Posted on 04/04/2002 7:36:44 AM PST by Notwithstanding
And far from enraging us, it shows us how ill prepared and misdirected such men are. We must pray for holy priests and bishops. Pray fervently for such holiness and for vocations. I have a good friend who is a great believer in lay people keeping quiet. I always refer him to the writings, life, ministry, and work of St. Catherine of Siena -- who was a lay woman with a profound mission from God. Let us never forget her example of Godly exhortation and correspondence.
Let us all say a fifteen-decade rosary for Bishop Joseph Adamec to be doubly blessed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and perfectly conformed to the image and full stature of Christ.
If a homosexual is celibate, how would you know?
You little creep.
YOU'RE the one who defends the ordination of open homosexuals; YOU say they're called to the priesthood.
I'M the one who says we have to squeeze gays out of the seminaries.
You're infected with the dumb-ass virus, and EVERYBODY knows it!
Gaydar?
You seem to believe I have some kind of "virus" due to my time in the seminary.
I learned in that seminary that talking behind another's back violates Christian Charity, which you have both done right here on this thread.
Maybe you both could benefit from a little "seminary time" yourselves.
Here is my question to Fr. Triglio and his response:
Genuflection before communion forbidden by bishop
Question from Dr. Brian J. Kopp on 12-13-1998:
Dear Father,
Below is a letter our local Bishop just sent to all the priests in this Diocese (Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, PA) in which, for all intents and purposes, he forbids genuflection before receiving the Eucharist. The specific paragraph is directly below in quotes:
"Should an individual of this Diocesan Church wish to make a further sign of reverence just prior to receiving Holy Communion, that sign is to be that of the sign of the cross. In any case, making the sign of the cross in silence should precede receiving Holy Communion rather than follow. Thus, in order to seek uniformity of movement and posture, I direct the sign of the cross to be the sign of reverence prior to the reception of Holy Communion.
Uniformity in Liturgy is desirable as a sign of our unity in Jesus Christ. It expresses our oneness in the Eucharistic Lord and of our reverence and love for the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood. This uniformity of word and movement will enhance the expression of our liturgical celebration of unity in Christ as we of the one Household gather around the one table and eat and drink the one bread and cup that is Jesus the Lord."
Can he do this? Are the faithful who practice genuflection before Communion required to be obedient to this "Directive," which seems to be a denial of our right, expressed by Fr. Regis Scanlon, OFM in a file in EWTN's library online, to show a form of "latria" at reception of Communion? Any help you can offer would be appreciated.
Dr. Brian J. Kopp
Johnstown, PA
Answer by Fr. John Trigilio on 12-14-1998:
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM (Vatican II) said: "#22 (1) Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and, as laws may determine, on the bishop. (2) In virtue of power conceded by law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishops' conferences, legitimately established, with competence in given territories. (3) Therefore no other person, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."
The General Instruction on the Roman Missal (GIRM) #21 says:
"However, it is for the Bishops' Conference to adapt the postures and gestures here described as suitable for the Roman Mass"
EUCHARISTICUM MYSTERIUM # 4 and INAESTIMABILE DONUM # 11 state that to receive Holy Communion kneeling is a sign of reverence in itself. When not kneeling, SOME form of reverence is encouraged. The Bishop can even REQUIRE it.
