, in full, from the pdf of the 2012 Grim posted by the USCCB. It was under the heading: Mass-Liturgy of the Eucharist-Communion Rite. There may be other editions of the GRIM or other references to the communion rite that I didn’t see. I was not deliberately trying to confuse nor did I run any paragraphs together. At the end of the paragraph where it references the Catechism, CCC 2856 is where the meaning of Amen is found, at the end of the Lord’s Prayer.
BobOne, do you run paragraphs together to DISTORT on purpose ? ? ? ? ?
CCC 2856 does not point to Holy Communion, but the Lord’s Prayer – page 687 in the CCC.
You are proving you can not be trusted for truth or accuracy.
CCC: ” 2856 “Then, after the prayer is over you say ‘Amen,’ which means ‘So be it,’ thus ratifying with our ‘Amen’ what is contained in the prayer that God has taught us.”
“Bob One”: a Catholic, worthy to receive communion, can knee to receive communion, can genuflect prior to receiving communion, or can stand. A good number of letters from the Vatican make this clear. There is, nor can be, any prohibition on one’s adoration before the Holy Species.
Your implicit embrace of the Zombie-Liberal demand that no one show any reverence for Christ whether at the consecration or receipt of communion is part of the effort to make Catholicism nothing much more that Anglicanism, or any Protestant sect. Of course, the Pope helps as many have reported that Francis does not kneel at the consecration either. Figures.
St. C, me thinks you use the zombie-liberal affectation too much. I did not embrace anything, but simply copied out of a church book..
BobOne, when you copy out of a book, put things in quotes, use ……. (dots) as necessary, and paragraph properly.
St. Christopher, sometimes Pope Francis kneels at the Consecration and in prayer, and sometime he does not. I have seen him do so in videos. He has had bad knees for a very long time, and they have only gotten worse as he has gotten older. I think he had some sort of injury or complication when he was younger that caused it. You can google it to see all the details.
In my local parish in California kneeling for communion would be a major affront to the women Eucharistic Ministers that run the parish. This has been so for 30 years at least. The Vatican Council 2 has been a catastrophe that befell the Church. Kneeling to receive is one of our main reasons for our attending distant Extraordinary Form masses. But I realize we are fighting a losing battle against liberalism. It is very sad that the Chuch seeks to please the World and not God or those that still seek to adore Him. But such is the reality of VC2, for the present Church does not believe in transubstantiation anymore. If I could say something positive about VC2, it is that anyone can receive communion without need of confession. This…
They are not Eucharistic Ministers..they are Extraordinary Ministers…the priest is the only Eucharistic Minister…
Do yourselves a favor and find a parish with a communion rail where you can receive kneeling and on the tongue. Thankfully I have found such a sanctuary and the difference in reverence is astonishing! :)
In the OF parish that we often visit as well for Mass, they dont have a rail. We just kneel when we receive our Lord. The more you do it, the more others are inspired to do so as well. Reverence is shown and others are inspired.
Example is important.
Yes Andy it is. Jesus gave us the best example and even without using words. When He did speak, it continues to be beautiful. Intimacy with our Lord is detaching ourselves from what others are doing or not doing and also keeping our eyes on Him. Pray for our bishops and priests to obey and lead and when they do not, we dont have to take their place by preaching but instead be can lead by example.
There are many who simply cannot compromise their frail sense of Balance – to properly kneel and return standing, at least without assistance.
Reverence is entirely proper, but not at the risk of a fall that might injure needlessly
Not a good sign.
Father Scanlon seems to have missed the memo (as well as those who he is complaining about). The norm in the US is to receive standing and to make a simple bow (bow the head) before receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. However, people cannot be refused communion because they kneel.
My impression of my parish is that most do not do the simple bow; a few genuflect; some make a profound bow (from the waist), there is one woman that kneels.
And are any of those gestures except the simple bow of the head in the GIRM? Where are all the folks who quote GIRM every day of the week when they hear of things like this? It IS dangerous when people do any kind of unpredictable thing, especially if the person behind them has difficulty walking or seeing. If a parish wants to settle for one thing, I’m all for it. But with everyone doing their own thing in a line in motion, it can create problems.
