What Does The Prayer Really Say?
W D T P R S

I need some, even if it is someone else’s.

From a reader:

In our parish in the diocese of _ our parish priest announced that until further notice there would be no Holy Communion given on the tongue nor would there be a kiss of peace.

When I spoke to him afterwards although he had every sympathy with us he said he must be obedient to the Bishop.The Bishop however is still allowing Holy Communion under both kinds which doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me. Please could you tell us if the Bishop can legally do this. I have never received Holy Communion in the hand.

...

Since our Bishop ignores the wishes of The Holy Father are we obliged to obey our Bishop ?

 

I think you at least are obliged not simply to defy the bishop.

I don’t know how to answer these questions except to suggest what I have suggested several times before in regard to Communion in the hand issues… in time of "plague", or whatever this is.

First, Redemptionis Sacramentum says that people may not be denied Communion on the tongue.  Diocesan bishops do not have the authority to override this, since it is something determined by the Holy See.

On the other hand, common sense must be used.  There may be legitimate special circumstances why what the bishop says is a good thing to follow.

I am not an epidemiologist.

If you have had some recourse to the bishop or the bishop has pretty much made it plain that he is not interested in speaking more about this issue, then you can always avail yourself of your right to connect Rome and ask for a clarification, sending copies of your correspondence.

Again, this is one of those situations in which common sense must prevail.

Also, this affords everyone the opportunity to clarify precisely what the law of the Church is in this regard. 

You can use the circumstances to put good information into – sorry about this – people’s hands.

... "something" happened here. 

I am guessing something weather related has knocked down my main computer.

I have already spent quite a bit of time trying to recover it.

Things are not looking good.

Sign from God? 

Grrrr

It always seems that these things happen when I am away.

It was an early rise this morning for the sake of the airport.

Father Basden, the great pastor of St. Bede’s – long may and his tribe he thrive – was the consummate host during my time here. He even made sure – Bless Him – I would be fortified with strong coffee and toast with marmelade!

On the way to the airport we passed by a sight which was quite common during my sojourn: the Clapham South tube station.

BTW… I eventually asked the station manager there about their penchant for playing Gregorian chant or Beethoven over the PA. He said that the music was assigned centrally, that they didn’t choose their own music. I found that rather interesting. Still, I recall now that in the USA there are some cities wherein, in places where rapscallions might congregate and, subsequently, think about mischief, speakers were wired up and tunes suitable to the Lawrence Welk crowd were played. The rapscallions would very quickly cease to congregate in those places and go elsewhere. I am supposing that the same theory applied to the tube station.

No problems on the way to Heathrow. The trip took 35 minutes… at this early hour, that is.

Problems, however, began at Heathrow. Surprised?

First there was the queue for the queue to which I was directed by a very officious and self-confident young lady. Incorrectly directed, I might add. I rapidly figured that one out. I had already checked in via internet and printed my pass. All I had to do was check my bag. I had mentioned that, of course, but… well…. Having spotted the BAG DROP sign where there was another, shorter queue, I thus jumped out of the queue’s queue for the check in and queued in the bag drop queue, which didn’t have a queue for its queue. About ten minutes later I was through and on to security.

“But Father! But Father!”, you are no doubt saying. “THAT doesn’t sound like much of a problem! Why are complaining about problems when so far it has been smooth sailing?”

Aside from the fact that the queue (yes… I simply like typing that word) to which I was officiously and officially directed was the wrong queue, and it began as a queue for another queue – did I mention that? – and that I would still be out there now, had I not worked the problem, at the very counter itself I was issued a new boarding pass.

“Hmmm…” quoth I.

Apparently, my flight will be delayed a couple hours because of a late arrival. That will make my connection on the other end a little sporty depending on how security goes on Stateside Terra Firma.

At least there is a good lounge here. The Sky Team lounge at Heathrow is by far better than any of the increasingly dismal Delta, etc., lounges at US airports. Hands down.

And the wifi here is excellent, so far.



I can pick up my SlingBox perfectly… which I haven’t really had much chance to look at in the last couple weeks, and thus tap back in to the secular news.

