POTIPHAR'S WIFE is a must read for anyone wanting to understand the handling of the sexual abuse of by Catholic priests and how the crisis has been handled/mishandled by The Vatican and Catholic bishops.

TAPSELL IS A FORMER SEMINARIAN.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

SEMINARY: Kieran Tapsell, far right. Jim Fletcher, convicted of child sex offences in 2005, is sitting down next to him wearing glasses.

DESCRIPTION OF BOOK FROM AMAZON

The ‘cover-up’ of child sexual abuse by the Catholic Church has been occurring under the pontificate of six popes since 1922. For 1500 years, the Catholic Church accepted that clergy who sexually abused children deserved to be stripped of their status as priests and then imprisoned. A series of papal and Council decrees from the twelfth century required such priests to be dismissed from the priesthood, and then handed over to the civil authorities for further punishment.That all changed in 1922 when Pope Pius XI issued his decree Crimen Sollicitationis that created a de facto ‘privilege of clergy’ by imposing the ‘secret of the Holy Office’ on all information obtained through the Church’s canonical investigations. If the State did not know about these crimes, then there would be no State trials, and the matter could be treated as a purely canonical crime to be dealt with in secret in the Church courts. Pope Pius XII continued the decree. Pope John XXIII reissued it in 1962. Pope Paul VI in 1974 extended the reach of ‘pontifical secrecy’ to the allegation itself. Pope John Paul II confirmed the application of pontifical secrecy in 2001, and in 2010, Benedict XVI even extended it to allegations about priests sexually abusing intellectually disabled adults. In 2010, Pope Benedict gave a dispensation to pontifical secrecy to allow reporting to the police where the local civil law required it, that is, just enough to keep bishops out of jail. Most countries in the world do not have any such reporting laws for the vast majority of complaints about the sexual abuse of children. Pontifical secrecy, the cornerstone of the cover up continues. The effect on the lives of children by the imposition of the Church’s Top Secret classification on clergy sex abuse allegations may not have been so bad if canon law had a decent disciplinary system to dismiss these priests. The 1983 Code of Canon Law imposed a five year limitation period which virtually ensured there would be no canonical trials. It required bishops to try to reform these priests before putting them on trial. When they were on trial, the priest could plead the Vatican ‘Catch 22’ defence—he should not be dismissed because he couldn’t control himself. The Church claims that all of this has changed. Very little has changed. It has fiddled around the edges of pontifical secrecy and the disciplinary canons. The Church has been moonwalking.

CONTENTS OF THE BOOK

1.   Acknowledgment
2.   Introduction
3.   Chronology of Church Response to Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children
4.   Potiphar’s Wife
5.   Sex and the Confessional
6.   The Murder in the Cathedral
7.   Canon Law
8.   The Canonical System of Trials
9.   Canon Law on Clergy Sexual Abuse of Children
10.   The Secrecy Provisions of Canon Law
11.   Misprision of Felony
12.   Mandatory Welfare Reporting
13.   Law and Culture
14.   The Ineffectiveness of the Church Processes
15.   The Practical Application of Canon Law
16.   The Cardinals Defend the Privilege of Clergy
17.   Bishops Conferences: Sexual Abuse Protocols and the Vatican
18.   The Defence of Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI
19.   Benedict’s Pastoral Letter: Blame the Bishops
20.   The Cloyne Report in Ireland
21.   Some Theological Problems with Facing the Truth
22.   The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child Report
23.   The Australian Royal Commission
24.   A Greek Tragedy: Not Facing the Truth 

Index of Subjects Index of Names

PAT SAYS:

To my mind this is a vital read for anyone wanting to understand the dynamics behind the sexual abuse of children by priests and the cover up following that abuse by priests, bishops and The Vatican.

Tapsell, a Catholic, who studied for the priesthood and later became a lawyer and a judge deals with the topic exhaustively and with the forensic mind of a very experienced lawyer.

He deals with:

The actual abuse.

The cover up.

The role of The Vatican and canon law.

The theology of priesthood behind it all.

The dynamics of the Clerical Club.

The book is available from Amazon but was published in Australia.

The cheapest and quickest way to get it and read it is on KINDLE.

Tapsell deals with the problem globally and addresses the Irish experience.

DIARMUID MARTIN

He also highlights how Archbishop Diarmuid Martin blamed the Irish Bishops and said that the Vatican was not to blame.

Another attempt by Diarmuid to get a red hat?

----------------------------------------

RECENT ARTICLE BY TAPSELL

Sex abuse and the seal of the confessional

Aug 18, 2017

by Kieran Tapsell

The Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has just released its Criminal Justice Report in which it deals with many matters relating to the way child sexual abuse within institutions is handled by the Australian criminal justice system. In the course of that report, it recommends mandatory reporting of all suspected child sexual abuse within institutions and the creation of new offences of failing to take proper care to prevent such abuse.