Going to Catholic Mass for decades, both EF and NO, I have never seen, not once, a communicant trip or fall due to another’s kneeling or genuflecting.
The point with the Zombie-Liberals is that they are not Catholic. They do not want to acknowledge the presence of Christ, which separates the Catholic Church from all others. Go to the Anglican Church where everyone can go to communion (which means nothing anyway.
St. C, a couple of thoughts. In all my years as an EME I have never had anyone trip because the person in front of them knelt for communion. Zombie-Liberals is your definition of anyone who doesn’t agree with you on every point, but who are you to say they are not Catholic? Very arrogant. You might be interested to know that the Anglican and Lutheran churches believe in the “true presence”, and believe they are receiving the true Body and Blood of Christ, and who are we to say they are wrong, since both have Apostolic Succession? Or, as I suspect, you are just trying to infuriate as many people as possible?
“Bob One”: That you claim to be an Extraordianary Minister of the Holy Eucharist is astonishing, as your understanding of Catholicism is so deficient. Space here does not permit much response, but try to read “Apostolicae Curae” (1896), by Pope Leo XIII, particularly Para. 16: ” () we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.”
What the Anglicans and Lutherans “do” liturgically, mean nothing, sacramentally. Now, this is treasonous to Vatican II people, like yourself, but you need to understand that the Catholic Church began with Jesus Christ, not with Paul VI and the post-Vatican II “implementers”. It is you, and these Catholic…
“…You might be interested to know that the Anglican and Lutheran churches believe in the “true presence”, and believe they are receiving the true Body and Blood of Christ, and who are we to say they are wrong, since both have Apostolic Succession? Or, as I suspect, you are just trying to infuriate as many people as possible?”
This is very disturbing, Bob One, because the whole of it goes against what the Catholic Church actually teaches. From this logic springs forth the notion of not evangelizing anyone or holding the Faith. Because Catholics are now to withhold the truth because there is no truth?
Isn’t that a rather bold rejection of Christ who came to give the Truth?
Anonymous GIRM over-rides any memo that you may or may not have seen.
GIRM # 160
” the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling”
“The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”
This is also in GIRM 160: The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).
(Continued, to “Bob One”) “”poseurs” that are arrogant, not those who try to follow the True Faith handed down by Jesus Christ and His Holy Church for centuries.
By all means, go join the Anglicans or Lutherans; their churches are empty enough. But do not presume to say that because they claim “Apostolic Succession” that this means whatever they do is sacramentally licit.
In fact, also read the wonderful Pope Benedict XVI’s “Angelicanorum Coetibus,” particularly Para. VI, Sec. 1. You need to be “ordained” as a Catholic priest, even if you are a functioning Anglican priest and wish to join a personal ordinariate within the Catholic Church. It means something to be a Catholc, which is a status unlike any other before…
(Last continuation) “God and Man. No protestant sect has any such authority, or mission. All are welcome to enter the Catholic Church, however, once they agree to abide by its teachings and follow its precepts.
This is how “all will be one” not through the dopey ecumentical movement, which presumes to dictate to the Catholic Church that it must be no more than equal to all other churches in achieving its mission established by God.
St. Christopher, this might not be addressed to you since I couldn’t find a reply point. But, it’s my understanding that both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost apostolic succession. This means that most of their sacraments are both invalid and illicit regardless of their views on the real presence.
St. C, you are correct when you say that the RC Church is the one and only try Church of Christ. However, I was only pointing out that Lutherans, when the consecrate the bread and wine believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. That is their belief, which is the same as our belief. That doesn’t make them evil people. Most people are, if anything, members of the Church in which they were raised. Most Catholics are Catholic because their parents were Catholic, etc. I have known too many good Protestants who have stronger beliefs in the power of the Trinity than most Catholics. I doubt they will go to hell.
“…when the consecrate the bread and wine believe it to be the Body and Blood of Christ. That is their belief, which is the same as our belief.”
This is absolutely not my understanding of what Lutherans believe. They do not hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation wherein the bread and wine actually become the Body and Blood of Christ. Not at all.
If you can cite a reference to back your claim, please do, Bob One. For the Lutherans I know – devout – and my own studies have not rendered anything close to what you’ve stated.
