More hi-jinks in Liverpool, surrounding Thompsonist priest Simon Henry.
Simon has upset parishioners in his new posting – St Catherine Labouré, Farington, near Preston – by banning communion under both kinds and the sign of peace.
The Tablet reports that complaints have been received by Archbishop Patrick Kelly and Bishop Vincent Malone.
This week Simon admitted that “one or two people were a bit irate” because “they were used to a less formal liturgy and I am a more formal person.”
He confirmed that, while Mass in the ordinary form would continue, he hoped to add a Mass in the extraordinary form.
Simon arrived at St Catherine’s three months ago after plans for him to run a Tridentine Mass centre at St Vincent’s, Liverpool, fell through last summer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Sandalistas have had it all their way for decades,so spare a thought for the many,including myself,who have been offended,insulted,and trampeld on.All my four children have left the church,I observe liturgical abuses on a regular basis,also doctrinal ones.The lack of attendance at confession,the lack of respect for the real presence,the lack of vocations to the priesthood and the religious life,well it goes on and on.If as a Roman Catholic you have your needs catered for and ,well consider those who dont and understand that the priest you refer to is trying to redress the balance
Unfortunately, Fr Henry is himself in breach of liturgical law. Communion under both species has been strongly recommended by the universal Church since 1969, and is the norm for the distribution of Communion in this country; and a priest cannot himself decide to ban it. It seems like a particularly stupid move. If there had been a strong push in the parish to do away with it, that would be different case, but in fact his action seems to have aroused nothing but protest.
Similarly, the sign of peace is part of the rite, and is thus not open to a priest simply to omit at his own whim. Pope Benedict himself is talking about the possibility of moving the sign of peace to before the procession of gifts, which certainly does not indicate that he wants it banned.
Anything traditional strikes fear into the hearts of the "reformers" who can give no quarter to those who oppose their views We need more Fr Henrys not less!!
Albert -
You obviously haven't realised that Communion under both kinds is deeply traditional - it was the norm for the first nine centuries of the life of the Church. Likewise, the sign of peace was reintroduced into the Mass in the post-Vatican II reforms.
The problem with those who hanker after "traditional" things is that they don't know that most of what they are looking for is at best late mediaeval, at worst nineteenth century antiquarianism. What the "reformers" (Sandalistas, if you must) are asking for is a return to the true traditions of the Church, not the mediaeval ones, some of which were aberrations.
If you want to see liturgical abuses on a grand scale, go to virtually any church in Rome. I'd suggest Santa Maria Maggiore as a starter. I suspect the liturgical abuses you are talking about are not so much abuses as occasional thoughtlessness on the part of some. But that accusation can also be levelled at the "traditional wing" of the Church in equal measure.
Let those who are without sin cast the first stone, etc.
Cardinal
I never mentioned holy communion under both kinds,but this not mandatory.as holy communion received in the hands,so there is a mix and match choice here,and yes it is tradition to have holy communion both kinds,which was stoppep at a point in history on health grounds.
I would ask at what point in the last 2008 years do you consider the liturgy should be placed for these "true traditions"
You agree that abuses of the liturgy take place today,you mention Rome,but it happens all over especially since the second vactican council,just go on Youtube and see it for youself.
I totally disagree your statement that it happens in eual measure with the Tridentine Mass.
It seems you hanker after traditional things post Council of Trent,a council that was called ot correct what you call abberations.
perhaps we should attend "upper rooms" as the Last Supper!
This is my last post on the subject,but to say you have your liturgy and beliefs,but allow the many like me to have ours
Strictly speaking, Fr Henry has not banned the sign of peace (unless he has stopped saying the words "The peace of the Lord be with you always"). What he appears to have stopped is the invitation for the congregation to share the sign of peace with each other.
This does not violate any liturgical law, but it complies with the letter of the law. Whether one likes it or not, the invitation to the congregation is optional and at the discretion of the priest. Likewise, communion under both kinds.
There is no legislation which makes the congregational sign of peace, or communion under both kinds for that matter, mandatory. I stand to be corrected if others can provide concrete evidence to the contrary.
It all depends on how you interpret rubrics.
Latest Ordo Missae, para 128:
>>>>>>
Then, if appropriate, the deacon, or the Priest, adds:
Let us offer each other the sign of peace.
And all offer one another a sign, in keeping with local customs, that expresses peace, communion and charity. The Priest gives the sign of peace to a deacon or minister.
<<<<<<
It's certainly legitimate to say that the invitation to the sign of peace is optional. But the remainder of the paragraph is not qualified by expressions such as "if appropriate", only the invitation. The fact is that in Fr Henry's parish the "local customs" include exchanging the sign of peace. And according to the rubrics, he is supposed to exchange it with a deacon or minister, even if he personally decides not to invite the congregation to do so, just as he would have done at a High Mass in the past.
There is nothing to prevent the congregation from exchanging a sign of peace "in keeping with local customs", and Fr Henry cannot order them to cease doing so.
The position is somewhat clearer when it comes to Communion under both kinds.
Paragraph 212 of the Bishops of England and Wales document Celebrating the Mass (2005) states (third bullet point):
>>>>>>
The pastor or priest celebrant should see to the full and proper implementation of Communion under both kinds in accordance with the provisions made by the Conference of Bishops.
<<<<<<
This is the local law for England and Wales, and it means that Communion under both kinds is always to be available, but that no one is compelled to receive from the chalice if they do not wish to - rather different from not making it available at all, which is what Fr Henry apparently has stated as his intention.
In addition, the Bishops' norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under Both Kinds currently awaiting confirmation in Rome will state that the norm in England and Wales is distribution under both kinds.
The use of the word "mandatory" in the previous correspondent's post is a complete red herring. It has nothing to do with whether something is mandatory, but whether something is to be made available - THAT is what is mandatory: the making-available. No one if being forced to do anything, but people must be free to make their own choice, not be compelled to follow the priest's personal choice.
What the whole story shows is that lessons which were abundantly clear following the second Vatican Council have not been learned. Many people don't like change and when change is made it needs to be done with sensitvity and catechesis. It seems (but we are going on newspaper reports, more properly 'gossip') that the new incumbent has made many changes quickly and without too much formation of the congregation who were used to making use of different options available in the Ordo Missae. Neither the pax, or communion under both kinds are mandatory, but to a congregation who have habitually had access to these, one can see from where the upset arises.
The attitude that 'traditionalists' have been upset by 'sandalistsa' for years justifies reversing the status quo with equally little regard for personal sensibililities is remarkably uncharitable. It smacks of 'an eye for an eye' mentality, which I believe Christ said something about. What do we gain through such liturgical tit-for-tat?
Ive come back to say that traditional Roman Catholics (orthodox) in the main,require some charity from the liberal/left,to allow the celebation of the Tridentine Mass.What is fact is that our views and senses have been trampled underfoot since V2 Council.Our parish priest at the reforms onset telling me my Mum and Dad and all our family to stay away to let real Catholics to worship
The Cardinal,
"It all depends on how you interpret rubrics." Quite, and I contest your interpretation. What Fr Henry is reported to have done is in full accord with the current GIRM.
The manner in which he reportedly imposed the new order is entirely another matter.
Albert,
I have absolutely no problem with allowing those who wish to celebrate a Tridentine Mass to do so. I grew up with this rite and remember it with affection.
The problem that many of those you describe as "liberal/left" have is that many folk of your persuasion seem to be saying that the newer rite is heretical and should not be used, and that everyone should use the former rite. It may be that you yourself have never done this, but many of your colleagues have.
In other words, I say let those who want the former rite have the former rite, and those who prefer the newer rite have the newer rite. But in all things allow freedom of choice without name-calling.
I don't accept for one moment that "traditional" Roman Catholics have been trampled underfoot by others. Those others have simply made it clear that they don't like having the newer rite condemned out of hand as heretical by the traditionalists.
This, surely, is the spirit of Summorum Pontificum and its covering letter, which made it very clear that the very small number of those who wish to continue with the Tridentine Rite should be allowed to do so, but that at the same time they should not refuse to tolerate the continued existence of the post-conciliar reforms.
If this does not happen, it seems to be me to be little different from Hamas and others refusing to tolerate the continued existence of the State of Israel. Somehow, there has to be an accomodation. To return to Fr Henry, the subject of this thread, he was apparently not willing to accommodate, and instead announced his intention of forcing his parishioners to accept something that they did not want (and did not have) to live with.
Cardinal
This is all Ive said so many times,and to you "you have your liturgy and beliefs,and allow others like me and many to have theirs," I and many of my family have been trampled on underfoot for our beliefs and Traditional opinions.You only see what you want to see.
The problem is how to reconcile the provision for Communion under both kinds with the fact that few parishes in the UK have more than one priest, or a deacon as well as a priest.
Post a Comment