One recommendation that understandably created some media interest is that there should be no exemption to the reporting requirements for information provided in confession.

The commission’s report produces convincing evidence, not only in Australia, but also overseas, that priest sex abusers used confession as a means of assuaging their guilt. It made it easier for them to repeat their crimes because confession was always available.

Priest sex abusers used confession to assuage their guilt, making it easier for them to repeat their crimes.

In a response to the report, Jesuit Fr. Frank Brennan stated that a civil law requirement for priests to break the seal of confession was unlikely to lead to better protection for children because abusers would not confess such matters if they knew they had to be reported. Brennan said that he would disobey any such law and accept the consequences.

Archbishop Denis Hart, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, in his response said that the secret of the confessional is a “fundamental part of the freedom of religion…and it must remain so here in Australia.” In an interview on ABC Radio, Hart said he would go to jail rather than breach the secret.

It is surprising that no church representative has mentioned a way in which the church could significantly reduce the risk of breach of the seal by a fairly simple change to canon law based on a problem that has a long history. 

Ever since private confession became the practice in the church in the early Middle Ages, there has been a continual problem of priests soliciting sex in the confessional. The church was so worried about the practice that the Council of Treves in 1227 required such priests to be excommunicated. In 1622, Pope Gregory XV required penitents to denounce such priests to the Inquisition or to the bishop, and that confessors should advise penitents of their obligation to do so. In 1741, Pope Benedict XIV confirmed this decree, and added that absolution should be refused to solicited penitents until they denounced their confessors. He also decreed that only popes could give absolution to penitents who falsely accused priests of soliciting.

The persons solicited were mostly women, less so men, but rarely young children because until 1910, they did not go to confession until they reached the age of 12 to 14 years. In 1910*, Pope Pius X reduced the age to 7 years thus broadening the opportunities for paedophiles to find their victims. A number of case studies examined by the Australian Royal Commission confirmed that such soliciting of young children in the confessional had occurred in Australia.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law continued Benedict XIV’s 1741 decree, and required the penitent to denounce the soliciting priest within one month. The 1983 Code abolished the requirement to denounce and the reservation of absolution to the pope for false accusations against priests. Instead, it imposed an automatic interdict, a form of excommunication, on anyone making a false accusation. Canon 982 further provides that anyone who confesses to making a false accusation “is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation, and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.”

Unless there is some other way of repairing the damage, one can only assume that canon law imposes an obligation on the penitent to pay defamation damages, and until they are paid, there will be no absolution. 

Canon law does not require clergy who sexually abuse children to be subject to an interdict, and does not require absolution to be withheld until such time as they hand themselves over to the civil authorities.

With the stroke of his pen, Pope Francis could apply the same strict standards that canon law imposes on those who falsely damage a priest’s reputation to the much more serious matter of child sexual abuse. If he did, it would become well known to child abusers in the church that they could not receive absolution, unless they handed themselves in to the police. The problem of the seal would be solved: if the abusers wanted absolution, they first had to hand themselves over to the police, and then there was no need for the confessor to break the seal by reporting; if they did not want to hand themselves over, they would not go to confession, and then there was no confessional seal to be broken. And in the latter case, the abuser would be denied the comfort of confession that the Royal Commission found was a contributing factor in the abuse of children within the Church.

This is a much better solution than Hart and Brennan having to risk becoming bloodless martyrs by going to jail in the defense of the seal, and it avoids endless arguments over the boundaries of religious liberty.

If Francis refuses to change canon law to apply the same canonical strictures to child sexual abuse that the 1983 Code imposes on false accusations of soliciting sex in the confessional, then he leaves himself open to the inference that he regards a priest’s reputation as being more important than the sexual abuse of children.

[Kieran Tapsell is a retired civil lawyer and the author of Potiphar’s Wife: The Vatican’s Secret and Child Sexual Abuse, and of a submission to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Canon Law, A Systemic Factor in Child Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church. He was also a member of the canon law panel before the Australian Royal Commission Feb. 9, 2017.]

---------------------------------------------------------

Victim’s father lost church job 

ELLE WATSON 

A victim's family suffered reprisals from the church including job loss after they sided with their abused son, the special commission of inquiry heard yesterday.

FATHER JIM FLETCHER

The father of one of Father James Fletcher’s victims lost his job with the Maitland-Newcastle Diocese when his son made a formal complaint against the paedophile, according to police whistleblower Peter Fox. 

Detective Chief Inspector Fox told the special commission of inquiry a Hunter husband and wife suffered reprisals from the clergy during investigation and trial of Fletcher – who was convicted of sexually abusing their son. 

The inquiry heard the man told the chief inspector he began to feel “more and more alienated” at the diocese office in Hamilton where he worked in 2002. 

“He felt that because he sided with his son he was being made to pay the penalty by the diocese,” Chief Inspector Fox said. 

