Thursday, March 20, 2014

Code of Silence

Christ practiced the code of silence.  He did not defend Himself against His enemies.....and rightly so.  His enemies were intent on making Him fall or killing him regardless of what He said.  Christ was charged with blasphemy because people heard Him say that He is God or equated Himself with God.  When questioned, Christ remain silent because He knew that the enemy intended to persecute Him anyway.  Silence is humility.  

Luke 23:6-12  On hearing this, Pilate asked if the man was a Galilean.  When he learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod, who was also in Jerusalem at that time.  When Herod saw Jesus, he was greatly pleased, because for a long time he had been wanting to see him.  From what he had heard about him, he hoped to see him perform some miracle.  He plied him with any questions, but Jesus gave him no answer. The chief priests and the teachers of the law were standing there vehemently accusing him.  Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him.  Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate.  That day Herod and Pilate became friends - before this they had been enemies.   

As you can see, even when Christ remained silent, the teachers of the law still vehemently accused him.  People saw him performing miracles and preaching on the streets.  The Pharisees accused Christ of going against Jewish teaching because Christ worked during the Sabbath when it was forbidden to do any kind of work.  They accused Him of blasphemy because He equated Himself with God.  They called Him a heretic and He was not wanted among His own people.  Imagine that!  He was not wanted by His own People, and He was Jewish.  They did not consider Christ a Jew because He went against their Jewish Sabbath Law, which is the heart of Judaism. Despite Christ's miracles, His humility, and His kindness toward others, He was punished and condemned to die.  

Jesus' silence is humility and even those who judged Him cannot see that humility just as they were unable to see the miracles done on the Sabbath Day.  Christ knew that any answer He gives them will not satisfy them anyway because they already judged Him.  Members of the Way are called to imitate Christ's humility.  We are taught to be like Him especially when persecuted and judged by an adversary. The members of the Way are also taught not to persecute others because Christ never persecuted anyone.  Instead, we are called to love even the enemy and to pray for them.    



  1. Please be assured of my prayers for you Diana, for Zoltan, and all others who have been misled by the Way

    1. Dear Patrick,

      What makes you think that we are misled? The Neocatechumenal Way has the blessings of the Pope, who is the Successor of the Apostle Peter and the Vicar of Christ. And the Way has not only had the blessings of one Pope, but four Popes since the Way has started. I have already shown you a written letter of Father Neil who has studied the many different liturgies in the Western and Eastern rite Churches, and Father Neil has a Ph.D in Liturgy; yet, you refuse to believe him.

      Members of the Way have been told that our goal is to follow imitate Him. We were told to love God and to trust in Him rather than in money. We were told to love everyone including our enemies. We have nothing against you. But what do you have against us?

    2. Hi Diana, the problems with the Way have been so clearly explained to you before that I doubt that anything further I can add will make any difference - but I will pray for you and Zoltan.

      The Eucharistic Theology of the Way departs radically from the teaching of the Catholic Church of the ages, so much so that the Way becomes more protestant than Catholic. The life and foundation of the Church is the Sacrifice of Calvary, and in the Holy Eucharist is the re-presentation of that sacrifice offered in an unbloody way on the altar. As the prophet Malachi says: "In every place there is sacrifice, and there is offered to My name a pure oblation" (Mal. i., 11)

      Now the teaching of the Way is essentially Lutheran, with the implicit denial of the real presence of the Lord in the Eucharist, most often concealed behind fine words, but made obvious now and again. This question (debate?) has been recently conducted another blog with Zoltan trying to defend the Way's understanding, but unfortunately not getting too far with that. During that discussion the following link was given and the comment made: "Note the text under the first photo:
      "The Tabernacle shows the Sacramental presence of Jesus in the Scriptures (Silver Bible)..."

      I'd say this is all you should need to see to be deeply concerned about the theology of the Way. If you research the teaching of the Church you will find this statement to be utterly condemnable.

      There are many other issues I have with the Way, having personally seen the damage it can cause psychologically, but I do agree that many of the 'members' display great humility in their own lives.

