As noted here:
"Tension is brewing between the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and the bishop of Springfield, Massachusetts, who is forbidding Holy Communion on the tongue in spite of the USCCB's recent decision to the contrary.
In anticipation of Massachusetts' planned multiphase reopening, Springfield bishop Mitchell T. Rozanski sent his clergy a document titled 'Re-Opening Considerations' to give guidelines and suggestions for conducting public Masses as they resume.
Maintaining previous diocesan restrictions and state guidelines, Rozanski is requiring that at public Masses, Holy Communion is offered in the hand only, Holy Water fonts remain empty and covered, social distancing is enforced at a minimum of six feet between individuals and masks be worn at all times.
Rozanski's prohibition of Holy Communion on the tongue contradicts the USCCB's "Guidelines for Sacraments and Pastoral Care" published in late April, which states:
We have carefully considered the question of Communion on the tongue vs. Communion in the hand. Given the Church's existing guidance on this point (see Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 92), and recognizing the differing judgments and sensibilities that are involved, we believe that, with the precautions listed here, it is possible to distribute on the tongue without unreasonable risk.
Bishop Rozanski has no right to prohibit Holy Communion on the tongue and faithful Catholics should resist this ecclesial modernist thug to his face. A Canon Law expert here.
More on Rozanski here, here and here
Update on Bishop Rozanski: Complaint filed against him. See here.
12 comments:
Bishop Rozanski is a disgrace. He uses every opportunity to squash Catholics faithful to Tradition while catering to LGBTQ agendas and dissenting views. Oppose this tyrant to the face!
He sets himself above Canon Law and the USCCB. What more needs to be said? It's obvious he has an inflated sense of himself. Messiah complex?
This isn't going to help this failing Diocese, which is already riddled with so many problems including financial ones:
https://www.masslive.com/coronavirus/2020/03/coronavirus-springfield-diocese-parishes-face-1m-loss-with-suspension-of-masses.html
The bishop is not in touch with the faithful. He should resign for the good of the local Church.
Notice that Bishop Rozanski wants to militarize ushers to enforce his fascist approach to the re-opening of parishes. We read at Church Militant,
"Consider asking parishioners with law enforcement backgrounds to help out, as they tend to have experience dealing with the public in controlled situations."
This fascist hater of Eucharistic reverence needs to be removed. If he doesn't like our receiving on the tongue, who gives a damn!!!
How will this "fly" at the Thomas Aquinas east-coast campus in Northfield, Massachusetts? The assigned chaplain does both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Mass. As the rubrics at the Extraordinary Form dictate, everyone except for the celebrating priest must receive on the tongue. At the Ordinary Form, which permits Communion on the hand; nontheless, except for the celebrating priest or priests when there is concelebration, almost everyone (if not everyone) receives on the tongue: Students, faculty and staff as well as their spouses and children, and visitors. Will the bishop, who blessed the chapel late last summer at the beginning of the academic year and spoke highly of the College at the Mass of the Holy Spirit, place an interdict on the institution if those involved there do not go along with his edict?
Bishop Rozanski's approach is clear - he wants to militarize laity to enforce his anti-reverence edict. The implied threat: Go along or we'll usher you out. Anyone tries to force me to receive in the hand will face my wrath. I will not bow before this inflated garbage and his draconian measures.
I like what the Canon Law expert says at the end of the article:
"Here’s the bottom line: if a bishop is insisting that the clergy under his authority must disregard universal law and forbid Communion on the tongue, those clergy should realize that they are obliged to obey higher authority. After all, priests are not yes-men, but God’s men—and they should seek to do what is right, not what is easy. If Catholics find themselves in situations where their right to receive the Eucharist on the tongue is being violated, they shouldn’t hesitate to send a respectful letter to the CDW, which undoubtedly will respond in the manner that we have already seen above."
Notice how the bishop cannot cite any document to back his corrupt edict? His sort of dictatorial approach appeals to lazy-minded liberal "Catholics" such as we find at St. Mary's here in Orange. Liberals such as Riendeau block devout Catholics who take a stand against dissenting views and homosexual agitprop.
Sad.
From the National Catholic Register:
"The Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon, issued a statement March 2 saying that, having consulted two physicians on the issue, the risk of infection when receiving on the tongue or hand is 'more or less equal' if reception is carried out 'properly.'
The archdiocese also stressed that a parish 'cannot ban reception of Holy Communion on the tongue' nor may that means be refused if a person requests it, referring to a 2004 Vatican instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, which noted that 'each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice.'
The statement went on to say that ministers of Holy Communion should be 'able to distribute Holy Communion without risk of touching the hands or the tongue' and that 'parishioners should also be instructed how to receive Holy Communion properly either on the tongue or in the hand.'"
Clearly the Bishop's decision is not based on sound liturgical rubrics or even sound medicine. It represents nothing more than an arbitrary decision made by a hater of reverence.
Suspend your tithes until this arrogant dictator apologizes for this idiotic directive.
With his recent promotion from bishop to archbishop of a larger diocese (which has carried a red hat with it in the recent past), will Springfield's "gain" be St. Louis' "loss" if he takes his policy of Communion only in the paw with him? Depends on what his successor does with it in Springfield.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/21-doctors-tell-bishops-communion-on-tongue-safer-than-in-hand
Post a Comment