New document on Eucharist delayed by debates within Vatican

CWNews.com ^ | Sep. 23

[nickcarraway]

A new Vatican document on the Eucharist has been delayed by internal debate within the Roman Curia. According to Italian press reports, an early draft of the document has been set aside because of complaints that it was too "conservative."

In April, when he released his encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia, Pope John Paul II reported that he had directed the Roman Curia to produce "a more specific document, including prescriptions of a juridical nature," to address abuses in the Eucharistic liturgy. That second document has not yet appeared, despite occasional rumors that its publication is imminent.

The monthly magazine Jesus, in its upcoming October issue, will reportedly publish the entire text of the first draft. The magazine also will report that its publication is now expected near the end of 2003 or early in 2004.

(It is highly unusual for a magazine like Jesus-- which is not an official Vatican publication-- to have the entire text of a Vatican document, in advance and in complete form. So the publication of the draft in itself is cause for surprise.)

The daily newspaper Il Messagero carried a substantial portion of the text in its September 23 issue. Il Messagero reported that the text has been rejected by the cardinals and bishops who were asked to review the proposed document; the prelates were said to have found the document excessively harsh.

The document was drafted by a committee composed of four officials from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and four from the Congregation for Divine Worship. The document's working title is Pignus Redemptionist ac Futurae Gloriae ("A Pledge of Redemption for Future Glory"). According to Jesus, it is a 200-paragraph text, which covers 37 abuses against the Eucharist.

Four major sorts of abuse are discussed: the sacrilegious use of the Eucharistic species (bread and wine); the celebration of Mass by someone who does not have proper faculties; concelebration with ministers of other Christian communities; and the consecration of bread and wine for inherently sacrilegious purposes (as in a Black Mass).

The document calls upon priests, deacons, and the faithful to alert their bishops when they encounter liturgical abuses in their parishes. It stresses that "pastoral assistants" who serve in parishes are not to replace ordained ministers, and in fact should encourage vocations to the priesthood and diaconate. The text clearly disapproves of "liturgical dance." And it also frowns upon the practice of encouraging applause from the congregation during the Eucharistic liturgy-- a practice that is common even in St. Peter's basilica.

According to Il Messagero the members of the committee that prepared the text were fully aware that their disciplinary norms could apply to the liturgical celebrations within the Vatican, and the draft document could be seen as a criticism of some papal ceremonies. The Vatican officials charged with planning the pontifical liturgies have avoided comment on this story.

Il Messagero reports that the draft version of the document was summarily rejected by the prelates who reviewed it. The paper reports that the text has been sent back for revision, and its appearance has been significantly delayed. Earlier in September, Vatican officials had suggested that the new document would be published in October. Il Messagero says that date is now unrealistic.

[dangus]

>> I don't know how common it is, but such people do attend Mass to steal the Eucharist for such purposes. To some extent, it may not be completely preventable. But some places may not even take the minimal precautions

Nuh. This says they were *consecrated* for sacreligious purposes. We're dealing with Satanic priests, and an exhortation for people who discover them to report them directly to the Vatican. The tinfoil-hats people were correct!

[ahadams2]

Wow! Go Fr. Leo! (...and then my intel analyst training kicked in...) I wonder if anyone keeps a record of these events? If so one might be able to identify areas which might require further investigation (i.e. at least cities where such things occur - obviously the perps would most likely go outside their own neighborhood). Patterns, people always function in patterns, it's part of what makes us human. If someone started looking at the patterns and, say, overlaying the same areas with known sex abuse cases, known areas of drug peddling and so forth, one could start to get a look at the spiritual geography of a threatened area and discover ways to take action to remedy the situation. hmm... I hope that didn't get too Charismatic for anyone, but you'd think if the Office of the Inquisition was still functioning it, or something like it would try to track this sort of thing.

[ahadams2]

er, that is pretty tinfoil hat, y'know... maybe Hermann or someone else in the know could ask for a clarification?

[dangus]

Woo-Hoo! Go Pittsburgh!

[sitetest]

Dear Hermann,

"I watched someone attempt this in St. Paul Cathedral in Pittsburgh. The then pastor, Fr. Leo Vanyo, all 6'-9" or so of him, ran the man down once he realized what he was doing (pocketing the host), and, while still holding the ciborium in one hand, grabbed the man by the arm with the other and forcibly detained him to retrieve the Host."

Wow. Sometimes I feel very sheltered.

Gotta pray for folks who would do that.


sitetest

[dangus]

When do they applaud in a Catholic mass?

They don't applaud the Word, or the Eucharist. Unfortunately, they do applaud announcements.

I've been to Easter vigils and Christmas masses where, during the announcements, they thanked the people who helped them put it together. The appplause was the polite and thankful response of tired, happy people, and I had no major problem with it. I have seen abuses where people seeking glory detracted from overshadowed the mass, however, and it demonstrates that while the former applause was human, decent, and harmless, it is not a justified practice.

[dangus]

About my sentiments: Rome is cracking down, not because dance and applause are inherently evil, but because they are so badly abused. If bishops and priests would use discretion, Rome wouldn't need to do this.

[dangus]

About my sentiments: Rome is cracking down, not because dance and applause are inherently evil, but because they are so badly abused. If bishops and priests would use discretion, Rome wouldn't need to do this.

[neocon]

Stolen Eucharists would have been consecrated for holy purposes, and had those holy purposes subverted.