UPDATE

After hours of unexplained, rolling delays, we have boarded.

UPDATE

Back in the USA, I am rebooked and waiting for my last leg to take off!

And specially from every shires ende
Of Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,
The hooly blisful martir for to seke
That hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke.

A stop at Aylesford. Reclaimed for God after its theft. Here are the relics of St. Simon Stock.

 

 

From a reader I received a rather difficult to use transcript of a letter from the new de facto head of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, now under the guidance of Msgr. Guido Pozzo for His Eminence Card. Levada, Prefect of the CDF and Pres. of the PCED.

I smoothed out the format to make it more readable.  There was a of the letter. 

Original questions (in portuguese, then translation).  My emphases:

1 – Após ter entrado em vigor o Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, é necessária a permissão do Bispo Diocesano para que algum padre possa celebrar a Missa Gregoriana?

[After being in effect the Motu Proprio "Summorum Pontificum", is it necessary the permission of the Diocesan Bishop so that any priest can celebrate the Gregorian Mass?]

2 – Os fiéis devem dominar a língua latina para poderem assistir a Missa Gregoriana? Ou bastaria apenas um folheto do missal em formato bilíngue (Latim – Português) para que os fiéis possam assistí-la?

[The faithful must dominate the latin language to be able to attend the Gregorian Mass? Or it is sufficient only a single pamphlete of the missal in bilingual format (Latin – Portuguese) so that the faithful can attend it?]

3 – Um grupo pequeno de fiéis (por exemplo: 8 pessoas), embora seja estável, é insuficiente para que seja celebrada a Missa na Forma Extraordinária?

[A small group of faithful (for example: 8 people), although stable, is insufficient for the celebration of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form?]

4 – O Bispo Diocesano deve cooperar para que o pedido de Missa Gregoriana feito por um grupo estável de fiéis seja realizado?

[The Diocesan Bishop must cooperate so that the request for the Gregoriam Mass made by a stable group of faithful be fulfilled?]

5 – Os fiéis que não fazem parte do grupo estável poderão assistir a Missa Gregoriana?

[The faithful that don’t make part of the stable group will be able to attend the Gregorian Mass?]

6 – Poderão ser realizados matrimônios na Forma Extraordinária do Rito Romano?

[May marriages be done in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite?]

7 – Com a publicação do Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, o Papa Bento XVI deseja que a Missa Gregoriana seja amplamente ofertada nas Dioceses?

[With the publication of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, the Pope Benedict XVI desires that the Gregorian Mass be widely offered in the Dioceses?]

8 – O Santo Padre deseja que o ensino do Latim volte a fazer parte do currículo dos seminários para que os futuros padres possam celebrar Missas na língua latina?

[The Holy Father desires that the teaching of Latin do come back of the seminaries’ curriculum so that the future priests may be able to celebrate Masses in latin language?]

9 – Os Bispos Diocesanos devem seguir as orientações da Comissão Pontifícia Ecclesia Dei sobre a aplicação do Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” mesmo que o Núncio Apostólico no Brasil possa, hipoteticamente, emitir opinião contrária?

[ The Diocesan Bishops must follow the orientations of the Pontifical Comission Ecclesia Dei about the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum even though the Apostolic Nuncio in Brazil may, hypothetically, issue a contrary opinion? ]

The answers were given in Portuguese, the originals are on the scanned letter, the translation is below:

"Protocol 97/09
Vatican, July 18th 2009

Mr. X,

To the questions on your letter from April 29 2009, it is answered, according to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, what follows:

1 – The Pontifical Document doesn’t foresee a special permission of the Diocesan Bishop so that any priest celebrates the Holy Mass in the extraordinary form (art. 2);

2 – The faithful are not required to have wide knowledge of the latin language, being sufficient to have any bilingual missal or a leaflet;

3 – The number of faithful in the stable group depends much on the local circumstances, which will show if a priest may or want, albeit his pastoral duties, to occupy himself with a so small group.

4 – The diocesan bishop must be in agreement with the directives set forth in the pontifical document (art 5 par 1; and CIC c. 392); other thing is to verify the effective practicability, in according to the provisions of the Motu Proprio.