…you also mistake, Bob One, the idea that stating the facts about Lutheranism as compared to the One True Faith is somehow casting Lutherans as ‘evil people’. That’s an absurd stretch and nothing of what Steve is arguing here. This is one reason why I find you being a Eucharistic Minister of any kind very disturbing. For it would seem that you do not have a grasp on discerning the Body of the Lord and yet your position would lead others to look to you as an authority. Not good.
What is the norm in the United States borders on heresy. For many years now the Catholic Church in America has been known as the Amerikan Katholic Church.
Know your rights. Do not let bad Bishops or bad Priests dissuade you from honoring GOD properly.
Know GIRM which all Bishops and Priests and Laity are required to adhere to.
In this thread I have provided links to #160 of GIRM which specifically covers these topics.
Read ” Redemptionis Sacramentum ” # 91 & 92 which is binding on all from the CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT.
I firmly believe people should exercise their right to received the Most Blessed Sacrament in any of the ways approved by the Church: on the tongue or in the hand. Standing or kneeling. Under one form or both forms.
However, I must admit to getting a bit cross when someone who arrives late each day for Holy Mass throws herself on her knees in an extravagant show of piety (when she finally comes in the door), then throws herself on her knees again to receive Holy Communion and stays there, forcing other people to wait until her devotion has been noticed by all present.
In my opinion, she would be demonstrating much MORE reverence by coming early, preparing herself for Mass by silent prayer, and thus giving a better example to the children…
My dear Utah neighbor used to wheel and place her quadriplegic daughter into their wheelchair van and drive her to special classes that started at a certain time. She would sometimes have to wait for a caregiver to arrive because of her daughter’s condition. My neighbor would then still drive to morning Mass to receive the graces necessary to carry her daily cross. She once told me that she wanted friends to go certain places with her because people often stared and whispered.
Are you speaking of one or two individuals, or most of the people in your Parish?
Is it possible this person is taking care of someone ill at home ?
There will be sinners of all kinds in Church.
It would be most charitable for you to talk to this person about coming late or leaving early – or otherwise pass her a pre-prepared note – if this is a matter of habit.
I am speaking of one person, who obviously drives me crazy.
She is not taking care of someone at home, she simply chooses to avoid the Liturgy of the Word, bouncing from Mass to Mass at Communion time in order to receive “more grace” in her own way.
I have spoken to her, but she refuses to change: instead, she stays long after Mass is over, doing other devotions, having distracted those of us who are trying to attend Holy Mass daily.
It’s even worse in the Diocese of San Jose. A priest-friend from seminary days tells me that the bishop there has banned the bells, chalice veil, and pall at Mass. I know “PJ” banned kneeling after Communion some years ago and now he is adding on with this new edict. Just goes to show that if you lose a fight to a progressive you don’t buy yourself any peace; instead, you just move the battlefield a little closer to home.
Now only if he would do 1/10 as much to promote the TLM as he does banning other legitimate things at the Mass.
Just ignore the Bishop. At times, in churches around the country, there will be one or two Catholic families kneeling after communion, when all others are sitting (or standing, at various times).
As Ronald Reagan once said THERE YOU GO AGAIN ! Whenever a liberal dislikes what someone else posts, the liberal almost always attacks the other person by using insults. Despite what ICEL and other so called liturgists say, one should kneel during the Consecration and when receiving Holy Communion. To ban kneeling is a very clear way of downplaying the Divine Presence. What we need is more reverence during Mass, and not less. The Mass is a sacrifice, and not a social gathering where we adore each other. We adore God at Mass, and our main attention must always be focused on Him, and not on everyone else.
I think that is why we stand. So we can focus on Christ and on receiving him instead of worrying if we are going to fall or be able to get back up or if our hem is going to catch on our heel or how bad our breath stinks or if our saliva is showing in little bubbles or how far do we stick out our tongue and all the other anxieties that come with your preferred way. If the Church or my bishop or even my parish priest expressed an opinion such as yours, I would obey. But I will only do it out of obedience and I guarantee I will not be thinking about Jesus but about making a fool of myself.