      By the way, although Jesus displayed a "silence" at the moment he was condemned, he never baulked from speaking the truth boldly and in situations that were risky. Neither did the saints and martyrs filled with the Holy Spirit neglect the duty to speak the truth without fear, and not to remain silent. See the wonderful example of St Stephen!!

      I suspect that Zoltan has been told (by you-know-who) to keep quiet, and you are seeking to justify that instruction made to him. Tell me I'm wrong

    3. I doubt there is anything against people who walk the way. I believe that because we are such a small island, that the Archbishop shows favoritism and this shouldn't be. It is very obvious because I have seen it.

    4. Dear Patrick,

      For as long as I have been walking in the Way, we were never told that the bread and wine is only a symbol. We were told that after the consecration of the bread and wine, it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ. In his homily, one priest even stated, that the blood of Christ actually flows in our veins after drinking His blood.

      Also, could you be more specific as to the pictures and captions? What exactly are you interpreting from the caption to the picture that you seem to find offensive? Isn't it possible that you may be misinterpreting the caption and the picture?

      I don't know if Zoltan has been told by the Catechists to remain silent. I only know that one anonymous poster under my last thread told Zoltan not to make comments because he has a difficult time expressing himself to people in a clear manner. Also, after taking a look at Zoltan's blogsite. It appears that Zoltan's primary language is Hungarian. English appears to be his second language.

    5. Diana, perhaps you could tell me whether Jesus is 'sacramentally' present in the Scriptures?

    6. Dear Patrick,

      This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states. The capitalization are my emphasis:

      CCC 1088 "To accomplish so great a work" - the dispensation or communication of his work of salvation - "Christ is always present in his Church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present in the Sacrifice of the Mass not only in the person of his minister, 'the same now offering, through the ministry of priests, who formerly offered himself on the cross,' but especially in the Eucharistic species. By his power he is present in the sacraments so that when anybody baptizes, it is really Christ himself who baptizes. HE IS PRESENT IN HIS WORD SINCE IT IS HE HIMSELF WHO SPEAKS WHEN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ARE READ IN THE CHURCH. Lastly, he is present when the Church prays and sings, for he has promised 'where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them."'

      The reading of scripture is part of the Mass, and when scripture is read in Mass, Christ is present in the readings of the scripture and in the homily of the priest as though it is Christ who speaks when scripture is read and when the homily is said......just as the Catechism of the Catholic Church stated.

      According to the Catechism of the Catholic, both the liturgy of the word and the liturgy of the Eucharist are one. They are not separate. Together, they form one single act of worship. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Again, the capitalization are my emphasis:

      CCC 1346 The liturgy of the Eucharist unfolds according to a fundamental structure which has been preserved throughout the centuries down to our own day. IT DISPLAYS TWO GREAT PARTS THAT FORM A FUNDAMENTAL UNITY:

      - the liturgy of the Eucharist, with the presentation of the bread and wine, the consecratory thanksgiving, and communion.

      THE LITURGY OF THE WORD AND LITURGY OF THE EUCHARIST TOGETHER FORM "ONE SINGLE ACT OF WORSHIP: the Eucharistic table set for us is the table both of the Word of God and of the Body of the Lord.

    7. You seem to be implying that Jesus is, in fact, 'sacramentally' present in the Scriptures. This is not a teaching of the Church. And you have not produced any evidence from the Church that says this. Please show me where the church teaches this, or admit that the seminary is wrong.

      This is not a complicated statement. If it were the case that the Church taught what the seminary evidently does, namely that Jesus Christ is sacramentally present in the scriptures, we would see some statement in those words somewhere in the teaching of the church. We do not. The best you can find is to imply that because the reading of scripture is a fundamental part of the perfection of the Holy Mass, it is also sacramental. This is spurious.

      If in fact Jesus was sacramentally present in the scriptures, we would bow down and worship the Bible, as we do the Blessed Sacrament. But clearly we do not, nor has the Church ever taught this.

      Our Lord is indeed present in his Word, but not sacramentally present. That is why we do not have a sacrament of the Word. We have a Sacrament of the Eucharist. The reading of scripture during Mass is indeed a 'presence' of Jesus, as is His presence in his gathered people, but only in the Eucharist itself is he sacramentally present. This is the enduring teaching of our faith, but it has been lost in the Way.

