Yuku free message boards

At the Corpus Christi Mass last Thursday, it was noted that all of those who received Communion from Il Papa knelt, and received the Host on the tongue. Here is an interesting article from the Catholic News Service concerning this event:

Vatican: Receiving Eucharist kneeling may not be permanent change
By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The four dozen people who received Communion from Pope Benedict XVI on the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ received the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling.

Vatican officials said the gesture at the May 22 Mass outside the Basilica of St. John Lateran does not mark a permanent change in papal liturgies, but highlighted the solemnity of the feast and a connection to Mass practices in the past.

As the pope prepared to distribute Communion, two ushers placed a kneeler in front of the altar on the basilica steps. The chosen communicants -- laypeople, nuns, seminarians, priests and boys and girls who had received their first Communion in their parishes in May -- all knelt and received on the tongue.

Generally at papal Masses, those receiving Communion from the pope stand. The majority choose to receive on the tongue, but some reverently extend cradled hands to receive the Eucharist.

In a brief e-mail to Catholic News Service May 23, Msgr. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies, said the decision "was a solution adopted for (the feast of) Corpus Domini," but as for the future, "we'll see."

Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, told CNS "there is no discussion" in the Vatican about insisting that those who receive Communion from the pope do so kneeling or that they receive it on the tongue rather than in their hands.

In addition, he said, "there are no new norms coming" that would change the Vatican's 1969 decision that local bishops could allow their faithful to receive the Eucharist in their hands while standing.

Would your firm ever agree to put Benedict XVI's Coat of Arms - with the mitre - on a set of vestments commissioned from you for the Pope? Or are you opposed to using anything other than the tiara?

But, and this is something no one has dealt with: Archbishop Marini did not resign, retire or die. As far as I know he did not express a desire to lay down the burdens of his office. (I'd appreciate it if someone could come up with a credible source to show that he ever said he was tired of his MC job.) No, he was replaced after being sort of promoted. His replacement is not a clone. Why not? Surely someone who would vow to do precisely what the Archbishop had done, who shared in his outlook on liturgy and embraced his tastes and style, could be found somewhere in the world? I'll bet that liturgists in every Catholic diocese would give their eye teeth to mastermind papal ceremonies. But a person whose resume and approach differs markedly from the Archbishop was selected. Does this tell you something? I know what it tells me.

How many executives have not expressed a desire to leave their offices but were transferred to other offices anyway, because their bosses felt that they could bring their expertise to the improvement of another aspect of an organization? It happens more often than anyone thinks. And while we're at it, in the same manner, no one has ever dealt with this particular fact: prior to serving Joseph Ratzinger as the Papal Master of Ceremonies, Piero Marini was already serving him as Master of Ceremonies, surely since the beginning of his years as a Cardinal residing in Rome. This is something that Arch. Marini himself stated in his farewell letter - to date, no one has contradicted this fact, but no one seems to care about it; it seems so much easier for certain quarters to claim that Guido Marini is the Pope's "personal choice" than to accept Piero Marini's long history of service to Joseph Ratzinger. To quote Arch. Marini:

I also express my heartfelt filial gratitude to Pope Benedict XVI who, immediately following his election, chose to confirm me as Master of Papal Liturgical Celebrations. To tell the truth, it was not a completely new experience for me, since I had been his master of ceremonies following his elevation to the cardinalate. (Italics supplied) - Letter of Thanks - Arch. Piero Marini

It was only natural, therefore, for Joseph Ratzinger to ask - indeed, to expect! - the liturgist who served him for more than two decades to continue serving him in his new position as the Bishop of Rome. Much has been made of the supposition that Joseph Ratzinger retained Piero Marini as Papal Master of Ceremonies out of respect for his late and beloved predecessor - but has anyone ever considered the possibility that Joseph Ratzinger wanted Piero Marini to stay where he was, at least for the next two and a half years, because it was only natural for him to want to be served by the man who was already his Master of Ceremonies in the first place? And would Piero Marini have served Joseph Ratzinger for so long, if Joseph Ratzinger had not been satisfied with his services in the first place?

