Diocesan newspaper editor writes…well… you decide for yourselves

From a reader:

This "perspective" was published by the editor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, NY official newspaper.  In all likelihood it will go unchallenged and the agony will continue, of which it seems, to be ridiculous articles week in and week out. 


 
PERSPECTIVE
Christ’s feast curtailed

BY CHRISTOPHER D. RINGWALD
EDITOR

While traveling, my family attended a Mass where more than half the congregants took the wine at Communion. It contrasted happily [this is a professional writer?] with common practice.  [And this statement reveals a lack of care in speaking about the Most Holy Eucharist.   First, they "took" instead of received.  Second, this is not "wine".]

Based on my periodic tallies, a minority of us receive both the Body and Blood of Jesus. [So it is the Blood of Christ?] With-out requiring it, the Church urges us to take both to better participate in the sacrament. To receive only the host reduces the sacrament. [...!? ... "reduces the sacrament".  I see.  Sooo... I am reminded of an answer received in seminary when seminiarns eventually complained about the nearly impossible to chew and swallow "substantial" bread in use.  The incredible answer that came back from a priest... I am not making this up... "the longer you chew the more of a sacrament it is".  Anyone see anything wrong with that?]

Christ did bless and share both the bread and wine. He represents God incarnate in human form, [Okay... this is just getting better and better.  Christ represents God in human form.  I think he is either a Arian or, perhaps a Docetist.  Or both?  Remember: this is the editor of a Catholic newspaper.] and we are made of both flesh and blood. To receive only the host is, to me, like eating food without tasting it, or akin to loving someone but never touching that person. Why deprive yourself[Hmmm.  Why indeed.  I wonder to what other things we might apply that principle?]

Less acceptable is the large proportion of parishes that offer only the Body of Christ. To see the priest take the wine but not share it with all offends [OFFENDS] even schoolyard rules and violates the spirit of Vatican II. Yes, there may be reasons – flu, leftover wine, lingering Jansenism – but Christ’s love rolls over those. Don’t hold back: take and eat, take and drink.
(08/13/09)

This person is the editor of a Catholic newspaper?

Since this is the editor of the paper, should we conclude that the views expressed in this editorial are shared by the bishop who is its publisher?

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to Diocesan newspaper editor writes…well… you decide for yourselves

  1. Sedgwick says:

    Yes Father, this is what fills the bureaucratic ranks of the Conciliar Church. You should have seen what the (Occasionally) Catholic Telegraph, here in Cincinnati, tried to do to Mel Gibson’s “Passion of the Christ” when it came out. Not to mention their weekly dose of ethically nuanced dissent from Xavier theologians, and their recent full-page coverage of a Voice of the Faithful planning meeting here (when I objected to +Pilarczyk about this latter scandal, he replied that it was “newsworthy.”)

    Don’t know anything about the Bishop of Albany, but I’d bet you a sack of birdseed that he’s not among the ranks of “brick by brick.”

  2. Sedgwick says:

    PS – VOTF has +Pilarczyk’s permission to meet on Church property in Cincinnati.

  3. MargaretMN says:

    I think he is 1/4 or even 1/2 right , if you overlook the awkward and incorrect way he writes about his experience. It *is* too bad that most people don’t participate in communion under both species. I didn’t for a few years when I attended Mass at parishes where they had the “communal cup.” I had pretty extensive experience with that, even as a Eucharistic Minister at one point. I found it an unedifying experience, being forced to confront issues of cleanliness (and more, I won’t say as it does not bear thinking too much about now.) So until I went back to the practice of receiving on the tongue, I did not experience the sacrament in its full expression and possibility and I am grateful to do so now, in the proper way. I think this is one of those places where the faithful are voting with their behavior because these parishes are getting it wrong.

  4. Lori Ehrman says:

    Wow is right. It’s like this editor needs the Catholicism for Dummies book. It was written almost entirely with him in mind I think.

  5. The Astronomer says:

    Unfortunately, Fr Z, here again we see the flip side of the maxim “lex orandi, lex credenti…” Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us…

  6. TNCath says:

    Strange, strange. This sounds remarkably similar to recent articles in U.S. Catholic. Those poor people in Albany.