And to be honest, that would take a grace of God. By myself, I would not be able to do it and would refrain from receiving, except for the Easter duty or when I went to a different Church. I attended Mass at a chapel once where everybody was receiving on the tongue (most standing) and I was freaking out. Blessedly, someone else took communion in the hand and the priest didn’t react negatively so I did the same. There was one other person who did it too. Praise Jesus.
In all the years since Vatican II, I have seen many good, sincere Catholics, tragically ABUSED by many priests, as well as lay Eucharistic Ministers, at the Rite of Communion, during Mass. A HORROR! (Especially, if the people are visitors, and may be from a foreign country, also!) People have been ABUSED for kneeling, for sticking out their tongues (instead of their hands), for reception of Holy Communion, and for making little signs of reverence, such as genuflecting, etc. I’ve also seen people ABUSED for kneeling in their pew, after Communion– in churches where that was abolished. This religious ABUSE is a TOTAL DISGRACE, before God!
As mentioned to Gratias, there is no such person as as Lay Eucharistic Minister..the priest is the only Eucharistic Minister…everyone else is a Extraordinary Minister…after Vatican 2, a lot of priests became lazy and delegated the Liturgy to a lay person…now you go to 100 churches and not one liturgy will be the same…
As the saying goes: The NO Liturgy is like a fingerprint… no two are alike.
Or a snowflake! (Awww!) Everyone LOVES snowflakes!
These people need a venting support group and to grow their relationship with Christ. Also to go go to confession. Correcting them didnt help.
Attempting to correct someone when the proposed instructor is ignorant and refuses to take step one in education is never going to work. Growing in one’s relationship with Christ is to understand that we shouldn’t be afraid to speak the truth. Even when the truth reveals that superiors are not doing/being what they should be.
Many may want to confess the pride involved in stepping out of their lane to teach when they, “I’ve never heard anything about that but this is what ‘you’ need to do.”
Moral relativism is often preached more so. His truth, her truth etc. All not in union with Christ and His church. False Perception seems to also be a fault in many. The truth should always be spoken but not all will hear, listen or take in their hearts. Its this blindness that has many in their prideful moral relativism. People preach their truths or misinterpret things due to many reasons. Just stick to the sacraments,prayer, fasting, the CCC, the Holy scriptures etc for this is a good start to be intimate with our Lord.
Ann for the record if you think that correcting means mocking, making fun of and insinuations not based on truth but only on prejudges against whole church of Christ and words like snowflakes etc. …..
Abeca, your misdiagnosis of moral relativism has nothing whatsoever to do with my observation that those who would presume to teach or correct here would do well not to dismiss a critical analysis of V2. Blind defense and dismissing certain realities to being only in someone’s mind is neither correcting nor helping. It’s avoiding.
Your fear of comparative analysis of what exists right there in Church documents that are available to read won’t make that go away. A document, to hold weight and to teach, must be clear in its meaning. If not, it is a source of confusion and potential error.
Ann Malley fair enough, I respect your concerns but assuming misdiagnosis on my part…not so. But its OK, we can agree to disagree on that one.
I don’t have fear on what you call comparative analyses. I see that you assume and perceive things that are not there. No fear perhaps you used the wrong descriptive word. Not fear not even close. My confidence is in the Lord, therefore fear is not part of the equation, the only fear we all should have is how mankind continues in its sin and how it hurts our Lord, fearing the Lord is the only fear we should grow to lean an understanding of.
To offend His church just because of the sins of men? No not so but I, like YOU, want to correct when called to, our leadership, speak up and work with Christ’s church to spread His truth and live his gospel. Our goal here on earth is to get to heaven. You sure throw in many false accusation for example: blind defense, dismissing etc……sorry that you misunderstand us who are faithful and defend Christ’s church. In the amount of time we have spend here in the past trying to dialogue, it seems like nothing has gone through and I don’t see any point in continuing this. You have made up your mind and are deeply indoctrinated in heresy and schism. I am so sorry. God bless you.
Abeca you are deeply indoctrinated at not root causing what is facilitating the sins of men to be ushered into Holy Mother Church. Much like having a fully stocked bar at home might be facilitating the drunkenness of those in the house. That is not moral relativism, but reality for any who cares enough to do the looking/reading.