    8. Dear Patrick,

      The teachings of the Church is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. How else did you interpret the photo together with the caption in that website you showed me? The photo showed and mentioned a tabernacle, Holy Scripture, and Eucharist species. The reason why the photo showed all three was because it was referring to the Mass all along.

      Yet, you look at the same photo and only choose to look at the Bible and ignore the tabernacle and Eucharistic species (Body of Christ), which are found in the photo and mentioned in the caption. In other words, the photo and caption was not about the Bible ALONE, but that is what you choose to see because of your prejudice and discrimination of the Way.

      Why didn't you see the tabernacle and Eucharistic species (Body of Christ) together with the Bible in the photo when all three were mentioned??

      Did you not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it says that you cannot separate the liturgy of the word from the liturgy of the Eucharist?? They are one and united. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the word and sacrament are not divided.

      CCC 1518 Word and sacrament form an indivisible whole. The Liturgy of the Word, preceded by an act of repentance, opens the celebration. The words of Christ, the witness of the apostles, awaken the faith of the sick person and of the community to ask the Lord for the strength of his Spirit.

      Furthermore, you say that if Jesus was sacramentally present in the scriptures, we would bow down and worship the Bible. One of the 7 Sacraments is also Holy Orders. Do you bow down and worship the Priest? Baptism is also a sacrament. Do you bow down and worship the Holy waters of baptism? Yes, we do worship the Body and Blood of Christ because we recognize His REAL Body and Blood, but that does not mean that we also worship the holy waters of baptism or the ordained priests.

      A sacrament is a SIGN AND INSTRUMENT of God's communion with us. God's presence, on the other hand, is always with His Church.

    9. No, we don't worship the priest, nor the baptismal waters, nor the married couple - because Jesus is not 'sacramentally' present in these as He is in the Blessed Sacrament (the term Blessed might give you a clue). We only give honor and worship to the Eucharist because of the presence of Jesus in a real and substantial way. The relationship between the Eucharist and the scriptures is not something you've discovered, but has been the subject of thought and discussion for many centuries. And yet, the Church has never said, in these words, "Jesus Christ is sacramentally (or substantially) present in the scriptures"

      Your argument is not only un-Catholic, it is fanatical. You (and other members of the Way) refuse to believe that there could be any error in the Way, and hence you defend the indefensible until you sound silly. In the pursuit of "adult faith" you become childish. Of course, I'm sure you'd go on to argue that its good to sound silly (foolishness etc) and childish.

      In any case, we are back to where we started. I will continue to pray for you, for Zoltan and for all others that have been misled by the NCW

    10. Excuse me......You say: we don't worship the priest, nor the baptismal waters, nor the married couple - because Jesus is not 'sacramentally' present in these as He is in the Blessed Sacrament.

      So you are saying that in the rest of the Sacraments (baptism, Holy Orders, Matrimony, etc.), God is NOT present? Baptism is a Sacrament, and the Holy Spirit is "sacramentally present" in Baptism. In Baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is REAL. Since when has the Catholic Church ever taught that the Holy Spirit we receive in Baptism is only a symbol??? The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Holy Trinity. He is sacramentally present even in baptism, Holy Orders, Matrimony, etc.

      You say that the term "Blessed" might give me a clue??? The Holy Water is blessed once the priest blesses it with the "laying of hands", but we don't worship the blessed water. The eyes of faith recognize God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit in all the Sacraments.

      The Holy Eucharist, on the other hand, is the heart of the Catholic Church. It is the highest of all the Sacraments simply because it is the sum and summary of our faith and Christian life and the rest of the other Sacraments are bound up in the Eucharist (See CCC 1324).

      My argument is in line with Church teaching. The problem was when you decide to only look at HALF the sentence like the Protestants always do. In the weblink you provided, it stated: The Tabernacle shows the Sacramental presence of Jesus in the Scriptures (Silver Bible) AND the Eucharistic Species (Body of Christ). This is clearly speaking of the entire Mass.