5 – The faithful who don’t make part of the stable group may, obviously [evidently], participate in the mass in the Extraordinary Form.

6 – The marriages according to the Extraordinary Form are possible, depending on the parish pastor (art. 9, par. 1);

7 – About the wide application of the pontifical document in a diocese, it is just necessary to follow the indications in the own document.

8- About the teaching of latin in the seminaries, refer to the always valid rule of the current Code of Canon Law, c. 249 (follows the citation in the original latin with "lingua latina bene calleant" in bold.

[Note of the translator: question 9 has not been answered in this letter]

In all other questions, the pontifical document will always be quoted, being the Holy Father the supreme Ecclesiastic authority, to whom, by divine institution, we are linked by love, respect, obedience.

Esteems, etc. – Signs Msg. Guido Pozzo

 

Even though this transcript is a little messy, you get a strong sense of what the lay questioner has been experiencing from clerics in his area.

This also gives us a sense of the general orientation of the new leadership of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei".  Among the various things this tells us is the important fact that Msgr. Pozzo is responding to correspondence.

I received some very bad news.

May I ask your prayers for an intention?

Thanks!

UPDATE:

More at the blog of His Hermeneuticalness HERE and HERE.

Check also:

Mulier Fortis
Bara Brith
Singulare Ingenium

St Mary Magdalen, Brighton
Roman Christendom
Puella Paschalis
That the bones you have crushed may thrill
Catholic Commentary

______________

We are off to the event! A few of us jumped up to the upper deck of our Routemaster RM5.

From a reader:

I’ve not written to you before, but I’m really looking for some help here.  I am from England.  I go to the Traditional Mass, which I love, at the London Oratory every Saturday and Sunday, and the Latin Novus Ordo in the week, when possible, also at the Oratory.  Very occasionally, when I am away from home, I attend the Novus Ordo in the vernacular.  I recently got a book by Father Paul L Kramer, B.Ph., S.T.B., M. Div., S.T.L (Cand) called "The Suicide of altering the Faith in the Liturgy".  I was very disturbed when I read it.  Trying to find some further advice/guidance, I found your four articles on the ‘Pro Multis’ issue, http://wdtprs.com/blog/category/wdtprs/pro-multis which I read.  Fr Kramer’s book is very worrying to say the least [I think not.]  . . . in light of what you have written in your four articles, what do you make of this paragraph from the book?
 
"It needs to be emphasised that a Mass which is probably invalid or even probably valid, even if there is a relatively high probability of validity, is totally and gravely illicit, since the Church’s moral doctrine, set forth by Pope Innocent XI (see Footnote) clearly forbids probably valid sacraments.  Thus, it is gravely sinful (in the objective moral order) for anyone to celebrate or attend Mass when the vernacular expression "for all" is used in the consecration of the chalice, since that formula of consecration is not certainly valid . . . "
 
Footnote:- "In conferring the sacraments, as also in the consecration in the Mass, it is never allowed to adopt a probable course of action as to validity and to abandon the safer course.  The contrary was explicitly condemned by Pope Innocent XI (1670-1676)" – Fr Henry Davis, S.J. Moral and Pastoral Theology, v.3, p27.
 
I would be grateful for some advice.  I know that you say that the term "For All" doesn’t invalidate the Mass, but I wondered what you made of the above quotation.  Some friends of mine advise that I should go to the SSPX . . . I don’t know what to do sometimes.

What do I make of the quotation?  I suggest that Fr. Kramer has very little standing to make any such interpretation.

Paul VI and John Paul II were Popes.  They were no less Popes than Innocent XI.  They promulgated the post-Conciliar editions of the Missal.  Popes don’t give Holy Church Missals with texts for invalid Masses. You might not like what they promulgated in every respect, but the Masses are not invalid.  You might think that the texts of the previous Missal were superior, but the newer texts are not invalid.

Fr. Kramer’s insinuations were imprudent.