God helps those who help themselves, Abeca, which is why you attempting to do good by discounting that which needs to be fixed or at the very least looked to as facilitating the problem, then no amount of trust will help you. Defending the Church is to defend the souls that are in the Church, Abeca, not the facade.
We will be disappointed Did Abel stop Cain from murdering him, could he have? No. Did King David stop himself from stealing another man’s wife and murdering him to attain her? No. Abraham warned his nephew not to live in Sodom and Gomorrah? yes but he did not listen still. Judas betrayed Jesus and St, Peter denied Jesus 3 times. St Steven the first martyr, did he defend himself and stopped his painful death when they stoned him to death? No. Somethings we can not stop or change, humanity continues in its sins but Christ’s church is still standing! St. Thomas Aquinas dealt with a lot in his time as well…no different today as in the church’s infancy. Just that we have larger issues on a larger scale because error spreads…
“…Just that we have larger issues on a larger scale because error spreads.” That is why clarity and consistency in Church teaching is important. Holes need to be shored up or else they will continue to let water into the ship, Abeca.
So whereas there is much that we cannot stop or cannot change, there is error and or ambiguity that can be corrected…. or at the very least clarified. That last is not beyond the scope of the possible. Especially if people discontinue the absurdity that pointing out where the holes are is an attack on the ship or the integrity of the shipping line.
IOW: It’s not only the fire on the deck that needs tending for a ship with open holes in the bottom is still in crisis.
And while there may be…
Fair enough but who says there is no consistency nor clarity. Just because humans lack, it does not equal what the church stands for and teaches. The teachings are there, if men fail to convey does not make a church lacking it. We have CCC and the bible. Now what seems to me, what comes across from your comments to me. Is that you are speaking about those of bad will who do not teach from the CCC and the bible. Your complaints and displeasure in that is understandable but remember that we have always have had heretics. Be weary of those in leadership who do not echo faithfully teachings from CCC, scriptures, saints etc.
Continued: In fact, i encourage you to quote those sources correcting them, if you are gifted to do so in clarity and flee from such persons. The faithful priests ive been around may not be perfect, but they are holy and faithful to the Magesterium. Their humble yet do know their faith and take to heart when leading Christ’s flock. Pax Christi.
The documents themselves state that there is no consistency and no clarity, Abeca. Not all of the documents, but enough novelty/compromise has been introduced so as to cause problems. And the problems have grown.
If men fail to convey was the only problem, that would be easy enough. But if documents referenced are unclear and/or novel and open to myriad interpretation you are left with a judgement call. And the judgement call of Cardinal Kasper is going to be quite different than say, Cardinal Burke.
The CCC and the Bible are not the only sources of teaching, Abeca, The CCC also uses V2’s new mode which contains novelty – not in line with what the ‘Saints’ have taught. That also is problematic. Like an algebra book premised on faulty/novel methods to add/subtract, the end result will not be quite what it should be.
That is why when you tell others who understand the novelties/ambiguities in V2 documents that ‘it’s all in their imagination’ you are limiting your own scope of understanding the problem. You are unfairly categorizing others who may not have the luxury of the fidelity ‘you’ have found in your diocese.
You advise, “… Be weary of those in leadership who do not echo faithfully teachings from CCC,…
…and that, Abeca, is precisely what those who understand what the Church has always taught compared to what is allowed to pass today as faithful are doing. Being wary, although, many are wearied, too.
Perhaps if all Catholics joined together to push for clarity – not only about marriage prior to this upcoming Synod – but in all problematic documents, there would be change for the good. For while you defend V2 as just fine, the very priests you consider of ‘good will’ are often subject to bishops who are those who interpret V2 in a liberal fashion (because of a lack of clarity) and make those priests suffer unduly and/or quiet them for speaking the whole of the truth for the betterment of your soul.
Isn’t a deacon also a Eucharistic Minister (as in “ordinary” not “extraordinary”)?
In order to truly eradicate all of these ABUSE problems, the Church really needs to GET SERIOUS about RELIGION– and the word needs to come straight from the Vatican– which should have the final say, on this! No more ABUSES, of the Catholic Faithful! And get rid of all the crazy, liberal priests and lay Eucharistic Ministers, too!!