      But in your prejudice, you only look at half the sentence, which is: The Tabernacle shows the Sacramental presence of Jesus in the Scriptures (Silver Bible). This is what anti-Catholics do. They take things out of context of the entire sentence and only look at half of it and then claim that we are in error. I notice you did not answer my question. My question was....why did you only look at the Bible ALONE when the photo and captions mentioned the Eucharistic species in addition to the word of God??

      I highly recommend that you pray for yourself instead.

    11. Once again you miss the point that Jesus Christ is specially present in the Eucharistic species; present in a unique way - and in a way different to the other modes of his presence. To make equivalent Our Lord's presence in the scriptures (and the communities) with the actual Body Blood Soul and Divinity in the Eucharist is not Catholic. This theology is at the heart of the NCW error.

      Allow me to conclude with my opening remark: Hi Diana, the problems with the Way have been so clearly explained to you before that I doubt that anything further I can add will make any difference - but I will pray for you and Zoltan.

    12. Dear Patrick,

      If you look back at my comments, I cited the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support what I say. You, on the other hand, cite nothing in the Catechism except your own opinion.

      Again, you missed the took the photo and caption out of context.

    13. Dear Patrick, if you allow me to make some comments here. You seem to make too much out of a caption of a photo published in a WEB-page. Jesus is present in the Sacred Scriptures because it is the Word of God. If you buy yourself a copy of the Bible which has the sayings of Jesus printed in red, then you would see immediately how much He is present. John 1:1 says: "In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God and the Word was God." This Word is the Lord Jesus. The Scripture is Sacred because it is His Word.

      So truly: what are you talking about?!

    14. Dear Zoltan,

      The entire Holy Bible is the inspired word of God.

    15. OK guys, read my comments again, with the understanding that at no point do I deny the presence of God in the Scriptures - The Word of God is exactly that. The problem arises from equating the special presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist with the other modes of His presence. The NCW theology depends on doing this, as the purpose is to give the greatest support to the idea of "community".

      I respectfully suggest you carefully read Redemptionis Sacramentum:

    16. This:

    17. Dear Patrick,

      Actually you DID deny the presence of God in the Scriptures. The problem was you were uncertain as to what "sacramentally present" and "present" is. I informed you that a Sacrament means a "sign and instrument of God's communion with us." There are seven sacraments. God is present in all seven sacraments. You can even say that God is "sacramentally present" in all seven sacraments because all seven sacraments are a sign and instrument of God's communion with us.

      Actually equating the special presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist to other modes of His presence is your problem. It is not the problem of the NCW. As I mentioned in my comments, after the consecration, the bread and wine transforms into the Body and Blood of Christ. So, what we are seeing is the ACTUAL Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Also, bear in mind, that Christ has a human and divine nature.

      This, of course, does not mean that the other sacraments are less important. Baptism is important and necessary. Holy Orders are also important otherwise there would not be any priests to conduct the Eucharist. However, of the seven Sacraments, the Eucharist is the HIGHEST Sacrament because it is the sum and summary of our faith and Christian life and all the other sacraments are connected to the Eucharist.

      Let's look at "baptism" as an example. Is God present in the sacrament of baptism? Yes. In our baptism, it is the Holy Spirit who comes down to us in the form of a dove (just as it did in Christ's baptism) and sanctified us by taking away the original sin and making us part of God's family. So, God the Holy Spirit.....the third person in the Holy Trinity who came down to us in our baptism was present in our baptism, and the Spirit's presence there is also real. Bear in mind that the third person of the Holy Trinity does not have any body. He is pure spirit, but He was definitely there present in our baptism.

      Although the Holy Spirit does not have a body the Spirit is REAL nevertheless. He is not symbolic. The Holy Spirit has never been used to mean "symbolic" for any reason.

      With that said, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that of all the seven sacraments it is the Eucharist that is the HIGHEST sacrament of all. Why? Because it is the sum and summary of our faith and Christian life. The Eucharist is the heart of the Catholic Church, but the Church NEVER taught that ONLY in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is God present while He is NOT present in the other sacraments.

      The mode of God's presence is different only in the Eucharist because it is only in the Eucharist that He is there in body, spirit, soul, and divinity. In the other sacraments, we don't see Christ's human body although His soul, spirit, and divine presence is there.