My reading of the texts, however, is that while the Bishop has the authority to mandate that some form of reverence be given when receiving Holy Communion while standing, he can only say that the sign of the cross is the bare MINIMUM but he cannot say that a genuflection is not allowed. The law affords him parameters on what is the minimum required but he does not have the authority to curtail the EXTRA reverence given by a genuflection. ONLY the Holy See itself or the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) can do that, as stated above. Hence, the local bishop can say that in his diocese, AT LEAST the sign of the Cross will be made prior to receiving Holy Communion OR he could require a bow of the head or he could mandate a genuflection. My reading of the law, however, is that an individual bishop does not have the prerogative of the Episcopal Conference or the Holy See to prohibit someone from going beyond the minimum requirement WITHIN REASON. Ergo, someone cannot disrupt the Communion line by kneeling for a long period of time (they should do that in the pew or at the altar rail). To exclude genuflection seems to go beyond the scope the law allows. Msgr. Peter Elliott agrees with this in his book, "Liturgical Question Box, p. 114 (copyright 1998, Ignatius Press) and again in his book "Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite", #336 (copyright 1995, Ignatius Press)
For him to proscribe genuflection would be as unlawful as to prescribe someone to stay standing. The law does not give that much latitude to any one pastor or bishop. The unity and uniformity of liturgical gestures is not limited to the parish or even the diocese but since we live in the Catholic church, it should be a more universal unity and uniformity. Hence, the law is clear that Rome on behalf of the universal church and the Episcopal Conference on behalf of the nation can make such decisions.
--Fr. Trigilio
*************
When this question and answer appeared on EWTN Online's Ask the Experts Forum, someone brought it to my bishop's attention, and he was enraged that Fr. Trigilio had the temerity to suggest that Bishop Adamec did not have the authority to this. Adamec called Fr. Trigilio's bishop in Harrisburg and DEMANDED that Fr. Trigilio be disciplined for this offense. Fortunately the Harrisburg bishop did not listen to my bishop's request.
Whenever I see Fr. Trigilio, he jokes about how I got him in "trouble" over this. Fr. Trigilio is an excellent, holy, orthodox priest.
I have avoided arguing with you on FR since our FReepmails. My comments were simply:
I respect sinkspur but of course disagree with him, for the reasons you explained here. But I expected there to be far more like him here, and fortunately have not found that to be the case.
You know I disagree with some of your positions, and we have discussed that privately, and I don't think I'm guilty of any type of gossip here. I think anybody who reads my posts and yours already knows that we would not be likely to agree on some issues, and I think you hold dissenting views in some ways.
Nonetheless, I apologize for scandalizing you. I should not have phrased my comments in the manner I did.
I love your phrase,"pastoral stewardship of the Catholic faith in the contemporary postmodern American wasteland." Well put.
It is common courtesy to flag to a post someone you mention.
You did not scandalize me; you did, however, disappoint me.
So we have psychiatrists passing on the sanity of potential priests, when by their definitions anyone who firmly believes in God and an immortal soul is deluded or insane...
I didn't say they were pooly trained hacks, but there has been a generation of Catholics who have never been taught 'the old pieties' partly because some of those old priests dropped the ball and let the younger more 'hip' priests and nuns run the show. They were convinced that 'the spirit of Vatican II' was moving in their parishes. Unfortunately those 'relevant priests and nuns changed religious education so much that most parents nowadays don't know what to teach their kids because they were of that generation which was never taught.
Those old guys are retiring and dying now, but God is raising up new young men on fire for the Lord and they'll help educate the newest generation. We're going to have a painful shakeout, but when it is done, the Church will be stronger for it.
With all respect that might be due to him, this statement is rather asinine, and not fitting a man of his office.
While certainly this may be the case with many practitioners, I can assure you that this is changing. To find (or be) a practitioner who believes in such is truly a gift.
Unfortunately men in positions of power, even in our Church, obviously resent having their authority questioned by a lowly acolyte. Brian, I would expect a much more mature, Christian response from the shepard of your diocese.
Fair enough. Rebuke accepted. I will ping you next time.
Never once have I defended the ordination of open homosexuals. All I said is that every priest (homo and/or hetero) has been called by God. There is a vast difference between what I said and what you think I said. I would never defend ordaining an open homosexual. However, if a homo is consecrated a priest I would not and will not argue with God about it. I trust His Judgment.
Is calling me a little creep something you learned about in your charity classes in the seminary?
Yes. "Creep" is preferable to other terms that come to mind.
The chaplain at my school purchased a custom made wooden, unpadded prie dieu whcih is wide enough for 2 - it is the chapel's communion rail. And everyone is required to use it - with no objection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.