  7. chloesmom says:

    Ewww …

  8. Brian Day says:

    To receive only the host reduces the sacrament.

    The The Church fathers at the Council of Trent say otherwise.

  9. Chris says:

    Father, your first mistake is considering this rag a Catholic newspaper …

  10. EXCHIEF says:

    Pity is this Editor is closer to the truth than many editors of diocesan Catholic publications….at least the ones I have seen. They are terrible.

  11. Chris says:

    Father, your first mistake was to consider this a “Catholic” newspaper. I challenge anyone outside the diocese of Campos to show me a diocian paper that is authentically Catholic and distinguishable to any protestant local paper.

  12. Frank H says:

    I note that one of the Albany paper’s regular columns is “Called to be Church”. Ugh.

  13. Vincent says:

    Huh. For some reason I seem to have never come across any of these “large proportion” of parishes that do not make available the chalice. I wonder where they are to be found?

  14. Roland de Chanson says:

    Christ represents God in human form.

    Why not? After all, the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.

    Ut docentur, sic discunt.

    As Juvenal remarked, nemo repente fuit turpissimus. These heresies have been nurtured for nearly half a century and have led many souls to the easy descent to Avernus. If molesters go unpunished, what has a theological dolt to fear?

    Even as I repent my Augustinian sins of the flesh, so I take solace in my pre-conciliar orthodoxy.

    Non praevalebunt? Immo vero magna ex parte, ut videtur, praevaluerunt.

  15. markofmo says:

    About the editor referring to the Precious Blood as “wine”: the texts of Eucharistic prayers ask for that kind of mentality when, after the consecration, they go on – “When we eat this BREAD and drink this cup…”; “we ofer you, Father, this life-giving BREAD, this saving cup.” (Eucharistic Prayer II); “gather all who share this one BREAD and one cup” (Eucharistic Prayer IV). However, that being said, an editor of a Catholic paper should know better! Unfortunately, this is not suprising.

  16. Frank H says:

    Couldn’t agree more, markofmo. That acclamation, and the verbiage in EP II and IV drive me to distraction. And it appears that they remain in the new English translation, so, without looking to verify, it would seem that the problem must lie with the Latin text.

  17. Jack Hughes says:

    Chris

    Its more of a monthly district letter than a newspaper but the UK/Scandinavian SSPX district has a wonderful Catholic newsletter each month

    FR Z

    Kudos for showing us that terriable ‘catholic’ newspapers are not limited to ma pepminster’s ‘bitter pill’

  18. Mike Morrow says:

    “It is too bad that most people don’t participate in communion under both species.”

    and

    “So until I went back to the practice of receiving on the tongue, I did not experience the sacrament in its full expression and possibility and I am grateful to do so now…”

    This is a very contradictory post. If one attends a proper traditional Mass, as celebrated for more than 1500 years, the laity do not receive Communion under both species. If one attends a novus ordo newchurch, those that returned to “communion on the tongue” seem wisely to have eliminated that ostentatious, vulgar demonstration of false piety known as “communion of both species” for the laity. It is a repulsively vile demonstration by the superfluous yet self-important EMHCs, and also by those who receive from those EMHCs.

    What was good enough for people for 1500 years is apparently not good enough for the post-1965 “it’s all about me” folks. The editor of this newchurch rag is one of such imbecile. Fortunately, he appears not to be fluent in English!

  19. Tom A. says:

    The last time I went to a NO Mass in the Albany area, a women in an alb gave the homily. Nuff said.

  20. Oleksander says:

    Jansenism LOL

  21. Central Valley says:

    If you think this article is bad, take a look at the diocese newspaper of the diocese of Fresno, Ca. When you look at most “catholic” newspapers of many diocese in the United States, it makes you break out the credit card and subscibe the the Wanderer. The Wanderer is a new paper that should be found in every catholic home. The Wanderer has always been faithful to Holy Mother Church. Can you say the same of the average American diocese newspaper?

  22. Heresy….

    It almost wants to make me subscribe to the Tidings…(which I think my old parish sends to my house on purpose)

    This guy needs to be fired immediately

  23. Jane says:

    The editor of this “Catholic Newspaper” should be dispatched to the unemployment line immediately.