People can argue about whether or not the texts of the Novus Ordo rite of Mass are good, or whether they convey a somewhat different theology than that of the older, pre-Conciliar Missale Romanum.  People can like or not like, for various reasons, the Novus Ordo.  But it is wrong to say that Mass with the post-Conciliar editions is invalid.  To do so implies that you think your own authority is above that of the Vicar of Christ. 

I will be delighted with the new translation of the Novus Ordo is released, with its correct rendering of pro multis, and this tired controversy is put to rest.

From a reader:

I was at Mass a little early today and noticed that a few lay helpers approached the tabernacle, and then I watched as they took a ciborium back to the narthex where the rest the of the gifts were waiting for the presentation later during Mass. Is this normal? I would believe that unconsecrated hosts used during Mass would have originated from the sacristy and not the Tabernacle. Did I just witness them try to reconsecrate already consecrated hosts?!
 
Thanks in advance for any info Father. If that’s the case I will be contacting the Bishop immediately.

A few things strike me about this.

First, it is all a little vague.

I don’t know what you saw.  You too, apparently, don’t know what you saw.

And yet you are pretty worked up about it, it seems.

Do you really think that some priest would be trying to consecrate consecrated Hosts?

That said, it would be very incorrect to have ciboria of consecrated Hosts on the altar in full view at the time of the consecration, or that they should be brought to the altar at the time of the offertory.   It would cause people to wonder… as you are wondering.

Back to your observations.  If this happens all the time at Mass, and this can be documentation, then something ought to be done about it.

You see… even if you don’t really know what happened, if it were to be repeated, there might be a very grave abuse going on.  In no way should the impression be given that any Host have to be reconsecrated for that Mass.  That would be a sort of Lutheran thing to do.  While they believe that their eucharist has somehow the presence of Christ together with the bread and wine, after that presence is no longer need, it is not there.  You have simple bread and wine again, which you could return to the bottle or basket or reuse if need be.  Some Lutherans are become more strongly sacramental about their eucharist, but this is generally the way it goes.

God forbid that any Catholic priest should ever develop any practice that might cause people to wonder about his sacramental theology.

If you were to see this again, I might approach the pastor/priest and ask what happened.  You might follow up his answer (if it indeed tells you something strange) with a letter just to get things straight.  Then you have a start of some documentation before you involve the bishop.

Of course if the guy is entirely off the wall and uncooperative, then the bishop must be contacted right away, as well, perhaps, as the CDW.

But I would admonish you: sometimes people think they see something and they didn’t.  Sometimes people think they understood what what they saw, but didn’t.

Check yourself before huffing and puffing.

Lifesite has a transcript of an interview with His Eminence Antonio Card. Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Cong. for Divine Worship.

 

Formerly Archbishop of Toledo, Spain, Cardinal Cañizares is the current Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, that has competence over the way in which Mass is celebrated throughout the world. He was elevated to the cardinalate in 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI.

ROME, Italy, July 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – With the help of a translator, the Cardinal kindly consented to speak with LifeSiteNews.com on July 24th at the offices of the Congregation on the Via della Conciliazione in Rome, down the road from St. Peter’s Basilica and the Apostolic Palace.

* * *

LSN: What is the connection between faithfulness to the norms of the liturgy and faithfulness to the Church’s moral teachings?

Cardinal Canizares Llovera: There is no doubt about the connection.

To recognise what is the Eucharist is to recognise Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Son of God that became man. Christ is the most absolute ‘yes’ of God to man. He is the revelation of God and the revelation of the truth about man. Man cannot be separated from God; man was created in the image and likeness of God.

In creation, God manifests Himself as love in favour of man. In His Son, the true image of the Father, we have been created in the image of the Son. For that reason, all human beings have a greatness and a dignity that cannot be separated or violated.