Linda Maria, I hope I’m not just playing with words, but I think we need to GET SERIOUS about FAITH and spend less time worrying about RELIGION. To me RELIGION is all about rules and regulations, and not about our journey to know God better and make Him better known. Faith is about our relationship with God and how we take our faith out into the community, serve the poor, feed the hungry, etc. We may be saying the same thing with different words, but I find it difficult enough to be faithful without looking over my shoulder all the time to see what religious rules and practices I may be skewing.
I have always loved the kneeling, at the Tridentine Mass! That has always been my very favorite Mass! It is very, very HOLY, to kneel at the altar rail, and to look up at Our Lord in a moment of adoration, as the priest holds up the Sacred Host– and next, to receive Him, on the tongue, as the priest recites the lovely Latin phrase! It is also very HOLY– to receive Our Lord first thing in the morning, when sick and hospitalized (in a traditional Catholic hospital!) — where the Blessed Sacrament is brought, with bells and candles, in procession, from room to room! (But today, real Catholic hospitals are gone!)
Vatican II not only led to Mass destruction, it also is responsible for paganizing the Catholic Church and ruining Christian civilization. The upcoming Synod in Rome confirms this.
Pilar, just because something happened after Vatican II does not mean that it is caused by Vatican II. You cannot know what would have happened in the Church if there had been no Vatican II. It could be different or the same. The Catholic Church is not paganized, nor is it ruining Christian civilization. I do not know what your concern with the Synod is, although many people are focusing on a proposal to allow a very few number of divorced and remarrried Catholics to receive Holy Communion after a penitential period. Here is what they are really going to discuss:
Anonymous, just because you are told something is all good doesn’t mean it is all good. Our Lord wouldn’t have promised to uphold the Church if there wasn’t going to be some serious scandals coming down the pike. But if you honestly believe that the following:
“… a proposal to allow a very few number of divorced and remarrried Catholics to receive Holy Communion after a penitential period.”
is cause for concern then you are an example of one who has been perfectly primed to welcome novelty – not the Deposit of the Faith. Much like many others here who deride history, logic, and, my personal fave,observation.
….that should read if you do NOT find that a cause for concern, Anonymous.
In your mind Pilar. Many who comment with fear mongering words against Christ’s church ignore history and neglect a tone that trusts Christ’s promises regarding His church. They blame a whole council and spread unreasonable unrealistic fear mongering words that they too are part of the problem, in turn raising themselves up above and apart from Christ. Yes be angry at our current crises but stop spreading rumors that stop people from seeing the whole truth and working in truth to endure this time of age and follow Christ and continue to fight the good fight within Christ’s church. His church is His church, even if you associate V2 incorrectly because of false notions due to current sinful people from within and whom separated from the…
Post hoc ergo propter hoc!
Post Hoc Propter Bob One, CARA/Georgetown U, which has done more to document the changes in the US Catholic Church since Vatican II, squarely places the blame on the collapse on the changes instituted by the Council, for example, in their documentation of the collapse of the Immaculate Heart Nuns of Los Angeles, of whom Sr. Corita Kent, the famed artist, was once a member.
And I can therefore guess you are dismissing Kenneth C. Jones salient work, “Vatican II: An Index of Leading Catholic Indicators” (2002), which he, as a lawyer, presents as a legal brief, solidly indicting Vatican II as the cause. But let us just play ostrich. Propter Bob.
You see, some people just don’t want to know the truth: it is too frightening (I agree); it is too monstrous (I doubly agree); one should run away (I disagree. Vehemently). Instead: Let us name-call people with maledictions and imprecations [Ann Malley, that is your cue, enter in your piñata outfit :) ] Never, never, never think that others are of good will and trying to tell you something very important.
But the first step to recovery is to face the facts. Here is a great summary of those facts of Kenneth C Jones by Pat Buchanan in one page:
God bless you, Steve Phoenix. The Pinata suit has just been refitted with a new battery of crepe-feathers. Ready, set….. whack!
I love the, “…in your mind, Pilar,” attempt at cyber bullying. Good grief, whatever these ‘faithful’ are smoking – perhaps it’s a new incense – I’m glad we haven’t all been exposed. Reminds me of a story wherein my Dad was constantly corrected by the nun teaching Algebra who it was later discovered had dyslexia. She was always chastening the bold young boys for saying ‘she’ was wrong! How dare they. Go to confession.