You're certainly right if the language is intended to be taken with that degree of precision. But how could a Satanist confect the Eucharist, since he would not have valid orders? Unless, of course, the Satanist is, God forbid, also a Catholic priest. Or, God also forbid, if a Catholic priest who is not a Satanist nevertheless performs the consecration, intending that it be used sacrilegiously.

I surmised therefore that it referred to theft, since that is sometimes given as a reason for having someone always present during Eucharistic exposition or adoration, such as the 40-hours devotion.

I plead ignorance as to the details of the Black "Mass". Do you have any further information?

[neocon]

The appplause was the polite and thankful response of tired, happy people, and I had no major problem with it.

I've been on the receiving end of this sort of applause, and found it rather embarrassing.

But there's one truly memorable occasion when I'm sure I would have participated myself. During the Requiem Mass for Cdl. O'Connor, there were many dignitaries present, e.g., the Clintons and their Leftist pals. Cdl. Law was giving the homily, and mentioned that Cdl. O'Connor wished that the Church always be "unambiguously pro-life." There was a standing ovation from the congregation that lasted 2 or 3 minutes! And the Clintons looked very sheepish indeed. Truly a "Catholic moment".

[dangus]

>>You're certainly right if the language is intended to be taken with that degree of precision. But how could a Satanist confect the Eucharist, since he would not have valid orders? Unless, of course, the Satanist is, God forbid, also a Catholic priest.>>

Uh, yeah; that's why my reference to the tinfoil-hat crowd being correct: it's a damned scary idea. Apparently there are also guidelines for people who witness Satanic priests to contact the Vatican directly... maybe even we've got some distrust that the bishops would properly deal with the situation. There were some seemingly wild accusations that Cardinal Bernadin coddled a ring of black-mass-celebrating priests.

I can't believe the word "consecration" is used so sloppily. It's one of those distinctly Catholic words, so I doubt its an invention of the reporter.

>> Or, God also forbid, if a Catholic priest who is not a Satanist nevertheless performs the consecration, intending that it be used sacrilegiously.>>

Well, here's a really horrifying thought: It's only consecrated if the priest intends for it to become the Body of Christ. We're not dealing with some adolescent rage mixed with ignorance, like the AIDS activists of the '80's, but with seriously spiritual intent.

No, when the Pope said that Satan had enterred the Church, he didn't mean weak, sexually perverted clergy. Looks like he meant actual Satanic priests.

[saradippity]

I read an article about 5 years ago that kind of spoke to this. It was written by a mother who went to see the bishop to complain about a priest who abused her son or a neighbors son. She stalked out of the bishops office when after asking a few questions,he asked her if she thought there might be some Satanic rituals going on. She was incensed and felt the question was a diversionary tactic.

I remember filing her comments in my head and feeling sympathy for the bishop. I did think he was trying to get at the bottom of something he suspected was going on in his diocese. The woman,I believed ws probably the product of post Vat II catechesis and recent psychology and psychiatric theories,any thoughts of the devil quite possibly seemed absurd. I think he was right on.

[saradippity]

I think this thread is the one I mentioned to you in an earlier freep to you today. Please read it and let me know your thoughts. Thanks.

[neocon]

it's a damned scary idea

It's a thought I truly hate to think.

It's only consecrated if the priest intends for it to become the Body of Christ.

Yes, you're right. I can't imagine such deliberate wickedness.

Pope Paul VI said, "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church." I'm sure there's been much speculation as to what he might have meant, but I always connected it with the mysterium iniquitatis of 2 Thess. 2:7-8, which phrase, interestingly enough, Pope John Paul II had used in connection with the scandal. The passage certainly does have an apocalyptic air about it in any event:

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of His mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of His coming.

So I always thought Pope Paul was referring to the general disobedience to the intent of the Council (lawlessness) which arose late in its implementation, viz., the so-called "period of experimentation" which the Vatican never authorized, and which the present Pope declared ended in the early years of his pontificate.

[nickcarraway]

Good for him!

[saradippity]

I remember reading the Pope's letter to the priests issued on Holy Thursday,2002. He said the "mystery of iniquity" had burrowed into the soul of the Church. I thought he was sending a very clear and alarming message to the clergy,I expected a focus on evil and a concerted effort to pray and get serious about honoring God. But all I noticed was a bunch of baffled and babbling bishops and their lay minions kind of pretending that the Pope didn't appear too concerned about the scandal.

I just heard on the radio that the Pope cancelled his audiences today due to sickness,pray for the Pope.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Nuh. This says they were *consecrated* for sacreligious purposes. We're dealing with Satanic priests, and an exhortation for people who discover them to report them directly to the Vatican. The tinfoil-hats people were correct!

The sort of behavior being mentioned here (use of hosts for Satantic purposes) reminds me of what allegedly transpired in Deggendorf in 1338.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"Gotta pray for folks who would do that."

The funny thing is, I saw the man at Mass before on an infrequent basis before he was finally caught and subsequently vanished. After I saw what he did, I then realized he'd spent a fair amount of time "casing" the Mass and the Cathedral during previous Masses.

I wonder how many other Hosts he pocketed without it being known before finally being caught.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

"We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil. It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God." (Paul VI, Homily on June 29 1972)

I'd love to see this entire homily.

[dangus]

O please, you're not going to leave a vague allusion and then leave it at that, are you?

OK, OK, OK... you got my attention, what happened at Deggendorf? (A seriously Tolkeinesque name, I might add!)