  24. Warren says:

    Who hired the Episcopalian to work for a Catholic newspaper?

  25. Athanasius says:

    Sad to say, the Tidings is better written than this toilet paper. They at least use some kind of style and try to hide the heresy.

  26. pattif says:

    I think the problem for this guy (and, f you’ll forgive me for saying so, for MargaretMN as well) starts with the GIRM, which states at No. 85:

    “It is most desirable that the faithful, just as the priest himself is bound to do, receive the Lord’s Body from hosts consecrated at the same Mass and that, in the instances when it is permitted, they partake of the chalice (cf. below, no. 283), so that even by means of the signs Communion will stand out more clearly as a participation in the sacrifice actually being celebrated.”

    Silly me – I thought it was “…an evil and adulterous generation that asks for a sign…” (Mt 12:39).

  27. ssoldie says:

    My! more fruits of Vatican II “pastoral council” inovations in words and deeds, if I would use one word to discribe the documents of Vatican II and the ‘Mass’ of Annabelle Bugnini………..Ambiguity…..

  28. Tina in Ashburn says:

    No, we receive God in His entirety when receiving either the Body or Blood. The author demonstrates how constant bad example changes what Catholics believe.

    The mistakes in this article should be retracted and corrected. Maybe the author oughta be fired. If this is typical of this paper then maybe the paper should be closed down until further notice, to stop the damage this is doing to the Church.

    No wonder the Tridentine Mass isn’t accepted everywhere. If folks don’t understand the Ordinary Mass we have today, how can they possibly appreciate the differences of the Extraordinary Form?

    I read something like this and wonder how the misinformation of the past 50 years can ever be overcome. We have lost at least two or three generations of Catholics through abusive practices at Mass and in religious education, a dearth of faithful teaching combined with a barrage of bad example and out and out bad catechetics.

    And a breakdown of authority.

    We need more courageous pastors and bishops. Again I am reminded of how the apostles fell asleep and then fled as Christ underwent His Passion. We laity cannot fight this battle ourselves, we need a faithful and engaged hierarchy to overcome this mess.

    Thank you Father for your efforts!!

    Our Arlington Catholic Herald isn’t so bad, and is improving with our new editor now that the previous editor retired.

  29. Kerry says:

    They “took the wine”? Where did they take it to?

  30. Dismas says:

    Well, Modernism does embrace every heresy, doesn’t it Mr. Hus?

  31. Peggy R says:

    Our pastor a few months ago admonished people for not receiving Our Lord’s Precious Blood. Yet, I don’t recall that he called it merely wine or claimed that we don’t receive the Lord’s Body and Blood in the consecrated host. I thought he came close to the latter, however.

    This kind of column is sadly par for the course it would appear. Our diocesan editor is of the habit of writing columns entirely irrelevant to Catholicism, or tangentially related at best. She wrote a few months ago a column musing about microchips in our bodies. Okkayyy…???? Hard to find a Catholic message in that.

    http://www.bellevillemessenger.org/archive/041609/quirin_041609.aspx

  32. Sedgwick,

    As a former resident of the Archdiocese of Cincinnati I am looking forward to the current Archbishop’s upcoming retirement. He is of the Weakland/Bernadin generation of :spirit of Vatican II” shepherds.

    I have hopes that the new Archbishop, Dennis Schnurr, won’t tolerate an anti-Catholic organization like VOTF operating with the aid and blessing of the diocese. I’ve heard good things about Schnurr and hope he’s another of the Holy Father’s more traditionalist and faithful shepherds that Rome has been appointing everywhere the past few years.

  33. Agnes says:

    Just the whole article – LOL!!!

  34. I also recalled these comments on several issues from Archbishop Schnurr which I found vedry encouraging, especially re: abuses in the liturgy and a comment on TLM:

    http://richleonardi.blogspot.com/2009/06/teachings-of-christ-and-doctrine-of.html

  35. Aaron says:

    ‘Huh. For some reason I seem to have never come across any of these “large proportion” of parishes that do not make available the chalice. I wonder where they are to be found?’ — Vincent

    No kidding. I couldn’t find one in my area when I was looking, before we started a TLM. I could find lots of places where the Blood was offered at every single Mass but 2/3 of the people passed it up. Presumably they weren’t interested in sharing germs, or they were traditional enough to know something wasn’t right. I think the people who really want to receive the Blood (especially at every Mass) are a small minority, but a very vocal one.