Jesus Christ shows the face of God that loves man to the utter extremes. The biggest demonstration of this love of Jesus for Man is seen on the cross, dying for man. But this love could not be destroyed or chained by death. It has triumphed over death. The love of Jesus, Son of God, brought to an extreme on the cross, shows how all men are loved by God with a love from which nothing and no one can separate us. Each man has been saved or repurchased by the blood of Christ, which is the blood of God. This is how much every human being is worth, the blood of God. [The Cardinal points out that God loves man so much that He deigned to shed His Blood for him.  However, I think it is useful to point out that that phrase "This is how much every being is worth", might be over stating it is.  The fact is that nothing human is on the same level of "worth" as the divine, even the divine which is also human.  With that slight caveat, let’s get to the important conclusion the Cardinal wants to make:]

For that reason, between the Eucharist and the defence of life there is a link that cannot be separated. To live the Eucharist, is to enter in communion with Jesus Christ and as a consequence with His love. This is a communion of life and makes us participate in the life which is Christ. Divine life, eternal life, but at the same time it makes us be givers or carriers of love and defenders of life. [Note the connection of Eucharist and a consequence.  Let’s take "Eucharist" as being not only the Blesses Sacrament Itself but also the celebration of the Eucharist, which is Holy Mass.  The "Eucharist" in this sense is, as the Second Vatican Council stated, the "source and summit".]

If the Christians would live all that the Eucharist means, we would be defenders of life in every moment.

LSN: We were wondering since the issue is very serious in the US and growing more so in Britain and Canada if there is planned a definitive statement or teaching on the reception of Communion by politicians and public figures who reject the Church’s teaching on life. The issue still hasn’t been resolved since the US election in 2004. [A great question!]

Cardinal Canizares Llovera: I think that the strongest words are found in St. Paul: one who goes to the Eucharist and is not properly prepared, duly prepared, "he eats his own condemnation." This is the strongest thing that we can say and what is the most truthful statement.

When the Church states that to take part in or request an abortion, to take an active role in one way or the other, the person incurs automatically excommunication. This means that politicians should become aware and they should be helped to become aware of the gravity of their conduct. When they approve laws against life, in favour of abortion or euthanasia, priest and bishops should say this.

I don’t know if there’s going to be a document on the politicians who are in favour of abortion, [He doesn’t know this… but he mentions it…. why…?] but the politicians have to be conscious of the teachings of the Church that I have just pointed out.

LSN: There’s a conflict in the US now. There are some bishops who are saying they will speak to, educate and address the issue with these people but they refuse to refuse. Others are saying, ‘No, you may not receive Communion in my diocese". How is that conflict going to be resolved?

Cardinal Canizares Llovera: I cannot judge one group of bishops or the other group of bishops but I think that all of us know what has to be done, or should be done. In the presence of cases of public sinners … at the same time we don’t know what is happening in the consciences of those politicians. [That’s right.  We don’t.  But do we have to?  We see their actions.  When their actions have been seen by everyone, when they are public, they have committed public scandal.  That must be repaired in a similarly public way.  It seems to me that a bishop could deny Communion to a very visible and public pro-abortion Catholic politician, even one who has privately repented his views, on the grounds that he has not yet taken steps to repair the public scandal he caused.]  I understand the prudence with which we have to act. But I think also that it is our duty to clarify their consciences. To help the person to act in accordance with a right and true conscience. Bishops have a function to help the due formation of conscience. To form consciences in such a way that people should act in accordance with the truth. [His Eminence was, until recently, also Archbishop of Toledo.  I don’t know enough about what happened in Spain, in Toledo, with the problem of pro-abortion Catholic public figures, but I wonder how Card. Canizares handled the situation or what he said at the level of the Spanish bishops conference.]

The pope JPII in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae offers criteria that show how politicians should act with regards to the questions of life. Also the congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction when Cardinal Ratzinger was the prefect on the way politicians should act on these questions of life. Also the most recent encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, when he was referring to abortion offers criteria in such a way that politicians should act in accordance with truth.

I believe that the Pauline principle, that gives the title to the most recent encyclical of Benedict XVI, Caritas in Veritate, should be the principle that guides us to speak about this question. This principle, Caritas in Veritate [Love in Truth] should be the principle first for politicians when they come to Communion, and second it should be the rule for bishops when they decide to give or to withdraw Communion.

LSN: Is there a movement in the Vatican to return to the traditional manner of reception of Communion? (With the recipient kneeling and the host placed directly on the tongue.)