He said the man’s relationship with former Maitland-Newcastle Bishop Michael Malone deteriorated and priests who he formed working friendships with avoided him. 

“He believed the diocese would refuse to renew his contract – which was what ultimately happened – he said they were going to squeeze him out of a job and they didn’t want him there.” 

The chief inspector said the victim’s mother felt Bishop Malone’s apology to the family was disingenuous and lacked compassion. 

Last week the inquiry heard Bishop Malone contacted the woman in 2002 to let her know he had visited Fletcher and revealed to him that the woman’s son had made a complaint to police. 

Before he contacted police, the woman’s son went to a Nelson Bay presbytery drunk and angry, where he yelled about priests doing “filthy things to little boy”. 

Chief Inspector Fox said the parish priest, Father Robert Searle, changed his version of the night’s events after an initial conversation with the detective. 

Earlier yesterday Chief Inspector Fox was cross-examined over his failure to take statements about the discovery of gay pornography in the Lochinvar presbytery where Fletcher lived. 

Last week he told the inquiry a diocesan worker had uncovered pornographic videos and magazines that Fletcher said belonged to a priest, Father Desmond Harrigan who agreed the material was his and he had destroyed it. 

Counsel assisting the inquiry, Julia Lonergan SC, put it to Chief Inspector Fox that he did not interview or question Father Harrigan with an open mind because he had a “preconceived idea that the material belonged to Fletcher”. 

Chief Inspector Fox said he did not take a statement from Father Harrigan because it could not be used in the case against Fletcher. 

Ms Lonergan told Chief Inspector Fox his handling of the matter was important because it was raised by him as an example that the church destroyed evidence to cover-up paedophilia.

Papal abuse commission considers removing abuse survivors!

by Joshua J. McElwee - Vatican

ROME — Pope Francis' commission on clergy sexual abuse is considering whether to restructure itself so that it no longer includes the direct participation of abuse survivors. It is evaluating the possibility of creating instead a separate advisory panel of individuals who have been abused by clergy.

A member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors revealed the group's consideration of the idea in an NCR interview Aug. 14, saying that one of the commission's work groups has been tasked with weighing the pros and cons of such a change.

The commission appears likely to discuss the possible restructuring at its next plenary meeting in Rome in mid-September, when the original three-year terms of its members are set to expire.

Help fund independent Catholic journalism.
Donate now.

"I think that may be a more productive [way] of ensuring the voice of survivors in the work of the commission," Krysten Winter-Green, the commission member, said of the potential change. "I do not know that it's critical that a survivor needs to be actually on the commission."

"No decision has been made about this," she stressed, adding: "I think the voice of survivors needs to be heard by this commission. They need to have input into every facet of the operation. How that is accomplished remains to be seen, but it will be accomplished."

Consideration of a change in structure for the papal commission comes as the group has in recent months faced public questioning of its effectiveness in stopping future abuse of children and vulnerable people in the Catholic Church. The group now appears to be in the midst of a significant phase of transition.

Six months ago, the commission lost its last active member who was an abuse survivor. Marie Collins resigned March 1, citing frustration with Vatican officials' reluctance to cooperate with the group's work.

While it appears likely Francis will reappoint most of the commission following conclusion of their three-year terms in September, member Jesuit Fr. Hans Zollner said in June he expects the composition of the membership may change.

Collins, an Irishwoman, was one of two survivors originally appointed to the commission. The other, Englishman Peter Saunders, was placed on leave from the group in February 2016 because of friction between Saunders and other members of the group.

'Acknowledgment of their failure'

Winter-Green, a native New Zealander who lives in the U.S. and provides consulting services to dioceses and religious congregations, did not detail exactly how the papal commission and a possible new survivors' advisory panel might function together.

Several national bishops' conferences have developed safeguarding entities and survivors' panels that could be used as models for the potential restructuring. The bishops' conference of England and Wales, for example, has a National Catholic Safeguarding Commission that receives counsel from a Survivor Advisory Panel.

The website for that panel describes its role as "to ensure that the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission receives appropriate and timely information and advice from a survivor perspective."

Survivors and survivor advocates were critical of the idea of keeping survivors off of the papal commission in favor of a separate advisory panel.

Peter Isely, a founding member of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests and the group's former Midwest director, said he would see such a shift as part of a desire to keep the papal commission free of conflict.

"There are thousands and thousands of survivors and many of them are public," said Isely. "If you cannot manage to directly bring in survivors ... to the commission, you're just putting the discussion and conflict aside."

ADVERTISEMENT

Isely noted that the commission itself does not have any rule-making power as it relies on the pope to either accept or reject its recommendations. He said that makes the commission one-step removed from rule-making power, and would thus make any new advisory panel two-steps removed from such power.

