Although some may think otherwise, I have not criticized the Church. Rather I have published scholarly articles in scholarly journals which present comparative examinations of particular liturgical texts and then discuss their relative merits and deficiencies. I have maintained throughout that the revised rites have the approval of the Church, deserve the utmost respect, and are a blessing for the faithful.

I do what I do as a scholar in communion with the Church, and whenever something of mine is published I send a copy with a note to my own bishop, the bishop from whom I received the mandatum, and, often, officials at the Roman congregations who are responsible for doctrine and worship.

Hearken back to your girl/boy scout camp days and remember this refrain:

“If you don’t bear the cross then you can’t wear the crown.”

And, if the words of the Great One of First Things ……

The problem of clericalism is composed of several problems. It is the problem of a caste that arrogates to itself undue authority, that makes unwarranted claims to wisdom, even to having a monopoly on understanding the mind of God. The consequence is the great weakening of the Church by denigrating or excluding the many gifts of the Spirit present in the people who are the Church. The problem of clericalism arises when “the church” acts in indifference, or even contempt, toward the people who are the Church.

Richard J. Neuhaus, June 1989.

I believe you are missing the point. Never have I counseled disobedience on anything. I am not sure how one can be disobedient to Communion-in-the-hand but whatever. And I don’t understand how you can say such issues are unimportant. Did not the late, great theologian Father John Hardon say Communion-in-the-hand led to a loss of belief in the Real Presence? I believe he did and I certainly don’t think it is unimportant if a person of Fr John Hardon’s stature speaks against it.

Are we to ban intellectual discussion from the Church? Can intellectual discussion no longer be critical? Is this what JPII wanted? No.

Please, do not accuse me of “lack of simplicity of heart” and “lack of maturity”. This is simply unncessary.

And speaking of obedience, it is interesting that if one goes back to the Council Document Sacrosanctum Concilium, it specifically states that Latin is to preserved in the Roman Rite. It also states that Gregorian chant is to be given pride of place. Apparently, obedience to Council documents is optional.

As a Latin teacher, I find the translations to be adequate, capturing the sense and force of the Latin. I find the quibbles over literal translations to be rather silly, unedifying and divisive.

As a classics major and former Latin teacher, I must sound at least a note of caution on the current translations. Yes they’re “adequate” of course — they perform the sacrament and do not depart from the meaning of the Latin in a gross fashion. But they do let a lose a lot of the richness of the original Latin. (In that sense, I’ve found it a great devotional aid to read the Latin side of my Daily Roman Missal — the full Latin text can be read as a more devotional gloss on the rather spare English.)

Now perhaps what you’re rightly reacting against is the excesses of many of those who make it their business to complain about the translation in the online world. You could well be right on that, but it’s a bad idea to form one’s judgements simply based on reaction to the excesses of others.

I’m part of an ecclesial lay movement and you know how a lot of bishops are suspect of them. That’s fine. But what does John Paul teach us? That the way to maturity is fidelity to ecclesiastical authorities. Not because we agree with everything a bishop might say, but because the bishop is the objective link to the experience of the apostles. You can justify your want to criticize all you want, but it just shows a lack of maturity, a lack of simplicity of your heart.

You are totally missing the point. I fully realize there is not a utopia of the 1962 Mass or Pre-Vatican II Church. Give me a break — I am not that unrealistic. But you and Policratus are advancing the unheard-of-rule that lay catholics can’t publicly discuss policies of the Church and whether they are beneficial or detrimental to the Church. According to your line of reasoning, every Church decision is good and, although one can disagree with it, one cannot express this disagreement publicly. And if you do express it publicly, you are either disloyal, disobedient or schismatic (or all three). Take your pick. Of course that means all of the Catholics at Adoremus are disloyal because they take issue with the quality of the Latin translations in the Novus Ordo. It means James Hitchcock is disobedient because he wrote in CWR that Gaudium et Spes was overly optimistic. It means Dr Lauren Pristas (Dept Chair of Theology at Caldwell College) is disloyal because she dared to be critical of the collects of the Novus Ordo. And heaven forbid any lay person express reservation at the number of annulments granted in the US! Of course, when someone of the stature of Dietrich Von Hildebrand expressed publicly his disagreement with some of the policies of the Church, Policratus is quick to dismiss him as an old crank. Whatever happened to the Sensus Catholicus of the laity? Are we a bunch of uneducated, ignoramuses who can’t think for ourselves?

Quotes please? Quotes demonstrating that criticism of a bishop is a sin, that is.

What you did there seems to be just because what you did was talk to the bishop directly and not go off on some blog.

Nor does the “grave issue” qualification help very much. Who determines what a grave issue is? By and large, priestly sex abuse was not considered a grave issue in the Church until the media made it one.

Nope, I was was speaking of lay people.

If Archbishop Ranjith has criticized Communion-in-the-hand how can it be a trivial matter? Are you trying usurp his authority as a bishop by saying what is and what isn’t important in Church policy?

It is a trivial matter, and “Communion-in-the-hand” has an historical precedent in the early Church. Bishop Ranjith is not my bishop, I will not criticize him directly, and I will be obedient to my own bishop and the Pope on liturgical matters. If his Congregation issues a directive, I will obey if it is implemented by own bishop.

As I said twice (and now three times), disagreement with a bishop on some matters is licit. It is criticism of a bishop with which I take issue (unless it is a grave issue).

If Archbishop Ranjith has criticized Communion-in-the-hand how can it be a trivial matter? Are you trying usurp his authority as a bishop by saying what is and what isn’t important in Church policy? According to your own logic, laymen are not supposed to make such decisions nor even express themselves publicly.