  36. Denis Crnkovic says:

    Utraquist alert!! Yes, Dismas’ comment brings up a scary thought: insisting that a customary practice has greater significance than it does can have far reaching and tragic consequences. The Hussites, proudly at first and eventually arrogantly, displayed the chalice rather than the crucifix as their main symbol and their heresies, among others, eventually led to the defenestration of Prague and the Thirty Years’ War.

    If you over-analyze a word or symbol or fail to understand its full import you can find almost any meaning in it, a la Ecclesiasticus. Luther concluded that the bread and wine were not transubstantiated because the Bible refers to receiving the consecrated elements as “bread” and “wine”. Luther thought too much and spoke a lot and propagated a lasting error.

    A clear but perhaps extreme example of how overuse and misuse of terms can be dangerous arose yesterday. At Mass we were told why the diocese has a directive to use “fresh” hosts at Sunday Masses (v. pattif’s post and citation to GIRM No. 85 above), in itself a worthy enough practice. However, the celebrant’s reference to the consecrated hosts removed to the tabernacle after communion as “the leftovers” was a bit jarring. The choice of the term was unfortunate because of its connotation as second rate and undesirable goods. Of course no one in the congregation took the word in that sense, but its use can serve as a cautionary tale: suppose one were to hear this term over a long period of time. It is possible that a heresy could arise from it: “leftovers = diminished value = no longer the Real Presence = the sacrament has a limited temporal life = the body reverts to bread” Okay, this is extreme, but it is one way heresies arise.

    Our teachers, whether ordained clerics or published theologians or newspaper editors, need to be well trained in the teachings of the Church and expert thinkers with a good knowledge of how language works, of how influential phrasing and word choices can be. Mr Ringwald’s writing is so sloppy that his ideas are wrong. Unfortunately we are too often subjected to the same sloppiness from the pulpit from priests who never prepare their sermons and so wind up making questionable statements.

  37. ruben says:

    I think it is interesting and sad to note how the dictum “a thing is received according to the mode of the receiver” is demonstrated by the disposition of the writer. Is he to presume that we are supposed to expect that the mass and sacraments are to be administered according to our own whim and that the physical signs are to be configured to our own personality? What arrogance for us to presume that the mass should conform to our personality. Our personality and our being should be configured to Christ in the Mass. It is after all HIS prayer.

  38. THREEHEARTS says:

    As a catechist aged 7. Sister Joseph taught us/me ever to chew the Host. She pointed out we may have food decaying in our mouths and we should let the Host melt in our mouths. We looked at this as the fire of our love consuming the Sacrifice.

  39. My husband and I were members of this Diocese for two years (2007 to 2009), attending the EF at St. Peter’s Church in Troy. This Mass was held weekly at noon in a beautiful church, fit for the glory of God. We also attended the 6 PM Sunday night Mass at the Cathedral, whcih was being “renovated” (And check ou The Wanderer for their stories on the renovations and His Excellency, Bishop Hubbard_ YUCK factor is HIGH) One wondered if the Mass was valid due to the “sermons”, and the womyn on the altar. (These sojourns would be due to my husband’s job as a signals manager for CSX) The diocesan paper and article above are what one gets in this diocese. This past May, St. Peter’s the oldest church in Troy, was shuttered, along with several other churches. St. peter’s was the ONLY location within the diocese where this Mass was offered, so of course she went on the chopping block. I do not know where the EF was moved to, as we are in Ohio, where it is celebrated more freely in the Dioces of Cleveland, and our parish in Akron, St. Mary’s is wonderful (but on the closure list- is there a trend for our family). Even the NO Masses have NO womyn on the altar and the communion rail is used, and there is a line to the far left of the church for those who prefer to stand to receive the Eucharist. The pastor, Father Burba is wonderful and well liked in the diocese from from I can discern.

  40. Jordanes says:

    I wouldn’t have expected anything else from the newspaper of the diocese of Bishop Hubbard.

    Roland said: “Christ represents God in human form.” Why not? After all, the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.