"To make it two-removed, to make it advisors to advisors, is just an acknowledgement of their failure," he said.

"It's just pushing the issues that were unresolved from the three years ... one removed down," said Isely. "It's not a solution. It's making it more difficult to get to the solution, in my opinion."

Dominican Fr. Thomas Doyle, an expert on the church's response to clergy sexual abuse, was biting in his assessment of the idea.

"After three years, I'm not sure that they've done anything that's really meaningful."
—Fr. Thomas Doyle

"What would they do?" he asked about the possibility of a new advisory panel. "Would they have any power? Would they have any influence? Would anyone listen to them? Would they just be a panel that exists in name only?"

"It sounds to me as if that idea is something that was conjured up to make the appearance that they're taking it seriously and doing something, while in fact it's simply another smoke and mirrors production," said Doyle.

Francis created the pontifical abuse commission in December 2013 at the recommendation of his advisory Council of Cardinals. The pope appointed the first members to the new commission, including its president, Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley, on March 22, 2014.

The commission's statutes, available online, were approved in April 2015 by Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin. They state that the group is to continue on ad experimentum for three years, after which time it is to present any possible modifications to its operating procedures to Francis for approval.

Doyle and Isely were both also critical about the overall work of the commission and what it has accomplished since Francis first created the group.

Doyle said bluntly: "After three years, I'm not sure that they've done anything that's really meaningful."

The priest said that Collins' resignation and the statement she wrote for NCR at the time explaining her decision to leave the commission had been the "most effective action" to come out of the group.

"The one thing I think this point in the history of the commission proves very clearly is the lack of a commitment by the Holy See to effectively deal with the issue of child abuse by clergy," he said.

In her NCR statement March 1, Collins wrote about several instances of her frustration with Vatican officials' reluctance to work with the commission.

Collins said her resignation was immediately precipitated by one Vatican office's refusal to comply with a request from the commission, approved by the pope, that all letters sent to the Vatican by abuse survivors receive a response.

Isely said it was "most distressing" that the two survivors who had originally been appointed to the commission have now left active membership.

"You could not get a more qualified, reasonable, thoughtful and experienced survivor on that commission than [Marie Collins]," he said. "For her to lose hope ... is an extremely significant statement about the commission."

Mentioning Collins' revelation of difficulty getting Vatican officials to respond to survivors' letters, Isely asked: "If the pope can't even get that done, what else is he really going to be able to do?"

'There's just not adequate resources'

Winter-Green, who holds a doctorate in pastoral psychology and three master's degrees in theology, human development, and social work, pointed to other areas where the commission has had success. She said the group has done a lot of work educating church leaders in different parts of the world on how to best prevent abuse.

She cited numbers indicating that between 2015 and July 2017 commission members or their staff had given 110 presentations on abuse prevention in 45 countries.

"One of the quintessential goals that was decided when we first came together was the critical need for education," said Winter-Green.

"There continues to be a tremendous misunderstanding or ignorance about the serious moral and psychological harm done to children and vulnerable adults," she said. "There's a need for a changing of attitudes, particularly among the hierarchy."

The commission member also cited the success the group had in suggesting that Francis create a day of prayer in the church for survivors of abuse, which the pope approved.

"You can readily understand what a matter of frustration it is that everything moves so slowly at the Vatican."
—Krysten Winter-Green

Winter-Green said the commission's theology and spirituality work group is now working on a liturgy of healing that can be used around the world. "I think it's tremendously important that this happens and that it happens at the local level," she said.

"The church has looked at past abuse from a legal and financial perspective, largely ... but victims and survivors mostly want to be heard and believed," Winter-Green continued.

"It's my personal opinion that the church needs to front up to this," she said. "It needs to make this acknowledgment in a quintessentially pastoral and spiritual sense. It's the way that the wounds can be addressed."

While Winter-Green pointed to some of the commission's successes, she also reinforced some of the criticisms Collins had made in her March 1 statement about working with Vatican officials and the lack of resources and staffing made available to the group.

Winter-Green said part of the difficulty in making the commission effective has been learning to deal with the slow and sometimes inefficient work processes employed at the Vatican.

At the root of the issue, she said, is learning how to work effectively within the system.

"The Vatican doesn't work at any great speed of light," said Winter-Green. On the commission, she said, are "some highly qualified, professionally trained, thoughtful, wise and eloquent individuals. And you can readily understand what a matter of frustration it is that everything moves so slowly at the Vatican."

"It just doesn't happen overnight," she said. "Perhaps over a few months, if you're lucky. That's the way it is."

"One has to be aware of that and learn to work within that system," Winter-Green added. "Because otherwise you get nowhere."

Her group is understaffed and overworked, she said, adding that she spends about four to five hours per day on commission work for an average of five to six days a week.

"We have a horrendous job and a very slim budget," said Winter-Green. "The lack of transparent information regarding budgetary resources" was a "major challenge" facing the commission, she said.

"We're under-resourced in terms of having professionally prepared people who can manage the various complexities of the work," she said. "There's just not adequate resources."

PAT SAYS:

Many of us were very pleased when Pope Francis insisted on appointing abuse survivors to the Catholic Church's Panel to study the sexual abuse by clergy.

Now The Vatican is considering removing the survivor members from the panel and relegating them to another "advisory committee".

The Vatican, the Hierarchy and the clergy in general had no real committment to resolving the abuse issue out of a sense of right and justice.

They were FORCED into taking action about clergy abuse by the world wide scandals and by the media coverage it received - a media coverage that has disillusioned many with the Catholic Church.

They had to be seen doing something and someone in Rome came up with the idea of bringing a few survivors on to the panel - mainly as a PR exercise.

Those survivors have become totally frustrated with this panel as it has achieved very little and as it moves so slowly.

Some of the survivors like Marie Collins of Ireland actually resigned in protest.

When you strip away all the PR you can see that the Hierarchy do not want to lose or forfeit any power to the laity.

They expect the laity to: PAY UP, PRAY UP AND SHUT UP.

Power in the Catholic Church belongs to the Hierarchy and the Clerical Club and the most they want to give the laity is "token power".

The latest development with the Vatican Abuse Commission proves this point.

In the world in general those with power never relinquish it VOLUNTARILY.

It has to be wrestled from them.

Power in the Church belongs with the People of God.

The People of God can wrestle it back by refusing to accept Hierarchal and Clerical dominance and indeed by WITHHOLDING MONEY.

The media has also done us all a great service by highlighting power imbalance and corruption in the Church.

When it comes to the Abuse Commission who has a greater right to be represented there than ABUSE SURVIVORS

VALID MASS WITHOUT WORDS OF CONSECRATION

Yesterday a comment maker made an interesting reference to a Mass regarded as valid by the Catholic Church that does not contain the words of consecration.

HERE IS MORE INFORMATION:

Liturgy of Addai and Mari

From Wikipedia.

The Liturgy of Addai and Mari is a Divine Liturgy belonging to the East Syrian Rite, which is in regular use, even if in different versions, in the Assyrian Church of the East and Ancient Church of the East, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and the Chaldean Catholic Church.

The anaphora or Eucharistic Prayer that is part of this liturgy is of particular interest, being one of the oldest in Christianity, possibly dating back to 3rd-century Edessa,^[1] even if the outline of the current form can be traced as far back only as the time of the Patriarch Mar Isho-Yab III in the 7th century. This liturgy is traditionally attributed to Saint Addai (disciple of Saint Thomas the Apostle) and Saint Mari (a disciple of Saint Addai). In the form given in the oldest manuscripts, all of the High Middle Ages, this anaphora does not include the Words of Institution, a matter that raised ecumenical concerns

Use

The Liturgy of Addai and Mari has been in continuous use in the Church of the East since at least the 7th century^[1] Hymns by Saint Ephrem and others are often sung during the communion. A piece of dough from the eucharistic bread is saved from week to week, not as reserve sacrament but as leaven for the next week's bread. Authors from Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 400) to Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII in the mid-20th century and Mar Aprem Mooken of India in the early 21st century have identified the Epiclesis, beginning with the words Neethi Mar Rukhada Kudisha... (May the Holy Spirit come...) as the high point of the Holy Qurbana.

In the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church this liturgy has three forms: a simplified form, a standard form for Sundays use, and a highly solemn form, known as the "Raza", used only on solemnities.^[2] A reform of the Raza in order to return to the unadulterated and original form was issued in 1985,^[3] followed in 1989 by a reform of the other two forms carried out with the same principles.^[4]

A slight reform of the liturgy of Addai and Mari celebrated by the Chaldean Catholic Church came into effect on 6 January 2007, making uniform the many different uses of each parish and removing additions introduced over the centuries in imitation of the Roman rite. The main changes were: a return to the ancient arrangement of the interior of churches, restoration of the preparation of the bread and wine before the beginning of the service and removal of Filioque from the Creed.^[5]

The prayers of the liturgy of Addai and Mari are of three types, according as they are recited by the celebrating priest or bishop:^[6]

·         cushapa: personal prayers of the celebrant

·         gehanta or "inclinations": prayers said in low voice by the celebrant

·         qanona: conclusions of the gehanta conducted aloud

Absence of the Words of Institution

The Eucharistic Prayers (or Anaphoras) of all the present Christian Churches that believe in apostolic succession include the Words of Institution, and the relevant Institution narrative, with the sole exception of some versions of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.

The oldest manuscript of this anaphora was published by W.F. Macomber in 1966^[7] (known as Mar Eshaya text) and dates from about the 10th or 11th century. It does not include the Words of Institution, nor do other ancient manuscripts of later date. Mar Aprem Mookenof India indicates that many priests of the Assyrian Church of the East follow the old practice of not including the words of institution.^[8]

Some scholars believe that the medieval manuscript represents the 4th-century tradition (or even earlier), while others believe that the Words of Institution were originally present and were later dropped, probably due to the liturgical reform of Mar Isho-Yab III in about AD 650.^[9] The former include Macomber and Spinks, the latter H. Engerding and E. Mazza. B. Botte suggested that the Words of Institution were originally not written but recited from memory.^[10]

Catholic Church's position

While the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches generally deny even the validity of the apostolic succession of the Church of the East, and thus the validity of its priesthood, the Catholic Church has always recognized its validity. Still some Catholics questioned the validity of the consecration in the absence of the Words of Institution because the Council of Florence had declared that the words (in Catholic theology, the "form") of the sacrament of the Eucharist are "the words of the Saviour with which he effected this sacrament",^[11]words that the same council indicated as "This is my body" and "This is the chalice of my blood".^[12]

Nevertheless, the Catholic Church never officially contested the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. In the closing decades of the 20th century, ecumenical rapprochement with the Assyrian Church of the East and the situation of the by then widely scattered Assyrian and Chaldean Christians who lacked a priest of their own Church made more acute the issue of the validity of the Eucharistic consecration of the form of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari that did not include the Words of Institution, as used by the Assyrian Christians, while the Eastern Catholic Churches that use the East Syrian Rite include in their versions of this liturgy the Institution narrative, with its Words of Institution. Accordingly, on 20 July 2001 the Holy See^[13] declared that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari can be considered valid. Three reasons were given for this judgment. First, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari dates back to the early Church. Secondly, the Church of the East has otherwise preserved the orthodox faith in regard to the Eucharist and Holy Orders. And finally, though the Words of Institution are not spoken expressly, their meaning is present: "The words of Eucharistic Institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession".^[14]

Traditionalist Catholic reaction[edit]

Some traditionalist Catholics^[which?] denounced recognition of the form of the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari in use in the Assyrian Church as valid. They argue that it completely overthrows the sacramental theology ratified by the Council of Trent:^[18] according to their understanding, of the three elements necessary for a sacrament - the matter, the form, and the intention of the priest to do what the Church does - the form, which in this case is the words of institution, "For this is my Body" recited over the bread, and "For this is the cup of my Blood" over the wine, is wanting. They^[19] reject the statement by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity that the words of the institution of the Eucharist are in fact present in a euchological and disseminated manner.

Vatican reportedly working on “Ecumenical Rite of Mass” for joint Worship with Protestants

The times we live in are such that it is increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, truth from satire. A few days ago a rumor began to spread on the internet to the effect that the Vatican is working on drafting a new, ecumenical rite of “Mass”, one that can be attended by “Catholics” (i.e. Novus Ordos), Anglicans, and other Protestants, and that can also be concelebrated by “clergy” from these three groups. In other words, it would be a lowest-common denominator worship service that presents no doctrinal obstacle to Novus Ordos, Anglicans, or other Protestants (the Eastern Orthodox are conspicuously absent from this project).

This wouldn’t have to be terribly different from what the Vatican II Sect uses now (the 1969 Novus Ordo Missae or “New Mass” of “Pope” Paul VI). After all, the Novus Ordo “Mass” already fulfils these requirements in large part. As Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani and Antonio Bacci, along with other Roman theologians, stated in their open letter to Paul VI:

…[T]he Novus Ordo Missae — considering the new elements widely susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted — represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.

(Alfredo Ottaviani et al., Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, Sep. 25, 1969)

But not only high-ranking Vatican prelates noticed the Protestantism of the New Mass. Even more importantly, the common folk in the pew did, too.

In any case, when we heard rumors that “Pope” Francis was looking to create another, even more “ecumenical” liturgical rite, we were skeptical at first and held off on reporting on it until we could get some sort of confirmation.

At this point, the matter has been reported by mainstream Vaticanist Marco Tosatti, albeit as a rumor. As the journalist himself says, however, “[M]y sources are usually good”, and he surely has no interest in hurting his own credibility.

Tosatti’s piece appeared on Mar. 1, 2017, and can be read in the original Italian here. An English translation of this article is provided here:

Ecumenical Mass, a work in progress? The consecration makes the Protestants uncomfortable. The ploy of silence…

[by] Marco Tosatti

These are only rumors, so we should only take them with a grain or even two or three of salt. But the mere fact that these allegations are circulating is a signal; and my sources are usually good.

We will write everything in the conditional. A mixed commission of Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans, bound to secrecy, is working on implementing a kind of rite of mass that can be attended by people from all three [of these] Christian denominations. There is no mention of the Orthodox. There is no written document yet, it’s all by verbal [i.e. oral] communication.

The hypothesis regards a first part with a “liturgy of the word”, which does not pose any problem; after the confession of sins, asking God for forgiveness, and reciting the Gloria, there would be the readings and the Gospel.

The commission is allegedly studying the problem of the Creed. Protestant churches prefer to pray the Apostles’ Creed, although they do recognize the Nicene Creed. The Catholic Church alternates between them. So not even this point should be a major problem.

Even the presentation of the gifts, although it must be studied with care, does not appear to present a major obstacle to the project.

The central issue is that of the Eucharist. The Catholic understanding of the Eucharist is profoundly different from that of the Lutherans or of other Protestant denominations. And of course at this crucial moment, when for Catholics (but not for Protestants) transubstantiation takes place, the liturgy cannot be different for the various celebrants.

But how can a common liturgy be celebrated that clearly differs in the wording right at the most important point of the event?

One of the proposed possible solutions would be silence. It would mean that after the Sanctus, at the moment in which normally during the Mass the priest would say the words: “Father, you are holy indeed…” the different celebrants would keep silent, everyone mentally repeating “his own” formula.

The silence is broken in the congregation with the recitation of the Our Father. It is still not clear how the lines for Communion would be formed.

This is the information we got, and we pass it on. A partial confirmation that these works are in progress comes from an article by Luisella Scrosati in Bussola Quotidiana, in which she presents a stratagem “found” by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, then headed by Cardinal [Walter] Kasper. This stratagem acknowledged the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari (eucharistic prayer of the Oriental Assyrian Church, aka the Nestorian Church). This is a prayer that does not contain any words of consecration, “except ‘in a dispersed euchological way’, i.e. not in an explicit way (‘This is my Body… This is the chalice of my Blood’), as a [Vatican] document from 2001 says [–link added by N.O.W.]. This could therefore be extremely useful as a justifying principle for a new eucharistic prayer without any words of consecration that could upset the Protestant brethren”. That liturgy was exclusive to the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church, in case there were pastoral problems. But just imagine if such a minor detail could turn out to have great significance in the present ecumenical climate. De minimis non curat praetor [“The chief magistrate does not concern himself with trifles”]…

(Marco Tosatti, “Messa Ecumenica, Lavori in Corso? La Consacrazione Imbarazza I Riformati. L’escamotage Del Silenzio…”, Stilum Curiae, Mar. 1, 2017; translation by Novus Ordo Watch.)

For all those who now think, “There is no way this will ever happen!”, we would like to remind you that the man currently in charge of the Vatican II Sect is Jorge Bergoglio; and here is a comprehensive list of all the things you used to believe could never happen, that have since happened.

In light of this well-founded rumor, “Cardinal” Francesco Coccopalmerio’s recent remarks take on even greater significance: The Vatican “cardinal” has suggested that we stop thinking of sacraments so rigidly as only either valid or invalid. For the sake of ecumenism, he opined that we should start looking into sacraments perhaps having “imperfect” or “partial” validity….

By the way, regarding that heretical-schismatic “Mass” without a consecration, what Tosatti did not mention in his article is that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, that consecration-less “Eucharistic prayer”, was confirmed as valid by “Cardinal” Joseph Ratzinger (who was then the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and “Pope” John Paul II! Don’t you hate it when that happens?!

As the official Vatican document states:

…a long and careful study was undertaken of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, from a historical, liturgical and theological perspective, at the end of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on January 17th, 2001 concluded that this Anaphora can be considered valid. H.H. Pope John Paul II has approved this decision.

But what do you know: After decades of frowning on the traditional Catholic practice of pronouncing the words of consecration in a low, almost-inaudible voice, the Vatican may just go back to promoting silence at the most important part of the liturgy — except, this time, at the expense of the very words of consecration! Minor detail!

Just wait till they draw the logical conclusion from having an ecumenical liturgy and come up with an interreligious worship service. After all, the groundwork has already been laid: As they freely admit, they do already worship the same god as the Muslims….

PAT SAYS:

We are spending a second day thinking about Eucharist/Mass as it is so important to Christianity and Catholicism.

Todays's pieces highlight that the Eucharist has had a long history of change and development and is still evolving.

For instance the Eucharist of Addai and Mari - which is a very old Eucharist DOES NOT CONTAIN the words of CONSECRATION.

Rather the Consecration is implied in the whole of the Eucharistic Prayer.

And this is regarded by Rome etc as a VALID EUCHARIST.

And then we see that The Vatican is working on a valid Eucharist that Catholics and Protestants will celebrate together.

Those who claim that the Eucharist has never evolved are WRONG.

Those who claim that it will not evolve in the future are also WRONG.

Many people are simply resistant to change of any kind.

The world is constantly changing and so is religion and faith.

Thats why we need to hold onto THE BASICS and be open to THE ACCIDENTALS changing.

We need to hold on to the Baby and be prepared to change the water.

JESUS TOLD US TO BE OPEN TO THE NEW:

"He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has become a disciple in the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."

MATTHEW 13: 52

MASS, EUCHARIST, BREAKING OF BREAD ETC

THESE LAST FEW DAYS WE HAVE BEEN HAVING A LIVELY DISCUSSION ABOUT MASS, EUCHARIST, BREAKING OF BREAD ETC.

The word "MASS" was NOT USED about the Eucharist during the first 300 years of Christianity.

Dominic Cassela writes:

It was a crisp Sunday morning as you slipped into your friend’s home through the  back door into their dining room (coenaculum). The dew is still fresh upon the olive branches. The house is full of men and women alike, all meeting in secret. The service begins. With the sun now starting to rise, a quiet hymn is sung in worship to Christ, as God. This, of course, was followed by a joint vow to not commit theft nor robbery nor adultery, not to break their word nor to refuse to give up a deposit. A slight pause separating the two services takes place, then a man goes to the head of the dining table. Bread is broken and wine poured into a chalice. Thanksgiving is made, and the congregation takes part in the consumption of the two species in remembrance of their God.

The year is 70 A.D. and this was how the early Catholics celebrated the Eucharist. This was the mass. Originally a seed that was given by Christ to the hearts and souls of the early Apostles and Disciples passed down and through the ages. The same seed took root and grew according to the Apostle who sowed it.

It becomes extremely clear to the historian that Liturgical practice varied greatly before and after the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. From the fourth century onwards we have very detailed information about liturgical disciplines. The Fathers such as St. Cyril of Jerusalem [d. 386], St. Athanasius [d. 373], St. Basil [d. 379], St. John Chrysostom [d. 407] give us elaborate descriptions of the various rites they celebrated. Both the Liturgy of St. Basil and Chrysosotom are still in use today in the many churches that make up the Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches since the Union of Uzhhorod (1646).  However, this is not to forget the Liturgy of St. James or the Thomastic rite liturgies that exist with the Syrian and Indian churches, and the Gallic and Celtic Rites that existed in Western Europe, alongside the Roman Rite.

Father Charles Dilke has written: HISTORY OF THE MASS EXPLAINED.

Let us begin by trying to see what Mass would have been like the first time it was said in Rome. Later in time, some people, even Popes, would say that, for example, the Roman Canon (Canon No. l) was composed by St Peter himself and has never been subsequently changed. An examination of the available documents however shows clearly that this was not the case. The Roman Canon was probably composed in more or less its present form about 350 AD and after that some of what is now in the Canon, for example the commemoration of the Dead, had to wait several centuries before being inserted into the Canon of the Mass. 

PAT SAYS:

It is clear that the Eucharist/Mass/Breaking of Bread began in a very simple way with the early Christians in Jerusalem.

It is also clear that the Doctrine of the Mass - and its practice has changed over the centuries in a process of DEVELOPMENT - right up to our own time when the Second Vatican Council changed the Mass into the vernacular after 400 years of Latin Mass.

In the last number of years Pope Benedict changed some of the wording of the Vernacular Mass.

WHAT PAT BELIEVES:

Can I make it VERY CLEAR that I believe in the Roman Catholic understanding of the Mass.

I believe that under the form of bread and wine we receive the actual, true Body of Christ.

I believe that the substance of the bread disappears and becomes the REAL Body of Christ and that the substance of the wine disappears and becomes the REAL Blood of Christ.

In other words I believe in the Catholic teaching of THE REAL PRESENCE.

For that reason, I as a priest, take great care of the consecrated species and reserve anything left over in the Tabernacle.

OTHER BELIEFS:

Other churches and other Christians do not believe what we Catholics believe.

Some of them believe in a symbolic present of Jesus in the bread and wine.

GOD:

However I believe that no one - including the Roman Catholic Church and The Vatican has the power to tell God how, when and where He becomes present.

In the Bible we are told that where two or three gather in the name of Christ He promises to be with them.


I believe that when the Anglicans, Methodists and Presbyterians have Communion Jesus becomes present.

I remain disturbed by the thoughts of the bread and wine used for the Eucharist is later thrown away in any form.

I also believe that if three lay people were stranded on a desert island and broke bread in memory of Jesus that He would be present with them.


You see the Eucharist is basically a MYSTERY.

We Christians believe in mysteries but we cannot always explain them.

Philosophers have tried in various ways to say what the Eucharist is.

They have succeeded or failed to greater or lesser degrees.


I as a Catholic celebrate Mass and I believe in the Real Presence.

But I cannot say that Jesus DOES NOT BECOME PRESENT to other Christians when they celebrate the Eucharist in different ways or have different beliefs about it.

Also, if I am at a Communion Service in any Church and am welcome to receive Communion I always do.