Cardinal Canizares Llovera: There is no resolution that forbids giving Communion in the mouth. [Except, Your Eminence, where some local bishops are doing just that, right?]  In the same way, there is no norm that forbids Communion in the hand. [Hmmm… in a sense there is, no?  The norm is that Communion is to be received on the tongue and there is presently an exception for that norm in those places where local bishops permit the exception to be applied.] Neither can be forbidden. Neither one nor the other. [Well… Redemptionis Sacramentum 92 states that it is not to be give where there is risk of profanation.] This means that Communion in the mouth has a long history and tradition that expresses in a profound way the sense of adoration, reverence in the presence of the body of Christ. Everything that is at stake in the real presence of Christ. If Communion in the mouth goes with the gesture of kneeling, it expresses in a stronger way, with stronger force, the real presence of Christ, the sense of adoration, the participation in the body of Christ that offers Himself for us. [Sooo… if this is the better way to do it… why isn’t it the only norm?]

If the papal liturgy is a sign, an indication for all the Church, we should promote Communion kneeling and in the mouth. But, this does not mean not permitting or forbidding Communion in the hand if it is done with due respect. [Though clearly this is a "weaker way, with weaker force", right?] With a previous gesture of adoration. This could be kneeling, or a genuflection or with a deep bow. And also in the moment of receiving Communion, the right hand should be placed under the left hand forming a cross expressing in this way the recognition of the real presence of the body of Christ offered for us. We should take care that no particle should be lost. [Harder to do with Communion in the hand though, right?] And the body of Christ should be received in front of the priest.

We should recognise that frequently Communion in the hand many times is not received in this way.

It is very lamentable. [So lamentable that maybe we should… I don’t know… do something about it?  Just askin’.]

LSN: We know that over the years a great many people have seen and complained about abuses of the liturgy at Mass. What can the faithful do when they see these?

Cardinal Canizares Llovera: They should say to the priest immediately after Mass as a part of fraternal correction. [Hmmm… I am not trying to be contrary, but it seems to me that people often think some things which are actually right are wrong.] If it is not possible, they should say to the bishop. If the bishop does not act, they should come here and report it to the Congregation. [And Redemptionis Sacramentum also says that people can always have direct recourse to the Holy See.]

There are two documents that are important. One by the Cong. for Divine Worship, Redemptionis Sacramentum, that talks about some of these abuses and talks about the rights of the faithful and how they should act.

The other is Sacramentum Caritatis, of Benedict XVI that also gives criteria on the way that the Eucharist is abused. [As well as guidelines for better celebration.]

We should all fight to avoid abuses against the Eucharist. It is the holiest, greatest, most important [thing] in the Church and in life. We should respect the Eucharist and the rules and discipline of the Church that give the warranty of ecclesial communion that has its sources, its roots, its truth in the Eucharist, in the celebration of the Eucharist, in the rite that the Church has indicated.

LSN: Is the liturgical revolution over? Is the Church in general becoming more balanced about the liturgy?

We’re still suffering it but also we are in a moment of great hope. The Pope Benedict XVI makes the renewal of the spirit of liturgy to rekindle in the conscience of all the true sense of the liturgy. [As a matter of fact, I think it is clear that Pope Benedict has a plan for the revitalization of the Church.  I call it his "Marshall Plan".] Which should help to impose a great new unstoppable liturgical movement. ["a great new unstoppable liturgical movement"] Nevertheless, [get this…] we have not yet applied in a truthful way the teachings of Vatican II read in continuity with the tradition of the Church. [Exactly.] This is the commitment of this congregation continuing the [work of the] Holy Father that presides over us in faith and charity and over the whole Church.

We want a Church that should be present in the world, [or, active in the public square…] that is ready to transform the world and [lead] the renewal of mankind in accordance with God’s will. This will not be possible without Sacrosanctum Concilium, without liturgy, adoration,  without putting God in the centre of all, living of God’s gift, and offering Him whatever we are in order to bring about His will.