More to the point, as PaxTibi, Benodette, and myself have said, would not Cardinal Ratzinger have immediately replaced Piero Marini in the opening months of his Pontificate if he were indeed so very unsatisfied with the Archbishop's liturgical preferences, or even at some point during his years as a Cardinal? To be perfectly honest, I am already very exasperated with pundits and commentators who are lauding Guido Marini as the Pope's "personally-chosen" MC, when there is every reason to presume that Piero Marini was himself Cardinal Ratzinger's personal choice more than 25 years ago. When he became MC for the then Cardinal Ratzinger, Piero Marini was definitely not an "inheritance" from an earlier prelate. Nor can it be said that he was "recommended", much less assigned, to Cardinal Ratzinger by John Paul the Beloved, because it was not until 1987, nine years after Karol Wojtyla was elected Pope and six years after Joseph Ratzinger joined him in Rome, that Piero Marini became the Papal MC.

Now, since mention has been made about Guido Marini's resume, let's take a look at Guido Marini and his credentials. It is known that in 2007, he earned a degree in "Psychology of Communications" and that he has a doctorate in canon law. It is also known that he served as chief liturgist first to Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, then to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone; prior to his service with Cardinal Tettamanzi, it appears that he was not actively involved in liturgical duties. Now, since Cardinal Tettamanzi was appointed to Genoa only in 1995, then it may be assumed that if Guido Marini joined him there as liturgist in that year, then his formal experience as a liturgist to a major prelate spans just over 12 years. He apparently has not undertaken formal studies in the field of liturgy, and it seems that when he was in Genoa, he taught Canon Law.

Let us compare this with the credentials of Piero Marini, who holds a doctorate in liturgy from the College of Sant'Anselmo (yes, that one on the Aventine Hill, run by the Benedictines, the Order closest to the Pope's heart), who has published a number of works on the liturgy (which some truly uncharitable people say, quite slanderously, he did not write), and who has approximately twenty years of direct experience in pontifical liturgical celebrations at the Vatican, to say nothing of at least twenty-five years' experience working with Joseph Ratzinger himself - I don't wonder why the Pope appointed him to head the Pontifical Commission for the International Eucharistic Congress, an event that takes place on an international scale and has no small degree of influence on our understanding of the various aspects of the Eucharistic Mystery.

Indeed, a person whose resume does not resemble Arch. Marini's was chosen as his replacement. Yes, it does tell me something. And I don't think you would want to know what that is, Rcesq.

You seem to wonder why I refuse to join in the chorus of disapproval aimed at the information Tridentinum shared with the forum? Well, unlike others, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he posted information that he thought was accurate and that came from a reliable source.

Ah, but here's the rub. Now that it has been "revealed", I'm afraid that whether Tridentinum likes it or not, it is subject to discussion and analysis - such is the nature of a discussion forum. And I'm afraid that given the facts as we know them, the veracity of such "reports" can be said to be somewhat in question (and that is putting it mildly), hence the passionate discussions. That is the risk that people have to take in putting "information" on the table, so to speak. You yourself have noted that the disapproval is aimed at the information, and not specifically at the person who revealed it - although I must say that PaxTibi most certainly has a point in saying that there is much to be said about the wisdom of revealing information that could be considered rather sensitive.

Let me say this, however. We do not "disapprove" of the information. We are disturbed at what it implies.

Let's reconsider what we know. Notwithstanding the comments posted by the "heraldists" that you quoted, after the coat-of-arms was revealed, nothing was ever said, much less rumored, about a "leak of information", and when the coat-of-arms' description was eventually revealed, there were no changes in the coat-of-arms; the mitre remained, and the extensive description was posted on the Vatican's website. What else can be concluded, but that this is the coat-of-arms that was designed in accordance with the Pope's specific wishes? Shortly thereafter, Andrea Cardinal Cordero Lanza di Montezemolo was raised to the College of Cardinals; Piero Marini remained as MC for two and a half years, and afterwards was promoted to a position that may eventually see him raised to the College of Cardinals.