    18. Diana, why did you not post my previous reply? I said therein that I do not "deny the presence of God in the Scriptures" but rather I deny the equivalence of the presence of God in the scriptures with the real presence in the Blessed Sacrament. The position of the NCW on this was put by Zoltan in a post on another blog:
      "Jesus' presence in the Eucharist is a mystery..... This presence is the same, the presence of the Lord Jesus, in the communities and in the Church itself. How could this be a different presence if the Lord is One? (Shema, Israel...) "

      In my opinion this is not consistent with the Catholic Church's teaching.

    19. Dear Patrick,

      I have been getting a lot of comments under this one post that I may have accidentally deleted a few of them. Are you certain it was on my blogsite that you did not deny the presence of God in the Scriptures? From what I recall, you showed me a photo of a tabernacle with the Bible and the Eucharistic species were kept along with a caption and asked what was wrong with the caption.....and you only looked at half of the caption.

    20. Put it this way Diana. Jesus is present in the Eucharistic species by virtue of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The presence of God in the Scriptures is not due to the sacrament of the Eucharist, or of any other sacrament. The written word of God is His voice, but the Eucharist is God Himself.

    21. Dear Patrick,

      As I said to you previously, the liturgy of the word and the Eucharist (sacrament) are one. That is in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the word and sacrament form an indivisible whole (See CCC 1518).

    22. "God certainly speaks to us through his inspired Word, and the Church teaches that he is present when the Scriptures are read. This presence, however, as Pope Paul VI teaches in his encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" is a real but transitory presence enduring while the liturgical reading lasts. It is, therefore, not of the same class as the substantial real presence found in the Eucharist."

  2. Your are correct silence will kill them softly is not because of someone telling us, is the right thing to do.

  3. Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments answered the following question. We offer here an approximate translation of the official Latin original published in Notitiae 45 (2009) pages 242-243:

    "Whether it is licit for the celebrating priest to take Communion only after the Holy Eucharist has been administered to the faithful, or distribute Holy Eucharist and communicate at the same time as the faithful?

    "Response: Negative to both"

  4. "The priest receives first, not because of a human protocol but in virtue of the dignity and nature of his ministry. He acts in the person of Christ, for the purpose of the integrity of the sacrament and for presiding the people gathered together: "Thus when priests join in the act of Christ the Priest, they offer themselves entirely to God, and when they are nourished with the body of Christ they profoundly share in the love of him who gives himself as food to the faithful ( Presbyterorum Ordinis, No. 13)."

    Both the present missal and the extraordinary form foresee the priest as receiving Communion first, even though with some variations in formulas and order of the rites.

    Finally, the document repeats the precise norm of Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 97: "A Priest must communicate at the altar at the moment laid down by the Missal each time he celebrates Holy Mass, and the concelebrants must communicate before they proceed with the distribution of Holy Communion. The Priest celebrant or a concelebrant is never to wait until the people's Communion is concluded before receiving Communion himself."

    It is hard to be clearer than that"

    1. Dear Anonymous,

      I don't know who you are, but I can see from your writing that you are very knowledgeable. Thank you for making comments on my blogsite. It's also ironic that some of the things you commented are things I was planning on posting for my next post, which I already have in draft form. A few of the things you commented here are the same things I posted about in my earlier posts. I was going to summarize the earlier posts on the liturgies of the Way on my next post, but you already beat me to it. :-)

      I don't know who you are, and I thank you for making your comments.

    2. You are welcome, but you can thank Fr McNamara for the statements. I sincerely hope you are not seeking to run the "concelebration" line again to justify the illicit practise of the NCW's reception of communion.

    3. Dear Anonymous,

      And what is wrong with "concelebration." ? According to "Eucharisticum Mysterium":

      47. Concelebration of the eucharist aptly expresses the unity of the sacrifice and the priesthood; whenever the faithful take an active part, the unity of the people of God stands out in a special way, [See Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 57. Sacred Congregation of Rites, Decr. generale Ecclesiae semper, 7 March 1965.] particularly if the bishop presides. [See Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 41; Lumen gentium no. 28; Presbyterorum ordinis no. 7.]