And yes, Pilar, you are right on the facts: believe your eyes, believe the facts, believe the documented truth: because on the day of judgment the Nuremberg defense (“I was following orders! They told me what to do!”) will not cut it with the awesome Judge.
Oh, Steve Phoenix, how dare you compare the lock-step useful idiots to Nazis. So what that it is a wholly accurate observation. You should be whipped! Yes, let’s cry for a whipping and confession and venting groups. Oh, the outrage of having tried to correct ‘these people’.
Pinata suit aside, I often think it would be well worth a public whipping just to shout at the housetops that V2 is flawed. Kind of like being shot while shouting, Viva Christo Rey.
Many interesting comments on this topic. In 1956, when I was 15 years old, my father traveled to Europe on a business trip. Of the six children in our family, he selected me to accompany him on the trip. He was fascinated by the Catholic Churches in Europe, especially France, some of which he had seen during his service in the US Army during WW II. Having grown up in Chicago and St. Louis and attending school and Church in large Catholic parishes, I was stunned when we attended Mass or visited many churches to find simple wooden chairs instead of pews with kneelers. Notre-Dame of Paris, St. Etienne of Meaux, Notre Dame of Chartes and Notre Dame of Amiens all had chairs. Some people turned the chairs around and kneeled on the seat…
Post hoc ergo helicopter proc
There is no cessation, once revolution has commenced, to its drive forward: revolution, started within the 2nd Vatican Council experts, will continue until its own collapse into radical dictatorship.
The liturgy will continually change—into what, we cant now conceive: just as 10 years ago, it was not possible to conceive that the Church would capitulate on the bond of marriage and on sexual morality. So it is that newly named Pope Francis-“Pontifical Council for Culture” consultor “Fr”. Pablo d’Ors says that after October, PF has his sights set on women’s ordination. So the expectation that change—whether in doctrine or in liturgy—will somehow “slow down” or stop is simply unfounded. In ten more years, one wont…
What is the purpose behind forbidding kneeling at the reception of communion in the Novus Ordo? Michael Davies: look at the Anglican apostasy:
“The general policy of Cranmer and his friends was “to introduce the Reformation by stages, gradually preparing men’s minds for more radical courses to come. At times compulsion or intimidation was necessary in order to quell opposition, but their general policy was first to neutralise the conservative mass of the people, to deprive them of their Catholic-minded leaders, and then accustom them by slow degrees to the new religious system.” Cranmer’s Godly Order
Those who want to take the time and slog through liberal theologian Yves Congar’s account, “My Journal of the Council” — his daily, snide observations on the unfolding events of V2—will see an unpleasant picture of conspiratorial gatherings, secret groups, meetings literally late at night, of fellow radical travelers, who saw an opportunity to strike at the central authority of the Vatican (“the Curia”: a pseudonym) and to unfold the constant revolution (“the French Revolution in the Catholic Church”) we endure today. It was Congar who crafted the phrase “The Spirit of Vatican II”: meaning endless change, far beyond the written documents as what is intended by this revolt. It is PF who is merely carrying out this revolution,…
When I began reading this article it confused me. How could those practicing tradition want to ban kneeling at the reception of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist, then the light bulb came on. You see there are two communities of traditionalists in the world, those who are and those who are not. This article is about those who are not, but deceive others. There are some extreme liberal schismatics who call themselves traditionalists but practice some very unconventional practices contrary to Roman Catholic teaching like having female priestesses but have a latin service? The diocese of Santa Fe pointed one out back a couple of years ago. Then there are those diocesan traditionalists who are more conservative than the average V2 church,…
Sorry. The first part of my post above was truncated. Another Church my father and I visited was Saint-Pierre-de-Chartreuse, a Carthusian monastery. We were not able to attend Mass there, however, the Carthusian monks continued to use the Rite of Grenoble for their liturgy. Reportedly, the Rite of Grenoble is still in use today at Carthusian monasteries. Interesting that variation in the liturgy of the Mass has been permitted for many centuries.