Then, a new MC was appointed, and vestments are now appearing that bear a coat-of-arms that have a rather significant difference from the official coat-of-arms. This change has not escaped notice, and now comes a revelation, from the person who executed these vestments, that an unnamed prelate at the Holy See informed him that Cardinal Montezemolo and Arch. Marini "jumped the gun" on the Pope, and revealed the design of the coat-of-arms before Benedict XVI had the chance to approve it. In this context, anyone could be forgiven for assuming that this "report" that was given to Tridentinum, and which he stated on the Forum, is being given to justify the change in the coat-of-arms, that justification being the implication that the official coat-of-arms that we see is not the coat-of-arms that Benedict wanted.

Now, let's consider these questions.

Since there was never any official disavowal of the design of the coat-of-arms bearing the mitre, what then is the reason why it was never repudiated? If this is not the coat-of-arms that Benedict wanted, then why is it still there? If the information supposedly "prematurely released" by Cardinal Montezemolo and Arch. Marini is incorrect, why was it never corrected, and the correct design released? Why did the two prelates remain in favor with the Pope despite this supposed "insubordination", and were given due recognition of their services to him? And if, given these considerations, there was indeed no premature release of information, and the mitre was indeed intended by the Pope to be an integral part of his coat-of-arms, then why is there now this "report" that all but accuses two very high-ranking prelates of such an indiscretion, and of releasing to the public a design that the Pope may not have wanted?

Can you blame us, therefore, for being dismayed, much less disturbed? Isn't it possible that it was indeed Benedict XVI's specific decision to use the mitre instead of the tiara? Shouldn't that choice be respected, accepted and obeyed, regardless of the demands of "artistic creativity" and the rules of heraldry (can anyone honestly expect that the very learned Joseph Ratzinger would ever make a choice for his coat-of-arms that would be akin to putting Mickey Mouse in a baseball cap on his shield?), for the plain and simple reason that it is the choice of the Vicar of Christ?

The repeated, pointed questioning whether he would put the mitre on a vestment for the Pope is "putting him on the spot" in a way that I think is rather discourteous. He has a business to run. He takes orders from customers. He abides by their reasonable requests. Like any sensible businessman, he knows that the customer is king. He also probably markets to a certain kind of clientele who have decided opinions about issues such as tiara vs. mitre. Given the prices of the vestments I rather doubt that his company makes any papal vestments "on spec" that would reflect his own personal tastes.

But you see, Rcesq, he himself has given the basis for such a question, when he declared:

[It] Is true that we are now considering that ecclesiastical arms are like logos and need to be used as they are, since normally the specific of the Pope are just emblems of the coat, and the way to represent the tiara, keys etc is upon artists' creativity. That's why I continue to put the tiara...

He has stated that he continues to use the tiara due to "artists' creativity" - therefore, what else can we presume except that, at least in this instance, he follows his own "personal tastes" as an artist? Now, Benodette has asked whether he would agree to use the mitre on a set of vestments commissioned for the Pope. You have observed correctly that he is a businessman, and businessmen take orders from clients. He may market his products to a clientele that prefers the use of the tiara, but what if, for the sake of argument - and this is a possibility - there is a customer who wishes to commission a set of traditional vestments for the Pope, but which the customer also specifically wishes shall incorporate the official coat-of-arms - ergo, the one that bears the mitre? Surely that is not an unreasonable request? And after all, does not the one who is paying for the commission possess the right to specify some requirements for the work to be executed, and to expect those requirements to be fulfilled?

So now, the question is whether Tridentinum will follow "artists' creativity" (his preference) or the customer's preference. Will he accept such an order for a vestment bearing the mitre over the shield, or will he turn it down, because he uses the tiara on the basis of "artists' creativity"? I daresay it is a perfectly valid question, and one that may, in all probability, be asked of him in "real life", and in more than one instance. Pointed questions? Putting him on the spot? I think not. I think, rather, that we are merely posing a question that could very well be posed to Tridentinum in "real life", from a customer to a businessman, a question that the customer has ever right to expect an answer to, because as every businessman knows, the paying customer has the right to expect that his needs will be attended to. And for the prices that Tridentinum's company charges for their vestments - well, if I were the customer, I would most certainly want my preferences followed, to the letter. I think it's only fair, don't you?