      Concelebration also symbolizes and strengthens the fraternal bond between priests, because “by virtue of the ordination to the priesthood that they share all are linked together in a close bond of brotherhood.” [Lumen gentium no. 28; Acta Apostolicae Sedis

    4. Definition of concelebration:

      Concelebration is the rite by which several priests say Mass together, all consecrating the same bread and wine.

      It is impossible, in the Catholic context, to speak of concelebration in respect to the participation of the laity. Although I expect you might argue just that. You won't of course be able to provide anything from the utterances of the Church or the saints to support that position

    5. Dear Anonymous,

      According to the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia on "Concelebration":

      The verb to "concelebrate in the Early Church had a somewhat different meaning from the present, more technical understanding. In Christian antiquity, all Christians "concelebrated according to their role or liturgical order in the Church..........In the Middle Ages, this term came to mean exclusively the celebration by bishops and priests together."

      Furthermore, the GIRM also indicate that the people can participate in the Concelebration Mass. The following was taken from the GIRM, Chapter IV, part II of the Concelebrated Mass. The capitalization is my emphasis:

      238 Libera nos (Deliver us) is said by the principal celebrant alone, with hands extended. All the concelebrants, TOGETHER WITH THE PEOPLE sing or say the final acclamation Quia tuum est regnum (For the Kingdom).

      240 While the Agnus Dei is sung or said, the deacons or some of the concelebrants may help the principal celebrant break the hosts for Communion, BOTH OF THE CONCELEBRANTS AND OF THE PEOPLE.

      You say that it is impossible to speak of concelebration in respect to the participatin of the laity; yet, it's there in the GIRM....of the laity participating in the concelebration Mass.

      It is stated in the Statutes that members of the Way are to celebrate in small communities as the Early Church did......and the Early Church had a different view of concelebration. Today, the word "concelebration" refers mainly to the bishops and priests, but there is nothing wrong with celebrating the ancient ways of the Early Church just as there is nothing wrong with celebrating mass the modern way.

    6. You quote the GIRM: "All the concelebrants, TOGETHER WITH THE PEOPLE sing or say the final acclamation Quia tuum est regnum "

      If concelebrate meant to include the people, the the words "together with the people" would be superflous, would they not?

      Again the GIRM says "BOTH OF THE CONCELEBRANTS AND OF THE PEOPLE." which itself makes a distinction between those that concelebrate (the concelebrants) and the people.

      You quote the Sunday's Visitor's Catholic Encyclopedia on "Concelebration", which clearly indicates that the present meaning of concelebrate is "exclusively the celebration by bishops and priests together."

      Whether the ancient meaning of concelebrate is different to now is irrelevant. The GIRM provides for concelebration with the present, not the ancient meaning.

      Where in the statutes does it say that celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities is as the early church did?

      In fact, the statutes explicitly state:

      "3. For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, "

      whereby we return to the GIRM and its use of the present meaning of concelebrate.

      You may be interested to know that your previous post about this subject became part of a discussion on Catholic Answers. There, a NCW member of 20years plus, said this:

      "Where else have you heard of this concelebrating stuff beside Diana's blog? I haven't heard/read such thing anywhere else. To my best knowledge it is not the "teaching of the NCW", nor do I adhere to it. I understand "concelebration" as referring to priests."

      Were you able to produce the opinion of one Catholic person of authority, a priest or theologian perhaps, who would agree with your opinion, I would take back my objection. You won;t be able to though, because what you propose is so novel in the understanding of the Eucharist, that no one who claims to be Catholic and is of sound mind would ever say this about concelebration.

      In fact you do your brothers in the way a disservice by persevering with this line of reasoning. Even Kiko would never accept your proposal here. And its worse than that even, Diana, because in writing here these unorthodox views you take responsibility for leading others astray.

      Of course laity can participate in a concelebrated Mass! I've attended many such masses, and will do so tonight. But my attendance can never be taken to imply that I concelebrate.

      You must be able to explain why only priests recite the words of consecration, and the laity do not. The liturgical books explain this clearly enough.

    7. Dear Anonymous,

      My lengthy response is found in the following weblink: