This is going to be a long and slow post, so I ask for your patience. It was purposely done this way in a step by step manner for better understanding and to dispel any kind of misinterpretation.
There has been several contentions regarding Cardinal Arinze's letter. There were six things in that letter that Pope Benedict asked the NCW to do. Of the six, number 5 is the one that is most controversial. According to Cardinal Arinze's letter dated December 1, 2005:
5. On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition (not exceeding two years) is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities (seated, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the church instead of the dedicated altar in the sanctuary) to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion. This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.
Okay.....so let us take a look at the very first sentence in number 5 without the parentethesis, which is:
On the manner of receiving Holy Communion, a period of transition is granted to the Neocatechumenal Way to pass from the widespread manner of receiving Holy Communion in its communities to the normal way in which the entire Church receives Holy Communion.
Without the parentethesis, we see clearly that the Pope wants the NCW to change its manner of receiving Holy Communion to the normal way. And what is the normal way of receiving Holy Communion? It is by standing up. Also, is there anything in that sentence that says something about kneeling? No.
The parentethesis gives a more detail account of what the Pope is requesting. The period of transition is two years. And this manner in how we receive communion is.......(SEATED, with a cloth-covered table placed at the center of the Church instead of the dedicated alter in the sanctuary). In other words, the Pope wants members of the NCW to stand, not to sit, when receiving the Body and Blood of Christ because "standing" is how everyone in the Universal Church does it (including the Eastern Catholics).
So, now let's take a look at the second sentence, which states (the bold is my emphasis):
This means that the Neocatechumenal Way must begin to adopt the manner of distributing the Body and Blood of Christ that is provided in the liturgical books.
Is the second sentence saying anything about kneeling? No. The topic of the second sentence has to do with the manner of DISTRIBUTING the Body and Blood of Christ. According to the liturgical books, the priest distributes the Body and Blood of Christ to the faithful standing up (unless of course, the faithful is in a wheelchair).
Now, let us take a look at what the approved Statutes say:
For the celebrations of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, with the exception of the explicit concessions from the Holy See. (49) Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place (Article 13, Section 3).
Okay....now let us look at the FIRST sentence, which states:
For the celebrations of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, with the exception of the explicit concessions from the Holy See. (49)
The number (49) is the footnote, which elaborates in more detail what the first sentence wants the NCW to do, so let us look at footnote 49, which states:
(49) SEE Benedict XVI, Speech to the Neocatechumenal Communities on January 12, 2006 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 554-556; CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP; Letter of December 1, 2005 in Notitiae 41 (2005), 56-565; "Notificication of the Congregation for Divine Worship on celebrations in groups of the Neocatechumenal Way" ..........
Okay.....so footnote 49 tells us to SEE Benedict's XVI speech to the Neocatechumenal way on January 12, 2006. Did footnote 49 tell us to SEE the ENTIRE GIRM? NO. So, now, let's take a look at that speech, which is found here. According to that speech (the bold is my emphasis):
Precisely to help the Neocatechumenal Way to render even more effective its evangelizing action in communion with all the People of God, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments recently imparted to you in my name certain norms concerning the Eucharistic Celebrtion, after the trial period that the Servant of God John Paul II conceded. I am sure you will attentively observe these norms that reflect what is provided for in the liturgical books approved by the Church.
So, was there anything in that speech that says something about kneeling? No. Okay.....so what exactly is this speech saying? It is referring to a letter imparted to Kiko in the Pope's name that contain certain norms that the NCW was supposed to follow? The Pope's speech specifically said "TO OBSERVE THESE NORMS" that reflect what is in the liturgical books. Did it say that we are to observe ALL NORMS in the GIRM? NO! It specifically said "THESE NORMS". in fact, the Pope stated in his letter "CERTAIN NORMS." And what are "THESE or CERTAIN NORMS" that we are supposed to be attentive to that is provided in the liturgical books??
According to the footnote in 49, it refers to the letter of Cardinal Arinze's letter dated December 1, 2005. This is the reason why I placed in RED the letters and dates in footnote 49. Was there anything in Cardinal Arinze's letter about kneeling? No. (SEE the first six paragraphs of this post).
So, let us complete the entire footnote 49 from where I left off. It continued on to say:
.......L'Osservatore Romano, December 24, 1988: "The Congregation consents that among the adaptions foreseen by the instruction "Actio Pastoralis", nn. 6-11, the groups of the above-mentioned "Way" may receive communion under two species, always with unleavened bread, and transfer "ad experimentum" the Rite of Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful.
So, is there anything in the above quote that says something about kneeling? No. Okay...so let us take a look at L'Osservatore Romano, December 24, 1988, which is found here. According to the document, it stated:
The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments gave notice, through a notification published on the 24 December 1988 edition of L'Osservatore Romano for groups of the Neocatechumenal Way to receive the Eucharist under the forms of both bread and wine and to transfer experimentally the rite of peace to before the offertory. These changes can be implemented only with the approval of the local bishop. Other changes that such groups have adopted, such as lay preaching at Mass, standing for the Eucharistic prayer, receiving communion while seated, and passing the consecrated chalice from person to person have not been given approval.
Is there anything in that paragraph that says anything about kneeling? No. This was notification given to the Way in 1988. It is now 2014, and we do not do any lay preaching during Mass nor sit when receiving the Body and Blood of Christ. We do not even pass the consecrated chalice from person to person.
The rest of the footnote is self explanatory. The reason the footnote is there is to explain in detail exactly what the approved Statutes is saying, and it all goes back to Cardinal Arinze's letter. Was there anything in the six items listed in that letter saying that the NCW was supposed to kneel after the consecration? No. So, why do those who are against the NCW want its members to kneel when the Pope never gave us that instruction?
Now that we have gone over the first sentence of the Statutes Article 13, Section 3, let us look at the second sentence, which stated (the bold is my emphasis):
Regarding the distribution of Holy Communion under the two species, the neocatechumens receive it standing, remaining at their place.
Is there anything in this sentences saying anything about kneeling? No. Who does the distribution of the Body and Blood of Christ? It is the priest. According to this sentence, what are the members supposed to do when the priest distribute the Body and Blood of Christ to the faithful? Receive it standing up.
Pope Benedict XVI celebrated Mass in the NCW, and the only problems he saw were those that he listed in Cardinal Arinze's letter. Was kneeling in any of the list? No. If "not kneeling" after the consecration was a problem, it would have been listed in that letter. However, it was never a problem because we bow after the consecration, and bowing conforms with the universal Church.
Today, every six items listed in Cardinal Arinze's letter have already been addressed by the NCW. We are in communion with the Holy See in that we have already followed all the six items listed in Cardinal Arinze's letter.
Diana, this is what your statues say: "For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite are followed, with the exception of the explicit concessions from the Holy See"
ReplyDeleteThe "explicit concessions" include : to receive communion standing, remaining in their place; to move the sign of peace; a brief occasional intervention may be made that does not have the appearance of a homily; to celebrate the Saturday vigil for Sunday Mass.
Lets hear what Cardinal Arinze himself said about the letter:
"I will simply give the summary: "In the celebration of the Holy Mass, the Neocatechumenal Way will accept and follow the liturgical books approved by the Church without omitting or adding anything."
This is the basic principle. To follow the approved books; not to add or take away." All the rest is detail; six more precise points are presented to *respond to some petitions of the Neocatechumenal Way on matters relating to the Eucharistic celebration*. " http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitcatway.HTM
In other words, the “precise points” were given in response to particular issues that were raised. All other matters pertaining to the Eucharist are to be in accordance with the liturgical books.
Now, no-one is arguing that the NCW does not have permission to stand to receive communion – however we point out that to “receive” means also to consume, therefore to sit and consume is a violation of that explicit concession.
But there are no “implicit concessions” as you seem to argue. Other than those matters explicitly discussed the NCW must follow the liturgical books. Why is that not clear to you?
You ask: “So, why do those who are against the NCW want its members to kneel when the Pope never gave us that instruction?”
Well because that is what the liturgical books require – the same books your Statutes say you will follow, and the same books that Card Arinze says you “will accept and follow… without omitting or adding anything”. If you don’t kneel in the consecration, you are omitting that instruction. If music plays during the words of consecration, you are “adding”. If you don’t consume the Blessed sacrament immediately after it is distributed (which is the normal way the Church receives communion), you are violating these norms. And so on.
Because the Church was giving a “concession” in regard to the way in which communion is distributed, it is mentioned in the Card’s letter. But because no concession was given regarding whether to stand or not during the consecration, it is not mentioned. Obviously because the liturgical books are clear on this, and the NCW is expected to abide by them
Dear Anonymous at 4:15 p.m.,
DeleteThe six items listed in Cardinal Arinze's letter were certain norms that the NCW was supposed to correct just as the Pope stated in his letter. We did not follow the liturgical books until those norms were corrected. And this is why today, nothing ever came out of the investigation that Pope Benedict started. Pope Francis ceased all those investigations. They were unfounded. Today, Pope Francis confirmed Kiko as a consultant.
Why did Pope Benedict start an investigation? Why was the investigation into the liturgy of the Way also referred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), not only the Congregation for Divine Worship? The CDF investigates errors of Doctrine doesn't it?
DeleteHow can you possibly say that "they were unfounded", when you still admit you do not follow the liturgical books, in matters outside of the "explicit concessions"?
Dear Anonymous at 5:44 pm,
DeleteThe investigation was started because people suspected that the NCW was guilty of liturgical abuses. However, I think the question you should ask is "what happened to the investigation?" These are the facts:
Fact 1: The investigation was started in April 2012.
Fact 2: Nothing was ever heard about the investigation as to the allegations of liturgical abuses.
Fact 3: Pope Francis ceased all investigations on October 2013.
The question......what is the most LOGICAL and most REASONABLE explanation of ceasing the investigation. I don't think Pope Francis is simply going to stop the investigation without seriously looking at the allegations first. Thus, it would be most logical and reasonable to assume that Pope Francis did in fact looked at the allegations and the investigation that they have uncovered so far. So, what would be the most logical and reasonable explanation for Pope Francis to cease the investigations? My answer is that the allegations were all unfounded.
Do you have a better logical and reasonable explanation?
As I have stated in my post, if the Pope wanted us to follow everything in the GIRM, footnote 49 would simply say "SEE GIRM 135-160." After all, if you look at the other footnotes in the Statutes, some of them were very straightforward. For example, footnote number 43 in the Statutes says "SEE Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1168." That is very straightforward.
Seriously? For the umpteenth time - Article 13 of your own Statutes reads "For the celebration of the Eucharist in the small communities the APPROVED LITURGICAL BOOKS OF THE ROMAN RITE are followed, with the exception of the explicit concessions from the Holy See"
DeleteFootnote 49 contains the details of the "explicit concessions" so everything else is expected to be according to "the approved liturgical books of the Roman Rite". There is no need for footnote 49 to say "See GIRM 135-160" because article 13 says it already!
Dear Anonymous at 3:13 p.m.,
DeleteIf that was the case, then footnote 49 should have stated in this way:
49 See "The Congregation consents that among the adaptions foreseen by the instruction "Actio Pastoralis", nn. 6-11, the groups abovementioned "Way" may reeive communion under two species, always wth uleavened bread , and transfer "ad experimentum" the Rite f Peace to after the Prayer of the Faithful."
In other words, they should have just put in the last part and left everything out such as the letter of Pope Benedict and Cardinal Arinze's letter. But they did not. Footnote 49 cited the Pope's letter and Cardinal Arinze's letter.
Furthermore, I have to once again bring up the investigations that Pope Benedict XVI ordered. Allegations of liturgical abuses were made, and for over a year, nothing ever came out of those allegations. Instead, Pope Francis ceased the investigation.
In addition, the John Paul II Catholic University is quoted as saying that the NCW has followed "attentively the directions of the Second Vatican Council, bringing back Christians who have strayed from the ecclesia community to the foundations of the faith that spring from the Bible and from Liturgy."
This statement from the University implies that they know something that the anti-catholics do not know. And when Pope Francis stopped the investigations on the Way, he knows something the Anti-Catholic do not know. Why did Pope Francis stopped the investigation? And what does it mean when the University said that the NCW was following everything in Vatican II?
Good job, Diana!
ReplyDeleteSaying something is one thing; putting it on paper is another thing; doing the opposite of what is not suppose to be is something else!
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete-Yes, two years to change manner of rec. Communion.
-(Seated, with a cloth covered table.....) - Cardinal Arinze included these words as describing the NCW manner of rec. Communion - He meant that the manner of rec. Communion should be changed to (standing, with a dedicated altar...)
-Yes the Eastern Rite stands for Communion; but, they show profound respect for the Body and Blood by not touching the sacred species, but by receiving by spoon in the mouth.
-(And, Pope Benedict allowed for kneeling when receiving Communion if one chose.)
-Cardinal Arinze's letter 2005 doesn't say anything about kneeling; but, in 2004 when he penned Redemptionis Sacramentum along with Cardinal Ratzinger on behalf of Pope John Paul II, he did state (on behalf of Pope John Paul II) that any changes to the Mass must have recognitio from the Pope. (This is important, because the Roman Missal-GIRM requires us to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer - Consecration.
- During the latter years of his papacy, Pope Benedict required all those receiving Communion from him, to kneel and receive on the tongue. (Even Kiko submitted to this in Rome.)
-There is profound beauty and relevance in kneeling before our Lord - I encourage you to google " flowave - the right posture for adoration at Mass."
-Please note, just because there are some that are trying to "correct" Kiko's Mass, doesn't mean we are hostile towards the NCW. They are terrific people, that love God immensely. I am not even one-hundreth as good as them.
-Now, just because kneeling wasn't mentioned in Cardinal Arinze's letter, it doesn't mean that it's not important. Other additions and deletions of the NCW Mass were not mentioned either. Yet, in Pope Benedict's speech to Kiko and the NCW Jan 20 2012 he called for the Mass celebrated to be regulated by the liturgical books - "which must be followed faithfully." (no deletions or additions to the Roman Missal-GIRM) Pope Benedict was greatly concerned; and, just like a father who loves his children, he was trying to correct them in a loving way.
-Yes, the Pope never gave the NCW instructions to kneel during Communion; but, the requirement of the Roman Missal-GIRM is to kneel during the Eucharistic Prayer (Consecration), and he expected that of them.
-Bowing at the Eucharistic Prayer (Consecration) is acceptable if one is physically unable to kneel as per the Roman Missal-GIRM.
-Remember, this is written with no hostility towards any member of the NCW.
That all may be one
Dear Anonymous at 5:28 p.m.,
DeleteI agree with you that Pope Benedict XVI stressed to Kiko to following the liturgy according to what is set down in the approved statutes. It was also Benedict XVI who ordered that investigation because he received complaints that the NCW was committing liturgical abuses. I am going to say the same thing as my comment above to one of the anonymous posters:
Now that the investigation was ordered in April, 2012, I think the question you should ask is "what happened to the investigation?" These are the facts:
Fact 1: The investigation was started in April 2012.
Fact 2: Nothing was ever heard about the investigation as to the allegations of liturgical abuses.
Fact 3: Pope Francis ceased all investigations on October 2013.
The question......what is the most LOGICAL and most REASONABLE explanation of ceasing the investigation? I don't think Pope Francis is simply going to stop the investigation without seriously looking at the allegations first. Thus, it would be most logical and reasonable to assume that Pope Francis did in fact looked at the allegations and the investigation that they have uncovered so far. So, what would be the most logical and reasonable explanation for Pope Francis to cease the investigations? My answer is that the allegations were all unfounded.
Do you have a better logical and reasonable explanation?
As I have stated in my post, if the Pope wanted us to follow everything in the GIRM, footnote 49 would simply say "SEE GIRM 135-160." After all, if you look at the other footnotes in the Statutes, some of them were very straightforward. For example, footnote number 43 in the Statutes says "SEE Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1168." That is very straightforward.
To the Readers reading my blog,
ReplyDeleteI would also like to add under this thread, that these so-called liturgical abuses have already been reported to the Vatican since the time Benedict XVI was Pope. It was Benedict XVI who started the investigation on the Neocatecumenal Way to determine whether these allegations were true. The Vatican is fully aware of these so-called allegations of liturgical abuses because it's on the news and in almost every Anti-Catholic website and blogsite.
It was on April, 2012 that Pope Benedict ordered the investigation on the Neocatechumenal Way. On February 28, 2013, Pope Benedict resigned. From the time that the investigation was ordered to his resignation was 10 months. They were investigating for 10 month. That is almost a year......and yet, NOTHING ever came of it.
By March 13, 2013, we had a new Pope....Pope Francis. By the time, he was elected Pope, the investigations were still going on. It was not until October when Pope Francis ceased all investigations on the Neocatechumenal Way. So by that time, more than a year had gone by. Now, I am certain that Pope Francis did not simply ceased the investigation without first seriously looking into the allegations. To do so would be a gross negligence on his part. So, I'm sure he looked at the allegations, and then made his decision to ceased the investigation.
On one side, we have the Anti-Catholics making all these allegations of liturgical abuse, and then on the other side, we have the Vatican calling an investigation on these allegations with more than year gone by with nothing to show. Then suddenly in October, 2013, Pope Francis ceased the investigation.
Furthermore, when the NCW met with Pope Francis on Feb. 1, 2014, the Pope gave three recommendations, and NONE of those recommendations had anything to do with the LITURGY.
On top of that, Kiko was given an award on June 26, 2013 with the John Paul II Catholic University quoted as saying that the NCW has followed the Neocatechmenal way has followed "attentively the directions of the Second Vatican Council, bringing back Christians who have strayed from the ecclesia community to the foundations of the faith that spring from the Bible and from Liturgy." And this was DURING the time the investigations were still ongoing.
Then on February of this year, Pope Francis confirmed Kiko as consultor for the Pontifical Council for the Laity for five more years.
Considering the actions of the Vatican, didn't you think that something was amiss.....that something was not right compared to what the Anti-Catholics were saying? Did anyone compare what the Anti-Catholics were saying and the actions of the Vatican toward the Neocatechumenal Way? Something to think about.
Pope Francis is a no-frills type of guy. I would think he had enough information of the Neocatechumenal Way's Mass to determine whether or not it was in line with the Roman Missal-GIRM. After all, he is close to Pope Benedict Emeritus who definitely wanted their mass changed. To Pope Francis, who would have had info on the NCW Mass, the commission on investigating the NCW Mass would now be excess and he naturally would disband it. Not a surprise at all.
DeleteIt is uncharitable to call those who truly believe and have all kinds of proof that the NCW Mass has not been approved with all its adaptations contrary to the Roman Missal-GIRM "Anti-Catholic."
The three recommendations of Pope Francis when he met with Kiko and the NCW Feb 1 2014 definitely do have something to do with their LITURGY. So much so that Kiko and others were puzzled by the Pope's comments. Kiko then sent the Pope a letter for clarification. When it was answered in April 2014 - letter said statutes were not modified - meaning statutes were not changed - meaning the statutes which only dealt with the moving of the sign of peace and the reception of Holy Communion still ONLY deal with the sign of peace and reception of Holy Communion.
The award Kiko received from the University is commendable. However, the university cannot give the NCW approval for the changes in the NCW Mass. Only the Pope can; and, he alone must give recognitio. (No recognitio for each individual addition and deletion has been given.)
Kiko's position of consultor is good - after all his desire to spread the good news is commendable. However, the position again does not verify the approval for his mass. The Pope must issue recognitio - this is written permission for each addition and deletion in his mass.
Certainly not Anti-Catholic - only striving for the Truth to be known, so that it can make the NCW even better.
That all may be one.
Dear Anonymous at 4:22 am,
DeleteThose recommendations had nothing to do with the liturgy. The first recommendation the Pope gave was to be in communion with the Parish, in that we be obedient to the Bishops and priests to the point that if they ban the NCW in the Parish, we are to obey. The pope did not say to change the liturgy, but to be in communion with the parish leaders through obedience. The second recommendation tells us to consider the culture of the people we send missionaries to. The third has to do with respecting the decision of the person who do not wish to join the Way.
Anti-Catholic is defined as anyone or anything against the Catholic Church, the Vatican, the Pope, the Catholic people, the teachings of the Catholic Church, and anything Catholic. The Way is Catholic and so is the Francisians, the sisters of Mercy. Anyone who persecutes them is also persecuting the Catholic Church and therefore anti-Catholic.
"Those recommendations had nothing to do with the liturgy"
DeleteSo, Kiko complains to the pope that his words:
where His Holiness said that, at times, it would be better to renounce to live in all its details what the itinerary of the Way would demand, in order to ensure unity among the brethren who form the one ecclesial community.
have been misunderstood and applied to the NCW liturgy. He writes to the Pope.
Arch Becciu writes back that those words the pope spoke, and which Kiko clearly thinks have been misunderstood to apply to the NCW liturgy:
" do not lend themselves to misunderstandings, "
giving the obvious conclusion that the Pope is pointing out through Arch becciu's letter, that he is aware of the liturgical problems of the Way.
To reinforce this attention to the liturgy, the letter continues:
"Such words do not in any way modify the Statutes, rather they confirm them: as far as it pertains to the celebrations of the Paschal Vigil and the Sunday Eucharist, mentioned by you, articles 12 and 13, read in their entirety, constitute therefore the regulatory charter of reference.
Dear Anonymous at 11:22 p.m.
DeleteNo where in the Pope's recommendation is he saying that the liturgy is wrong. He is saying that communion with the parish is more important than any liturgy. Unfortunately, some people took his speech the wrong way. For example, when Jungewatch substituted the word "recommendation" to "rebuke"....indicating something that is totally different.
I'm not Anti-Catholic. I AM VERY MUCH A CATHOLIC VOICING MY OPINION!
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 6:31 p.m.,
DeleteThere is a difference between expressing an opinion and being Anti-Catholic.
These are examples of expressing an opinion.
1) The NCW does not follow the GIRM because they don't kneel in their Eucharistic celebration.
2) Kiko's catechesis sounds more Protestant than Catholic.
3) The NCW keeps secrets and won't tell what's in their Directory.
Below are examples of Anti-Catholic statements and the reasons it is viewed as "anti-Catholic."
1) The NCW is another church and they are trying to take over the Catholic Church from the inside.
The above statement is anti-Catholic because they put the NCW as outside the Catholic Church and as another religion.
2) Do not support or give any money to those churches that have the neos. Only support our local church that don't have the neos.
The above statement is anti-Catholic. By not supporting those Churches, they are actually going against the Catholic Church herself because those Churches are Catholic.
3) We need to get the RMS priests out. Only our local priests should be in our Churches.
The above statement is anti-Catholic because the RMS priests are Catholic.
So are you going to say that Pale' Mike is anti-Catholic?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 12:22 p.m.,
DeleteThat depends on what he says. See my response above on the difference between expressing an opinion and being anti-Catholic.
Very exact language!
DeleteThe Junglewatch is an anti-Catholic site because they go against their Catholic sisters and brothers. They want to destroy us. They don't just express opinion, they incite hatred and judgment as if they are judges. But they are not. They only judge themselves. I also see a lot of hatred there against the Archbishop. This is very anti-Catholic because the office of Archbishop is sanctified by Rome.
Now you are an authority of what makes a person anti-catholic!
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:17 p.m.,
DeleteActually, I went by the definition in the dictionary, which I consider a standard.
It is anti-catholic to condone heresy
DeleteDear Anonymos at 4:51 p.m.,
DeleteIt was never YOUR place to determine whether the NCW is heretical or not. That role belongs ONLY to the Pope and Magisterium. And the last five Popes never declared the NCW heretical. YOUR place, on the other hand, is to obey the Pope and Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Dear DIana,
DeleteLike Anonymous 05/28/2014 @12:22PM, I'm curious to know if you think Pale' Mike is "anti-Catholic." Here is what he posted on JungleWatch:
Pale' Mike Crisostomo May 28, 2014 at 10:18 AM
"I support my brother priest, Fr Paul. I stand with him. As a Diocesan priest in the Archdiocese of Agana, I am concerned about the treatment of our Filipino priests, the division in parishes where the NeoCatechumenal Way is present, and especially concerned about our Archbishop who continues to display his liking to the RMS priests over his Diocesan priests. I promise respect and obedience to HIM and HIS successors. I renewed that promise last Chrism Mass. As a priest-son of the Archbishop, I implore him to put an end to all this. I assisted Him by arranging a meeting at the Carmel Monastery with Fr Paul, hoping this would end. However, Fr Paul and the Archbishop both had other expectations. Now, the issue of process and Fr Paul is in the hands of ROME. However, there are other issues need to be addressed----policies of hiring and firing---police and court clearance and sex-offender registry requirements---Creating Safe Environment.---Not to mention, Clergy Personnel Policies, retirement and etc....As president of the Association of the Diocesan Clergy of the Archdiocese of Agana, I implore all of us to pray for our Archbishop and our local Church---that we seek reconciliation and God's Mercy, soon. -----Our Lady, Queen of the Clergy, pray for us!"
I look forward to reading your opinion. Thank you,
Dear Cathy,
DeleteFather Mike was expressing his opinion and concerns. There is nothing in his letter that is degrading toward the NCW, the RMS priests, the Archbishop, or the Catholic Church. Although he says that he supports Father Paul, he also says that he respects the Archbishop and was hoping that he two would reconcile with each other.
If you are unsure as to the difference between "expressing an opinion" and "being anti-Catholic" see my comment on May 28th, 12:01 p.m.
Dear Diana,
DeleteThe one thing that stands out the most for me in Pale Mikes comment is...
1. the division in parishes where the NeoCatechumenal Way is present
In this statement, Pale Mike does not identify the cause for the division. No where does he say that the NCW is to blame for the division. Pale Mike only points out that there is a division.
Knowing Pale Mike, I can assume that his intentions where not to enter into the blog to affirm the blog. Pale Mike even pointed out at the end other issues that we should be concerned with. Instead the patrons of junglewatch have taken Pale Mikes statement as a stamp of approval and even an endorsement.
Pale Mike is one of the few priests who really know what it means to be a Pastor. His choice of words could not have been better. He points out some issues while avoiding to directly blame or compromise any one group or individual. This is the approach that all pastors should take.
As I have mentioned before that In the beginning of this whole drama, I too stood with Father Paul. This all changed when I began to see Father Paul become a member of certain facebook groups that were very negative and especially when I saw Father Paul "liking" comments that were very negative also. I was a parishioner of Pale Mike for a long time and he indirectly taught me that this is not the way one should act. Even if there was a injustice to done to you, the message I got from Pale Mike though the years, is it will be okay, Pray Hope and Dont Worry! So yes, between the vocal Father Paul and the silent Archbishop, Ive now admired the silence.
If I grasped the wrong concept of "silence" and "injustice" then I will probably receive a call from Pale Mike cause he probably knows who I am by now.
Lastly, other than the few from both sides who continue to show their lack of love and charity, I think that we should continue to try and bring this drama down a bit, like the words of the archbishop, "cool it". Ive also learned from Pale Mike, when everyone is yelling, then no one is listening. Joy!
Dear Anonymous at 3:41 p.m.,
DeleteI agree with what you say here. Sometimes God allows an injustice to occur for a reason. We cannot see it now, but in time, it will make better sense. I agree that we should pray, hope, and don't worry. Prayers have power and strength.
You throw the word "persecution" around so much that if ever someone in the NCW is actually persecuted, like the boy who cried wolf, nobody will pay attention. These repetitious and illicit use of the word shows your lack of humility, arrogance and, importantly, respect for the history of true persecution of our Church. Clarification and correction is hardly persecution. Hardly!
ReplyDeleteMust you make a mockery of everything?
Dear Anonymous at 10:23 a.m.,
DeleteThere are actually different kinds of persecutions. I provided you with the dictionary below to help you understand the word "persecute" more in modern terms:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/persecute?s=t
I'm sorry Diana but i believe NCW does use the word "persecution" rather loosely in religious context.
ReplyDeleteHerein are truly persecuted brothers and sisters, what is here on is blog and other blogs is really just "wordplay". Pen rattling, keyboard punching. So to speak.
http://www.persecution.org/2014/05/24/pope-francis-trip-to-the-middle-east-highlights-global-war-on-christians/
-Catholics United-
Dear Annymous at 1:42 p.m.,
ReplyDeleteBelow is the definition of persecute from Dictionary.com:
1. "to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently".
When a person is persistently harassed or attacked with harsh words due to their religion, race, or belief....that is persecution. The Archbishop is being persecuted so much that it no longer matters whether he does or say a good thing. The good thing he does or says is still criticized and put in a negative light. His every movement and every decision he makes even if it a good one will be harassed in a negative way. That's persecution.
Yours is the most ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. He is the Archbishop. He should not make any excuses for remaining silent.
DeleteAll Bishops become targets for criticism due to the nature of their role. To hide from his flock because of criticism is indicative that he may not be fit to lead. Not to mention, when many, many people are looking to him for direction and clarity, and he refuses to provide any by his silence, he is failing the Archdiocese he was chosen to lead and he pledged to look after. Pointing this out is not even close to persecution nor harassment. He has a duty to perform as a Bishop, and he is failing miserably at it.
God help us all if he believes, as you so vehemently argue, that this is persecution.
Dear Anonymous at 4:42 p.m.,
DeleteThis is what the Holy Bible says:
Hebrews 13:17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
And this is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:
CCC 1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to "obey and submit" to the Church's leaders, holding them in respect and affection. Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.
Most persecutions usually comes from the outside because the Catholic faithful are instructed to obey and respect their Church leaders. Disagreeing with Church leaders is okay. Even Francis of Assissi disagreed with the Pope, but he never disobeyed him nor show any disrespect toward him due to his sanctified office. Even Christ told His disciples to listen to the Pharisees because they sat in the Seat of Moses.
Nevertheless, the Archbishop is correct in remaining silent because even the good things he say will be mocked. Here is an example below. The Archbishop said something that was not negative at all. It was a positive thing, but it was mocked. So, why should the Archbishop come out and answer to a flock of sheep who show him no respect? The only thing the Archbishop can do is to pray for them.
http://www.junglewatch.info/2014/05/blog-post.html
The Archbishop is a leader and leaders as such should expect criticism from all sides no matter how popular or unpopular his decisions are.
DeleteArchbishop Apuron is not being persecuted. He is being criticized. Persecution intones that there is some personal or religious freedom/liberty restricted against ones' will to the point where there is loss of life not just the loss of that liberty to worship.
def:
criticism
: the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something
You're right though. He's in a corner right now. As a leader, i would come out and let his liberties and beliefs be known to settle everything his Catholic Congregation expects.
-Catholics United-
So Jesus would tell the Archbishop to just ignore his sheep or abandon them? Jesus did not shy away from speaking the truth just because he may be mocked. And the Archbishop did more than enough to earn that no respect.
DeleteBy ""obey and submit" to the Church's leaders", I can only guess you mean Kiko. he is the "leader" isn't he?, and you do what you do only because Kiko told you to. Its amazing that even the Holy Bible tells you to obey Kiko. He must be a Holy Saint after all
DeleteDear Anonymous at 8:46 p.m.,
DeleteI do not know how in the world you got the idea that it was Kiko I was speaking about when in my post I mentioned the Archbishop and nowhere in that comment did I mention Kiko. As a matter of fact, that weblink I provided had to do with the Archbishop being mocked. So, how in the world did you manage to come up with the idea that I was referring to Kiko???????????? This is the problem that I see in here. You focus on the word "church leader" and that's it. You can no longer see the rest of the comment. Please re-read my comment again.
The Church leaders are the Pope, bishops, and priests. Even Kiko must follow the Pope. So, when I said that I heard Father Pius say that these instructions came from Kiko who in turn received the same instructions from the Pope......essentially that means it came from the Pope. Why? Because that was the very source of the instruction.
Dear Anonymous at 6:56 p.m.,
DeleteJesus remained silent when he was mocked, scourged, and crucified. Even when His sheep denied Him three times, He remained silent. When Christ spoke the truth about His sheep, He told that they had very little faith.
Dear Catholic United,
DeleteThe Archbishop was appointed by God, and his office was sanctified by God. If you want to criticize or judge harshly, then do it with the President of the United States and with your Governor of Guam because your SECULAR government gave you that right.
Both the Holy Bible and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, on the other hand, says not to judge others and to obey and RESPECT your Church leaders.
Furthermore, persecution does not always mean a loss of life.
Further Diana,
ReplyDeleteon your example with the Archbishop i make these comparisons from history:
1. The pilgrims fleeing England, persecution
2. Christians from Myanmar fleeing their country seeking religious asylum on Guam, persecution
1. People publicly demonstrating against the Archbishop, criticism
2. People writing negatively on the Archbishop, criticism
In my opinion the Archbishop is wrong in staying silent because he is our Leader. Dissension just grows with his seeming apathy toward the issues this island, this diocese is facing.
We also pray for the Archbishops, all the priests, the religious on our island.
-Catholics United-
-Catholics United-
Dear Catholic United,
DeleteI already stated my reason why I feel that the Archbishop is correct in remaining silent. Dissension does not grow just because one person remain silent. Dissension grows because the anger is in the person's heart, and cannot learn to love the other.
CATHOLIC UNITED. WHO ARE YOU TO QUESTION the Archbishop right or wrong?????? WHO ARE YOU????!!!!!!!! Saint Padre Pio slap his follower for criticizing the Archbishop in Italy for discrediting Padre Pio!
DeleteAll I see in your post are nauseating hot smokes!
The Catholic Church is not the United States Government!
"Archbishop Apuron said that Pope Francis calls for a church that identifies with the poor. That can only happen, he said, “if bishops, priests, religious and laity leave the comfort of their homes, convents and residences and minister to the poor.” “We need to see the suffering of our brothers and sisters,” he said. “Pope Francis has lived poverty,” the archbishop said. “We have to live it first in order to understand the people who live in poverty.” The pope said that to know the poor is to “understand Jesus,” Archbishop Apuron said. He said Pope Francis wants priests to literally and figuratively “unlock the doors of the church,” to be “more compassionate and merciful as our God is merciful.”
ReplyDeleteThe comments above are from the Archbishop as you referenced on the Jungle Watch link. What he stated were beautiful sentiments. No one mocked this at all because that is what a good shepherd should teach and do.
Though not the topic of your post, but since you referenced the blog post, it is only fair to present the whole context of the problems commenters were pointing out. Particularly, that the very compassion and mercy that the Archbishop proclaimed was not afforded for his own son, Fr. Paul, who was in fact living the gospel and showing mercy to a repented man and his family.
The whole issue of the treatment of Father Paul and the Archbishop's comments are not lost on people. They are trying to understand why Fr Paul was treated so badly for a misunderstanding on the Archbishop's part. It even goes further than the firing, but even slander against Fr. Paul, the man, and subsequently his family. Is this compassion and mercy?
If the whole firing was truly to protect the vulnerable of the parish and school, then immediately a governing policy should have been set in place for the whole Archdiocese regarding former sex offenders in the parish whether as a volunteer or an employed person. No such policy exists, so we are left with confusion and unanswered questions. So I have to ask, how does this protect children?
The firing of Fr. Paul did nothing to protect anyone in this Archdiocese, but instead hurt so many.
The man was clearly terminated when Fr. Paul was instructed to do so, but he still volunteered. There again was the compassion and mercy for this man and his family as the Archbishop speaks of in the article, but the people of this Archdiocese have witnessed such a fiasco and the only fault we can see was that Fr. Paul was living out the gospel message.
This Diana is not a mockery of the Archbishop.
Dear Anonymous at 9:41 a.m.,
DeleteYes, I agree that those statements that the Archbishop made was beautiful. BUT why did you disregard the mocking comments made to that post: The comments under that post is long so I will post only a few of them. Below are the mocking comments referring to those very beautiful statements, which the Archbishop made:
AnonymousMay 13, 2014 at 7:12 PM
My first instinctive reaction is: "I'm appalled" over the disingenuousness of his words; but you know what? The hypocrisy is not surprising, come to think about it!
AnonymousMay 13, 2014 at 8:03 PM
Strange statement from someone who lives the lavish lifestyle like archbishop Apuron. But then after what's happening in Rome this past week archbishop Apuron needs to identofy a bit more with the pope. Not all is as the impression he is giving to the people of Guam. Infact he may even have mis led you all.
SanguilunaMay 13, 2014 at 8:47 PM
So basically the Pope wants us to not be like Apuron.
So Diana, Pale' Mike points out the fact that there is favoritism toward the RMS from the Archbishop and sees how the Filipino Priests are treated. What say you?
DeleteHere is a priest who is very dynamic in preaching; who is strong within the community; who gives all he has to his parish in every which way that he can and he too sees that there is a problem.
Pale' Mike is not afraid to voice what he believes is right in his heart. People of the community will rally behind him. He has touched the lives of many people. When someon touches you life one never forgets.
AnonymousMay 29, 2014 at 2:08 PM why is that you think he is favoring? Because many clergies and parishioners refuse to speak to him. How do you know this? Were you rejected in any point or just passing judgement. Your ideal Archbishop is sweet and loving and kind to hug you and shower you with kisses??? That is absurd. Regards to filipino Priest, this statement has nothing to do with raise and not motivated with prejudice. These are facts; not stories. A decade ago a contracted Filipino priest was caught drinking in the back of the building in the dark. Not once but more that handful occasion. So that priest contract was terminated and ask to return back to his Archdiocese back to his country. I disagree that Filipino priest are unfairly treated, many of the Filipino clergies are also employed such as Catholic Services and Archdiocese of Agana. Many of the Filipino priest here are ending up staying in Guam and petition their family as permanent resident. If Fr Mike states is true then what he claims are not true that the Archbishop favor just solely the RMS Priest. He return the clergies who are unfaithful of the Church. He kept the Filipino Priest who even gain economically and not spiritually.
DeleteDear Anonymous at 2:08 p.m.,
DeleteI do not know the Archbishop personally, so I do not know if he actually shows favoritism toward the RMS priests or not. I also have not heard the Archbishop's side of the story. However, I did read the 2011 survey that Tim Rohr published in his blogsite. According to that survey, many of the diocesan priests feel that the Archbishop pays much more attention to the NCW and does not pay much attention to them.
Unfortunately, the survey does not reveal what kind of attention these priests want from the Archbishop. However, one person did respond on the survey that the Archbishop does not eat lunch with them as often as he used to. Is that the kind of attention they desire from him......for him to have lunch with them?
Personally, I would not want to have lunch with my boss. I don't think I would even want his attention. I simply do my job as an employee. If my boss feels that I am doing a great job and feels I deserve a promotion, I will take the promotion. But I would not want to have lunch with him nor "brown-nose" him for his attention. Why? Because people might think that I "brown-nosed" him for attention just to get a promotion.
The second problem that the survey listed down was that the Archbishop has a natural shyness that many priests feel that he should overcome. A person who is naturally shy has a difficult time approaching people and initiating conversation. In other words, if you want the attention of a shy person, you are the one who have to approach him and initiate the conversation.
Do you think that Father Mike commented on Junglewatch blogsite for the intention of rallying people behind him against the Archbishop??
As for your last statement, the answer is NO! I don't think that his intentions were to have people rally behind him. He sees what is happening and implores the Archbishop to do something about it!
DeleteIf push comes to shove where Pale' Mike is concerned then People will Rally for him or behind him!
This is the Church you are speaking of not some publicly traded company. The Archbishop is not a "boss" but a Father.
DeleteImagine rejection from your mother and father? Bad analogy Diana!
Dear Anonymous at 11:00 a.m.,
DeleteYou are correct. The analogy of an company is a poor one. I agree that the Archbishop is a "Father," but so is a "priest." He is also called "Father." Nevertheless, the Bishop has a higher status and rank than a priest; therefore, the bishop is the superior. This is the reason why priests make a vow of "obedience" to the bishop. He is in a sense their superior, and the Bishop holds that authority. The Pope has the highest authority and the bishops must be obedient to him.
It is the same in God's family. The Father is the Head of the household. Children are not equal to their parents and instructed to be obedient to them. The parents are the authority figures. In God's family, siblings often get jealous of one another and compete for the attention of their parents to love them. Perhaps, the same thing is happening between the diocesan and RMS priests. One is jealous of the other because they perceived the other as getting more attention.
Anonymous at 8:52am.
ReplyDeleteFortunately as Catholics we can question our priests and Bishop. Because unfortunately, and i cite this example,
If we did not ever question our priests and bishops the sex abuse scandal in this Catholic Church of ours would be EVEN GREATER.
On St. Padre Pio //In a letter to the chief of Radio Maria[56] in 1994, Zoffoli reported that already in the late Sixties saint Pio of Pietrelcina defined Kiko Argüello and the Neocatechumenals as «the new false prophets».
-CATHOLICS UNITED-
Dear Catholic United,
DeleteFirst of all, Kiko Arguello is not a priest. At the time that St. Padre Pio said that, it was in the sixties. And at that time, the Way was struggling. After all, Kiko Arguello was never a priest, and he did not have a priest to guide him in regards to liturgies. And this is why Kiko Arguello sought the help of the Pope to help guide him to forming the right liturgies acceptable to the Church and in the New Evangelization.
You are right Diana the complaint occur in mid 1960's not current. If not guided with the Pope. This charism would have died since day one. Don't you think AnonymousMay 29, 2014 at 10:01 AM? In the SEX scandal, it was the victim who arises in the United States. Emeritus Benedict who rise up and purge the Church. That explain what is happening now with the current Priest.
DeleteAnonymousMay 29, 2014 at 10:01 AM
ReplyDeletePopes Support the Charism since earlier.
Pope Paul VI, on May 8, 1974 during the Feast of the Madonna of the Rosary said of the Neocatechumenate movement: "What joy and hope you give us with your activities... Living and promoting this reawakening as a form of 'post baptism,' renewing in today's Christian communities the maturity and profundity of baptismal preparation in the early Church."
Pope John Paul I met personally with Kiko and Carmen when he was still Patriarch of Venice in 1972, permitting them to open a community in his diocese, and encouraging the movement's progress in the following years.
Pope John Paul II has always supported the movement, even in his days as cardinal of Cracow. He visited the Neocatechumenate community of Porto San Giorio on December 30, 1988, where, for the first time in our days, a Pope celebrated, the Pope praised the movement's "fruits" of personal conversions and missionary inspiration. In 1990, the Neocatechumenates received their first official papal recognition, in the letter to Bishop Cordes mentioned above.
Dear Diana,
ReplyDeleteI'm glad the NCW has changed tremendously since St. Padre Pio made that comment. We have had some remarkable Popes that "never broke the bent rod." Reading all the heated and sometimes uncharitable arguments on both sides, I suggest we humbly kneel before our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament and pray that we all may be one.. . Satan must be laughing at the disunity "he" has caused.
Peace.
TimMay 29, 2014 at 5:35 PM
ReplyDeleteNot oops at all. I purposely posted it this way to make a point. Since everyone here for the most part prefers to stay anonymous then there is never any way to prove or disprove anyone's identity. So we get to guess all we want. Because your side is the power side, because your side can actually hurt people, our side has reason to hide. But yours doesn't have a reason to hide. But because you do we get to label and name you anyway we want.
The other reason I did it this way is to demonstrate to the Archbishop the cost of his silence, not just his silence to what is going on on this blog, but the cost of his 30 years of silence. He has been able to destroy people for three decades without consequence. Now there is consequence. And it will get worse. I will see to it.
No need to post this but you should definantly write about Tims tatics.
Dear Tim,
DeleteYour last sentence says much. You ended it with "I will see to it."
You need to take responsibility for your actions and not blame it on the silence of the Archbishop. Only you control your actions because we all have free will.
Tim admit it. There you have it.
DeleteSo Diana, another priest expresses himself, what say?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 7:12 a.m.,
DeleteCould you be more specific?? I have no idea what or who you are referring to?
Dear Diana,
DeleteI think this is what "Anonymous at 7:12 AM" is referring to. It's a comment on JungleWatch in which someone copied and pasted your May 29, 3:19 PM response to "Anonymous at 2:08 PM" which is why it is addressed "To Anon above from Diana's post."
To Anon above from Diana's post:
As a priest who was asked to be here I am totally offended by the term contract priest. The Archdiocese of Agana needed priests, they went to my bishop, and he agreed to send priests per Archbishop Anthony's plea. I love Guam and would like to stay. But if God wills it, and I am no longer needed here, then I will go back to my diocese and serve the people of God there.
However, while here I do expect to be treated with the same dignity as every other priest. I was at the clergy convocation in 2010 and please understand from the results of the pre-convocation survey there are obviously problems with unity. One priest gave the example of lunch with the Archbishop. I agree with him, but look at it from a different perspective than yours.
I am away from my parents and my siblings. I am away from my childhood friends. Mind you, I am not complaining, this was my choice. But the one thing that a priest has to look forward to is the brotherhood with fellow priests and a strong relationship with our bishop.
If you do not want to have lunch with your boss, maybe you should look for another job. But if your father or mother continually ignored you, if they rarely invited you over just to say they love you and care for you, and they think about you often, wouldn't that hurt you? Especially if they showered attention upon other "favored" sons. I hope this helps to put into context how some of the priests feel.
The convocation was greatly anticipated by some as a means to openly and frankly discuss the issues that are causing serious problems among brother priests. I entered with great hope. Shortly afterward, after a brief attempt by the Archbishop, which frankly felt a bit artificial, we fell back into the same pattern.
The article published by Tim on the unity issue is very telling, and I venture to say that if the exact same questions were posed today, the results would reflect an even bigger split among priests.
Some of this may be the Neo's fault, and some of it may be the "non-Neo's" fault. But the reality is it doesn't make any difference at this point whose fault it is.
What is truly important is that both sides recognize that there is a problem and that we sit down like intelligent, mature adults and hash out our differences, reach an understanding and then move forward to reunite the clergy. Just like the Neo priests, I too could be told any day that I am being assigned away from Guam. In their case on mission, in my case back to my home diocese. But, while we are here, we should do everything possible for ALL people possible, because that is what Christ is calling us to do.
I am nearly to the point of tears at this very moment thinking about this situation. I wish I had the courage to tell more, and reveal my name. Unfortunately, I fear the retribution that may follow. I look forward to the day when I can be confident that my pastoral father loves me deeply and truly.
Lord, how I long to feel the warmth of his fatherly embrace.
Dear Cathy,
DeleteThank you for clarifying for Anonymous at 7:12 a.m. I will be address this on my post as some of his comments were also directed to me.
Diana didn't I post at one time the words Surprise, surprise, surprise. Well, two surprises from priests and more to come so stay tune for as Gomer Pyle would say SURPRISE! SURPRISE! SURPRISE!
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that the NCW forces you to receive chunks of unleavened bread in the hand is a liturgical abuse. The NCW doesn’t care about fragments of the consecrated bread falling on the floor. This is the saddest thing in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteDear Stu,
DeleteIt was the Catholic Church that allowed Catholics to receive the Body of Christ by hand. In the article, the question was asked when the Church revived the ancient liturgy of receiving the Body of Christ by hand. According to the article:
Q: When and why did the Catholic Church begin the practice of receiving the host in the hand during Holy Communion?
A: This ancient custom was revived in the Western Church in the early 1970s. In fact, in the first centuries of Christianity, receiving the body of Jesus in the hand was the norm, not the exception. To my knowledge, no one has ever painted a picture of the Last Supper that shows Jesus placing consecrated bread on the tongues of his disciples.
https://www.franciscanmedia.org/ask-a-franciscan/receiving-the-host-in-the-hand/#:~:text=Q%3A%20When%20and%20why%20did,the%20norm%2C%20not%20the%20exception.
Redemptionis sacramentum:
DeleteIf there's a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
Dear Anonymous at 9:36 am,
DeleteThe Catholic Church already said that the faithful can receive Holy Communion by hand. So, get over it and move on!