    The heresy that Christ represents God in human form has gotten absolutely nothing to do with the Church’s doctrine that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church.

    Markofmo said: About the editor referring to the Precious Blood as “wine”: the texts of Eucharistic prayers ask for that kind of mentality when, after the consecration, they go on – “When we eat this BREAD and drink this cup…”; “we ofer you, Father, this life-giving BREAD, this saving cup.” (Eucharistic Prayer II); “gather all who share this one BREAD and one cup” (Eucharistic Prayer IV).

    Frank H said: Couldn’t agree more, markofmo. That acclamation, and the verbiage in EP II and IV drive me to distraction. And it appears that they remain in the new English translation, so, without looking to verify, it would seem that the problem must lie with the Latin text.

    Yes, when those Eucharistic Prayers and the second optional memorial acclamation speak of the consecrated host as “Bread,” it is an accurate translation of the Latin. There’s nothing wrong with that, though, unless we also wish to fault the Holy Spirit for prompting St. Paul to speak of the Eucharist in those terms. It is biblical language. (The acclamation, by the way, reads in Latin: Quotiescumque manducamus panem hunc et calicem bibimus, mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, donec venias
    “Whensoever we eat this Bread and drink this Chalice, Thy death we proclaim, O Lord, until Thou comest.” It is taken from I Cor. 11:26, Quotiescumque enim manducabitis panem hunc, et calicem bibetis, mortem Domini annuntiabitis donec veniat — As often as you shall eat this Bread and drink the Cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord, until He comes.”.)

  41. Jordanes says:

    “Has gotten”? Don’t know what language I was writing . . .

  42. scaron says:

    I caught this link from a tweet from New Advent – it’s title was “Diocesan newspaper editor writes …”. As a lifelong resident of the Albany Diocese, I *knew* they would be talking about “The Evangelist”. Sigh …

  43. Sam Schmitt says:

    Yes, Jordanes, there’s no use replying to sloppy language with more sloppiness – “When we eat this Bread . . . ” is actually taken from St. Paul (I Corinthians 11:26). St Paul also refers to the Eucharist as “Bread” in 1 Corinthians 10:16: “And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”

    Not to mention Our Lord Himself referring to His own Flesh as the “Bread of Life” . . .

  44. FranzJosf says:

    I’m sorry to say I didn’t follow my own advice of pausing before I wrote a letter to Mr. Ringwald; it was a bit of a rant. Anyway, to his credit replied promptly and calmly and would like to speak with me on the telephone. (I live in the Diocese of Albany.) I give him credit for that, and I look forward to speaking with him, and I will remain calm and polite throughout.

  45. TJM says:

    Isn’t the bishop of Albany an uber-liberal? Thus this editor is on safe ground? Tom

  46. jamie r says:

    In addition to the Eucharist actually being the body and blood of Christ, it also has symbolic value as such (I suppose it would be more precise to talk about the accidents having symbolic value). Otherwise, we wouldn’t break it, we wouldn’t stamp images on the hosts, etc. You can only sense the accidents, and that presumably has some value, otherwise the elevation and adoration would be pointless. The accidents, as perceived, are an important part of the reception of communion.

    In a certain respect, then, no matter how clumsily and inartfully put, his argument makes some sense. Christ did give us both accidents, and while receiving only under one species is a complete Eucharist, with regards to our order of knowing and experiencing, receiving under both species is also of value. Perhaps I am being too charitable, but he reads more clumsy and poorly read than actively heretical.

    Also saying “Christ represents God incarnate in human form” doesn’t make him an Arian or a docetist, because neither of them would talk about “God incarnate.” He’s either bad at typing or an idiot who doesn’t realize that “God incarnate in human form” is either nonsensical or redundant, and that it’s equally stupid to say that Christ represents an incarnate God. Docetists and Arians were much too intellectually serious to talk about representing an incarnate God in human form.

  47. Jeff Pinyan says:

    patti (17 August 2009 @ 5:21 am), I think you’re a bit out of line equating Communion under both kinds (in GIRM 85 and Sacrosanctum Concilium 55 and Eucharisticum Mysterium 32) with the request for a sign from “an evil and adulterous generation”. If that’s the case, we should rid ourselves of all “signs”: water, bread, wine, etc.

  48. Sedgwick says:

    Justin in Ohio, I’m with you on +Schnurr. I’ve met him, heard him speak twice, and heard nothing but good about him. He’s been here almost a year, so he should have a pretty good idea of what he’s up against in this nest of dissent cultivated by +Pilarczyk. May God grant him strength and wisdom and perseverance.

  49. More importantly, all sacraments are “visible signs”, etc.

    So yeah, getting carried away with zeal one way to escape the ditch of heresy one way, you can fall into the opposite ditch of heresy the other way. Or at least of making statements that other people take the wrong way. :)

  50. Carolina Geo says:

    “This person is the editor of a Catholic newspaper?”

    Apparently not.

  51. MargaretMN says:

    Didn’t get a chance to read this again until just now. I haven’t had a theology class since high school and I defer to others greater understanding and ability to express themselves on matters regarding the Eucharist. The only place where I thought the author had a valid point was that Catholics (assuming that they are properly prepared and in a state of grace) are refusing to take the precious blood. But he’s got the wrong reason and the wrong remedy–it’s because somebody thought it would be great to offer it out of a common cup (a plain ole wine glass or a pottery mug in one Parish I attended). For me, what should have been an opportunity for grace was instead an uncomfortable rejection. And I am aware that receiving in one form is sufficient. It’s more the reason I was put into the position of rejecting the other that I am complaining about.

    I also disagree with his remedy, that we should all just do it! Instead, the sacrament should to be offered in a more reverential way, with less propensity for contamination or adulteration. Receiving on the tongue is the easiest way to avoid all of these problems.

  52. AndyMo says:

    If one attends a proper traditional Mass, as celebrated for more than 1500 years, the laity do not receive Communion under both species. If one attends a novus ordo newchurch, those that returned to “communion on the tongue” seem wisely to have eliminated that ostentatious, vulgar demonstration of false piety known as “communion of both species” for the laity. It is a repulsively vile demonstration by the superfluous yet self-important EMHCs, and also by those who receive from those EMHCs.

    So…laity receiving the Blood of Christ from an EMHC is a “vile demonstration?” Really, are you qualified to call anyone out on error?

    Patti, when you’re looking to the GIRM to find examples of an evil and adulterous generation, it’s time to take off the Inquisitor’s robe and get a grip.

    The writer of this diocesan article is ridiculous, but doesn’t anyone see the irony right here in the comments, where individuals are calling their brothers and sisters in Christ “evil” for their reception of the Blessed Sacrament?

    Not every NO liturgy is a clown Mass. Some out there are trying to do it reverently, myself included.

  53. JPG says:

    I would suggest that one should forward such an article to the CDF or the Congregation for Divine Worship. An article such as this is appearing in an official arm of the Diocese and thus cannot be taken as mere private opinion. Thus the editorial board and the writer are accountable for their words. This phrase “represents God in human form” please never mind Trent he missed Nicea. On a private note I have for years received under both species but I remain uneasy in a real sense and see why the practice was abandoned in the West. The phrase take Communion resonates as reminiscent of taking Communion at one of the Anglican Churches to prove one’s loyalty to the Crown during Elizabeth’s time or the Penal days. It seems very Protestent in a nasty way and quite frankly leaves me cold.
    JPG

  54. MikeM says:

    Mike Morrow,

    I don’t think it’s contradictory to like aspects of both traditional Catholicism and newer developments.

    I, too, like to receive communion on the tongue, and I like to receive under both species.

    On a separate note, has anyone else here had the issue, when receiving both species, where you receive the Precious Body, but can’t possibly have time to fully consume it by the time you get the Precious Blood?

  55. Seraphic Spouse says:

    No no no no! The editor of a diocesan paper is NOT a mouthpiece of the bishop. I write for a diocesan newspaper
    and my former editor told me that the biggest misunderstanding people had of his job was to that he just wrote what
    the bishop wanted. But knowing people would think this, he was careful in what he wrote. Ours is a very good
    paper, BTW.

  56. David2 says:

    Seraphic Spouse, are you familiar with Canons 822-832 of the Code of Canon Law, and in particular, Canon 823? On questions of faith (which this clearly is) and morals, the Bishop has the right and duty to prevent this sort of thing. A Bishop would have the duty to correct or suppress. a diocesan newspaper which denied transubstantiation, or the infallibiity of the Roman Pontiff, or said that abortion was “OK”.

    Can. 823 §1. In order to preserve the integrity of the truths of faith and morals, the pastors of the Church have the duty and right to be watchful so that no harm is done to the faith or morals of the Christian faithful through writings or the use of instruments of social communication. They also have the duty and right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment and have the duty and right to condemn writings which harm correct faith or good morals.

    §2. Bishops, individually or gathered in particular councils or conferences of bishops, have the duty and right mentioned in §1 with regard to the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the supreme authority of the Church, however, has this duty and right with regard to the entire people of God.

    It would appear that the Bishop here has a duty and right to condemn this editorial, , if, as it appears to be the case here, it has a tendency to “harm correct faith”.

  57. Albany’s shepherd is Howard Hubbard, confidante and fellow episcopal traveler of Rochester’s Matthew Clark. (Clark hails from Albany.) Both men have made a shambles of their dioceses and finished at the rock bottom of Crisis magazine’s ranking of 176 American dioceses for evangelization, vocations, and priestly commitment. The Jadot-Bernardin duopoly over episcopal appointments was never stronger than when these two men were elevated.

  58. mpm says:

    Seraphic Spouse seems to have had an editor who was working in communion with his bishop and the whole Church. Thus his response, as he/she has articulated it. And thus, his/her view that the diocesan paper is “very good”.

    David2′s point about the bishop’s duty expressed in the CIC is important for now and the future: the bishop ought to have prior review (censorship, if you will) over what appears in the diocesan paper, which he can do by himself, or through someone he trusts and appoints, perhaps the editor of the paper. Some bishops seem to project far more zeal in their being the “Chief Liturgist” of the diocese than in their equally important role as “Editor in Chief”.

    These diocesan papers, too often mere “rags”, have been used by the heresiarchs to insert their often tendentious views into the consciousness of Catholic clergy and laity since Vatican II, at least, and it is getting very old. My brother took issue with advertisements that habitually appeared on the back page of his archdiocesan newspaper, and emailed the editor about it. The reply was of the nature that we contract to place these ads from “Catholic advertising” wholesalers/brokers, and don’t even review what we get.

  59. Veronica says:

    This article sounds very normal and VERY “Catholic” to Richmond, Virginia diocesan standards. We follow the same version of Church in our diocese. We also follow the get-out-of-our-way paradigm of tabernacle location. In our region of Virginia, we know just how to stay undetected by the Vatican, yet allow the flock to remain ignorant or in complete heresy. We believe Eucharist should not get in the way of our community celebrations in our diocese, that’s one of the main reasons we like to sing songs about ourselves during our liturgies.

  60. Jordanes says:

    MikeM said: On a separate note, has anyone else here had the issue, when receiving both species, where you receive the Precious Body, but can’t possibly have time to fully consume it by the time you get the Precious Blood?

    I only rarely receive Communion under both kinds, but when I do, I hold the Host on my tongue and then receive a small sip from the Chalice. By the time I’ve returned to my pew, I can swallow both species together due to their commingling. Even when I receive the Host alone, I always hold It upon my tongue until It softens enough to be swallowed without chewing. I do not chew the Host.

  61. MargaretMN says:

    We have no chalice. If you receive in the hand you get no precious blood. If you receive on the tongue you get it via intincture. Quick, efficient and with no distractions. I think Father Z has posted an “intincture set” a plate with a cup attatched before. One more thing I like about our parish.

  62. pattif says:

    Judging by Jeff Pinyan’s, Suburbanbanshee’s and AndyMo’s reactions, I clearly have a bit of explaining to do. As has been rightly been pointed out, our liturgical lives are full of signs, as are the gospels (St John describes the changing of water into wine at Cana as the first of Our Lord’s ‘signs’, for example).

    What I was getting at is what I have always understood Our Lord to have meant by the words I quoted (and I accept that my interpretation of Scripture is open to correction): what I think Our Lord is condemning is the demand for a ‘sign’ instead of the response of faith. The same thing happens, if you remember, later, in St. Matthew’s Passion narrative, when Herod demands a sign and Our Lord makes no response.

