Bishop Suspends Ef Mass

[Nihil Obstat]

This is the end of an email exchange between some guy that I don't know the identity of, and my bishop:

To: Bishop F.B. Henry

Subject: Re: Calgary's Saint Anthony Parish: forbidden to have Mass if communion in the hand is not offered?

Your excellency,

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), on 24 July 2009, stated that it is not licit to deny reception of communion on the tongue, despite the current threat of H1N1. Attached is a scan of the CDF's letter on this matter.

Through Jesus, Mary, and Joseph,

Michael C.

Additional reference: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/11/it-is-not-licit-to-deny-communion-on.html

***

Bishops's Reponse:

"I am well aware of what the Congregation decided but quite frankly, it is not their call. It is mine."



Remember, this is the end of the correspondence, so it's not like this was right out of the blue.

[XIX]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 December 2009 - 01:23 AM' timestamp='1259731415' post='2012977']
Someone has already written to the Vatican about this. The Congregation of Divine Worship responded that it is illicit to forbid Communion on the tongue for any reason.
[/quote]
I wonder if there is a difference between forbidding a practice and temporarily suspending a practice? I don't know the answer to that question TBH. I'm guessing they must be the same though, seeing as how the CDW was responding directly to a letter about this very topic.

My initial instinct was that the bishop made a tough decision based on a legitimate concern, and that the FSSP is responding properly. But Rome, even when it's fallible, is still a heck of a lot smarter than myself. Disagreeing with them on matters regarding the liturgy makes as much sense as disagreeing with Gary Kasparov about chess.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='XIX' date='02 December 2009 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1259732310' post='2013013']
Rome, even when it's fallible, is still a heck of a lot smarter than myself. Disagreeing with them on matters regarding the liturgy makes as much sense as disagreeing with Gary Kasparov about chess.
[/quote]

Could you tell that to the Bishop and some of the priests in my diocese?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='XIX' date='01 December 2009 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1259732310' post='2013013']
I wonder if there is a difference between forbidding a practice and temporarily suspending a practice? I don't know the answer to that question TBH. I'm guessing they must be the same though, seeing as how the CDW was responding directly to a letter about this very topic.
[/quote]
If I'm not mistaken, and someone will correct me if I am, the wording of the pertinent documents is such that Communion on the tongue may not be denied to any communicant..... so it seems to pre-empt any loophole regarding temporarily or permanently.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 December 2009 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1259731415' post='2012977']
Someone has already written to the Vatican about this. The Congregation of Divine Worship responded that it is illicit to forbid Communion on the tongue for any reason.
[/quote]

Then the Vatican needs to be more clear and specifically say "it doesn't matter if there is a H1N1 epidemic, let them receive on the tongue and the Canadian government can insert their laws in a suppository configuraton" and not just speak in generalities. That letter could have been written simply in response to a bishop who does not like the EF. This is a legitimate public health concern and there should be some clear Church guidelines either way.

And if the bishop is in rebellion, again, that is a matter to be brought to the appropriate Vatican congregation.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Norseman82

[Nihil Obstat]

Is there any modern precedent regarding the Vatican specifically calling out certain diocese publicly or semi publicly in cases of this sort?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='02 December 2009 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1259732688' post='2013025']
This is a legitimate public health concern and there should be some clear Church guidelines either way.
[/quote]

I agree this is a legitimate public health concern. The Vatican should not have to keep releasing documents stating that Catholics have the right to receive on the tongue and that it is illicit to deny them this for any circumstance everytime a new disease pops up. That would be a neverending exercise.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Veridicus

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='02 December 2009 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1259732818' post='2013030']
Is there any modern precedent regarding the Vatican specifically calling out certain diocese publicly or semi publicly in cases of this sort?
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure these matters are usually handled privately.

BTW, Nihil, if you're still considering writing a letter to your bishop, if you get a negative response from him the next step would be to write to the CDW with a copy of your letter and the letter he sent back to you.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='02 December 2009 - 12:49 AM' timestamp='1259732963' post='2013032']
I agree this is a legitimate public health concern. The Vatican should not have to keep releasing documents stating that Catholics have the right to receive on the tongue and that it is illicit to deny them this for any circumstance everytime a new disease pops up. That would be a neverending exercise.
[/quote]

The only thing that I have telling me that the letter was in specific response to the H1N1 problem is the word of a blogger that I have never heard of prior to today.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='02 December 2009 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1259733364' post='2013042']
The only thing that I have telling me that the letter was in specific response to the H1N1 problem is the word of a blogger that I have never heard of prior to today.
[/quote]

The letter was sent out this year. The H1N1 epidemic is only recent situation I can think of where the faithful would have been denied Communion on the tongue on a large enough scale to warrant a letter to the CDW. After all, if this were happening merely at the parish level, a letter to the bishop would have probably sufficed to correct the problem.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 December 2009 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1259733584' post='2013045']
After all, if this were happening merely at the parish level, a letter to the bishop would have probably sufficed to correct the problem.
[/quote]

That is an assumption.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='02 December 2009 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1259733666' post='2013046']
That is an assumption.
[/quote]

Indeed, but not a completely unfounded one.

[CatherineM]

All I know is that bishops have really hard jobs, and I'm glad I don't have to make the calls that they do. I know they are supposed to be more concerned with our spiritual well being than our physical well being, but like any good parent, that's a hard thing to do when push comes to shove. I'm sure the death of that 13 year old boy in Calgary weighed heavily on Bishop Henry's mind as he was making this difficult decision. A healthy child went from playing in a hockey tournament one day, to being dead of H1N1 the next.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='02 December 2009 - 01:06 AM' timestamp='1259734011' post='2013052']
All I know is that bishops have really hard jobs, and I'm glad I don't have to make the calls that they do. I know they are supposed to be more concerned with our spiritual well being than our physical well being, but like any good parent, that's a hard thing to do when push comes to shove. I'm sure the death of that 13 year old boy in Calgary weighed heavily on Bishop Henry's mind as he was making this difficult decision. A healthy child went from playing in a hockey tournament one day, to being dead of H1N1 the next.
[/quote]

This is true. And you are right, we should definitely be giving this Bishop benefit of doubt in this regard.

But thousands and thousands of people die every year of the normal flu and tons of other 'normal' communicable diseases. I have read no where that H1N1 is particularly more communicable than regular flu; although it has in some people produced a more virulent disease.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='02 December 2009 - 12:59 AM' timestamp='1259733584' post='2013045']
The letter was sent out this year. The H1N1 epidemic is only recent situation I can think of where the faithful would have been denied Communion on the tongue on a large enough scale to warrant a letter to the CDW. After all, if this were happening merely at the parish level, a letter to the bishop would have probably sufficed to correct the problem.
[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the State telling the Church how to say Mass, but weren't there some cases in which there was hostility to the EF in Britain? Was it by a bishop or just pastors? How do we know that this was not related?