In other words, there is no new humanity [This is an important point.  Progressivists are very keen on claiming that modern man is "all grown up" now.  We don’t have to do childish things such as kneel.  We are now homo sapiens sapiens.  Aren’t we special now?  But Card. Canizares is exactly right.  Change as we may through various advancements, human beings remain fundamentally the same.] and there is no hope for man that is not grounded in God that would come from God and would return everything to God as His glory. The future of humanity is in the liturgy. When we read the last encyclical of the Holy Father, we can understand that the liturgy occupies a central role in the concerns of the Holy Father.

The great Fr. Nicola Bux has excellent comments about the reception of Holy Communion.  They are posted (back on 20 July) on the Italian language site Pontifex.Roma.

He makes the observation that reception of Holy Communion standing is not necessarily bad.  It can be reverent, especially when received with a proper understanding, signs of reverence, head coverings for women, etc.  But often it seems as if people are queuing for buffet.

Furthermore, people often go to Communion rather mechanically, without a sense of what they are about or what Communion is.

Reception of Holy Communion kneeling could be a real help for a return to greater understanding and devotion.

From a reader:

To begin with, I was born in the late 1970’s in the Milwaukee Archdiocese, so I’ve had my share of erroneous interpretation and liturgical abuse.  I have also found small bastions of the OF ["Ordinary Form" or Novus Ordo] celebrated with an attempt towards dignity.

I also am aware of the complaints that some of my older relatives had towards the EF, [Extraordinary Form or "old Mass" or Traditional Latin Mass] namely the incomprehensibility of Latin.  [NB: Not the fault of the Mass.] I have learned some in high school, but I am awfully rusty.  I went without a Missal.

So, with that in mind, I went to a Low Mass this morning. 

My first impression when I walked in the door was, "good, I’m not late".  My second was, "hmm…lots of reserved signs for small children".  The back half was, in fact, entirely reserved for such.  It took me some time to run the numbers in the back of my head before Mass began.  There were probably a little over a hundred people there, at least ten of which were less than a year old.  That is probably the same number of infants in a given Mass in my parish of a thousand families.  I also noted that the vast majority of adults attending were my age or younger.  It is just stunning to see people actually serious about the hard parts of their Faith.  [A common experience for new comers: they are amazed at the number of young people, young families.]

The Church is beautiful, perhaps not a masterpiece of art and splendour, but nothing to laugh at either.  I’d certainly prefer to be there today than the Cathedral in terms of ambiance.  [Especially after what Archbp. Weakland did to it.]

Father speaks a few announcements, and I notice a heavy French accent, though not Parisian.  This might be odd, and a little tough, but I’ve comprehended worse.

Mass begins, and I am rather taken aback by how quickly he speaks the prayers.  I may be rusty, but I have enormous difficulty even catching individual words.  There are no breaks except when he moves from book to book.  I ask myself, "how does he breath?" [Yes… I think this is a legitimate criticism.  Sometimes priests don’t account for the fact that the prayers are language and not merely formulas.]

We then hear the reading, Gospel and Homily.  I’d say it is a very solid homily, especially for one of the more difficult Gospels.  He wasn’t Fulton Sheen, but I do wish such homilies were more common.  [Not many priests are.] Even so, he does speak longer than the average OF homily.

For the most part, I can ape through the various postures,  though the genuflections are a bit akward (I’m a big guy, so it takes a little longer). 

By the time Communion begins, I rue that I didn’t sit further back.  I’ve never received Communion like this before. [!] I thankfully figured out that my hands must be beneath the cloth when I receive the Sacrament in time.  My mind is still racing while I get up that I go back to my pew the wrong way.  I felt silly by the time I figured this out, but that’s just how it goes.  Oh well.   [Yes.  But the next time will be much easier.]

Mass concludes, and I am still reeling.  I pray for a little, then leave quietly.  On my way out I notice a rack of pamphlets.  There is one that catches my eye – an encyclical concerning atheistic communism.  I didn’t know if I had to pay for any of these, as this one was rather thick.  It would be an interesting read, and it’s a shame that it has been forgotten as much as H.V.

All in all, it was a positive experience.  Even so, I kinda wished Father hadn’t rattled off the prayers quite so much. 

It is always interesting to hear or read first impressions of the older form, especially from people who are young enough not to have known it at all when growing up.