    And, for the elimination of all doubt, it was never my intention to condemn anyone who is just getting on with trying to practise the faith and receive the Sacraments as best they can. My gripe is with theologians and liturgical experts (or whoever writes stuff like the GIRM) who have taken it on themselves to plant the idea that the faithful ‘need’ a more efficacious sign.

    I have the same problem with priests who get really literal about the greater efficacy of the faithful receiving hosts consecrated at the Mass they attend. I have even herad it said that giving the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle is equivalent to inviting someone to dinner and giving them leftovers reheated in the microwave. It seems to me that, if every Mass is the re-presentation of the one single sacrifice of Calvary, we’re all at Mass together, whether we’re there at the same time in the same building or even in the same country.

    I also need to make it clear, AndyMo, that I’m very well aware that not all NO Masses are clown Masses. For a whole load of reasons with which I won’t bore you, I attend Mass in the NO more often than not, and my experience is usually of impeccable reverence and orthodoxy.

  63. dcs says:

    We have no chalice. If you receive in the hand you get no precious blood. If you receive on the tongue you get it via intincture.

    Dare I ask what happens if one is an alcoholic and wishes to receive on the tongue? Or would that just be contrarian and difficult? ;-)

  64. Jordanes says:

    The problem with pattif’s drawing on Our Lord’s words about “asking for a sign” is that they simply have nothing whatsoever to do with liturgical signs. The context has to do with people demanding that Jesus produce some miraculous sign to prove He is the Messiah. It has no application to what is and isn’t fitting in terms of liturgical signs.

  65. hzab says:

    I have to comment about the Diocese of Albany, being a current resident.
    First, to GeoffsWife1962: The EF has moved to St. Joseph’s, which is as magnificent (or perhaps even moreso) a location as St. Peter’s was. They seem to have stabilized on 3 low masses on M/W/F and a high mass on Sunday and Obligation days (including this past Saturday). It is however farther from the more useful bus lines (1 mile instead of 1/2) and the building points more north than east.
    Secondly, people seem to have the impression that we are a ‘lost cause’ diocese. Many of the area churches have retained their high altars, altar rails and pews, so at least destructive renovation seems to be avoided (we won’t talk about St. Vincent de Paul).
    Most interestingly is St. Mary’s Church, in the heart of downtown. They offer a Sunday Latin OF and actually use the communion rail for its intended purpose at all masses. They do NOT offer the Precious Blood (or use EMs), so perhaps this is where the author got that idea. There is also a concert (as in Mozart) mass held with the New York Catholic Chorale four times a year, which draws non-practicing Catholics, Protestants and even non-Christians. All of these things, combined with this church being close to many area hotels, have resulted in many people coming away with a renewed/changed faith. I would say 1/3 of the people each week at the Latin OF are out-of-towners who simply wanted a mass to go to, not realizing what they would get :). The comments by these tourists are always positive!

    So while Bishop Hubbard may not be the most tradition friendly out there, he is at least not actively harming it.

  66. irishgirl says:

    And this ‘editor’ calls himself a CATHOLIC? Oy vey….

    Sts. Isaac Jogues, Rene Goupil and Jean LaLande, Martyrs of Aureisville, pray for the Albany Diocese. Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha, born at Aureisville and baptized at Fonda, pray for the Albany Diocese, too.

    hzab-I’ve heard about St. Mary’s in Albany too…a long time ago in a now-defunct traditional Catholic paper ['The MaryFaithful' in Powers Lake, North Dakota]. There was a photo-or else a drawing-of the church’s interior in the article.

  67. irishgirl says:

    I meant to write ‘Auriesville’ in the invocation to Blessed Kateri.

    And again, hzab-you’re kind of right about Bishop Hubbard-or as I like to call him, ‘Howard of Albany’ [in a Noo Yawk accent]-about not being actively harmful to the TLM. At least he allows the yearly ‘Pilgrimage for the Catholic Restoration’ at Auriesville….

  68. MargaretMN says:

    On the question about alcoholics and intincture, I will have to watch but I think the EMs don’t intinct, so if you didn’t want both species, you could join one of their lines. Good point.