“The hour has come .... abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”

[David_Poem]

The Vatican Publishing House, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, has just published a book by the Most Rev. Athanasium Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Karaganda (in Kazakhstan), called Dominus Est. Reflections from Central Asia on Holy Communion. The Preface of this book is written by the Most Rev. Malcolm Ranjith, the new secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments,

Among his comments in the Preface:…

• **“The hour has come to review and, if necessary, abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand” **
• “speaking of Communion in the hand, it must be admitted that the practice was improperly and quickly introduced"
• **"**this practice is decreasing and those responsible not only demand that the faithful receive the Holy Eucharist standing, but even eliminate all kneelers, forcing the faithful to remain standing"
• “This gesture has contributed to a gradual and increased weakening of the attitude of reverence toward the sacred Eucharist Species, whereas the previous practice had better safeguarded that sense of reverence."
• **"**defend it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith that this situation continues to create."

---

the way everyone takes the Eucharist.Is not the problem.The problem is lack of people goin to confession,and yes still take the Eucharist.In our church we r lucky if we hear a baby crying.We r not having big family s, and then the kids get old enouge they leave the church,There r Lots of people who miss mass but they dont think its a sin.There r lots of people who have sex.But dont have kids.I may go on and on .All i can do is pray

 

[Teelynn]

Boy, I am jumping into this very very late. (as usual) I really think the way The Eucharist is given has a great bearing on how it is portrayed by the Clergy and in turn how it is looked upon by the Laity. When they yanked all the Communion Rails out of Catholic Churches years ago and we all started marching up to the front of the Altar to be “handed” the Host and then given the Wine after that, the distribution was made to look like an assembly line. Not that the Communion Rail was not in essence an assembly line but the distribution was so much different. What the Catholic Church said to us in essence was, " Let’s move along here folks, it’s only Communion, take the Host and go." In that way, we made lighter of the “Real Presence”. This is when I believe the other sacraments started to wane. Being the humans that we are, we need reinforcement in the gesture of respect and awe if you will that indeed, Jesus Christ Himself is actually and really present in the Eucharist. If this is really Jesus Himself, why are we running up to the front of Church taking the Host and running off…and to make matters worse, depending on the Celebrant, there is no time given for reflection after that. There are times I have gone to Mass, knelt down to pray after receiving, and immediately had to stand for the final prayer. Uhmmm…did I or did I not JUST RECEIVE JESUS HIMSELF?! I guess what I am trying to sum up is this: we are not exactly acting like we have just received Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior in all His glory…the priest is not at times portraying that very idea. We are running up there like a bunch of cattle and running back to our pew. When you kneel and the priest and altar server distribute JESUS, with the patten underneath just in case (AFTER ALL, THIS IS THE BODY, BLOOD, SOUL, AND DIVINITY OF JESUS CHRIST) it is portrayed entirely more REAL. The “Real Presence” has been downplayed. If the “Real Presence” is taken so lightly, why does anyone need to go to confession? Or go to Mass every Sunday at that? Personally I think a lot ties into the manner in which we receive The Eucharist. I would like the idea of being able to stand (if you have physical disabilities) and being able to kneel if not. And what ever happened to the Altar Server holding the Patten? Any reason the THAT discontinuation?

 

[DustinsDad]

Bobzillas: Otherwise, an unrepented mortal sin will send someone to hell. It’s funny that you should bring that up. The other day someone brought that up to Dr. Scott Hahn and Fr. Regis Scalon, TOR on a program on EWTN. They explained that one can never underestimate the seriousness of mortal sin. They also explained that one must look at the Book of Job. God agrees that he will not destroy the city if he finds just one just man. They pointed out that God’s mercy outdoes his justice. Therefore, the Church finds it difficult to say that one mortal sin will annul an entire life of Christian virtue. That would be the same as saying that one mortal sin outweighs all of the love, prayer, charity, penance and sacramental life of the individual. In essence, it’s like saying that one mortal sin annuls all of the graces that God has given you.

And now you even go so far as to throw into doubt the fact that an *unrepentant *mortal sin damns one to hell? You surprise even me now. I’ve seen it all.
COUNCIL OF TRENT
SESSION VI
CHAPTER XIV
THE FALLEN AND THEIR RESTORATION

Those who through sin have forfeited from the received grace of justification, can again be justified when, moved by God, they exert themselves to obtain through the sacrament of penance the recovery, by the merits of Christ, of the grace lost.[82]

For this manner of justification is restoration for those fallen, which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost.[83]

For on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the sacrament of penance when He said:

Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.[84]

…

CHAPTER XV
BY EVERY MORTAL SIN GRACE IS LOST, BUT NOT FAITH

Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent,[91] it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners,[92] and all others who commit deadly sins**, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ**.

---

CCC 1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

 

[bobzills]

JR was not referring to a synoptic gospel of Paul, but to the synoptic gospels and Paul, i.e., his writings in his epistles… Hope this helps.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

Perhaps you can direct me to the passages and citations in John and in Paul where the words of the Consecration of the Wine include the phrase for all?

 

[bobzills]

the way everyone takes the Eucharist.Is not the problem.The problem is lack of people goin to confession,and yes still take the Eucharist.In our church we r lucky if we hear a baby crying.We r not having big family s, and then the kids get old enouge they leave the church,There r Lots of people who miss mass but they dont think its a sin.There r lots of people who have sex.But dont have kids.I may go on and on .All i can do is pray

This is what is known as open communion which some say has been given a boost by the change in the wording of the Mass. Before Vatican II, the teaching was that the Blood was shed for many, after Vatican II the teaching is that the Blood has been shed for all.

 

[bobzills]

What has changed is the Church’s understanding of heretic. The Church no longer accuses those who are born into the Reformation Churches to be heretics, even if they believe some of the heresies that the Reformation communnities belive.

This looks like another change in the Catholic relgion. You can embrace heresy, you can deny the Real Presence,m you can deny the infallibility of the Pope, etc., but even though you embrace and advocate heresy, you are not a heretic?

 

[bobzills]

Therefore, the Church finds it difficult to say that one mortal sin will annul an entire life of Christian virtue. That would be the same as saying that one mortal sin outweighs all of the love, prayer, charity, penance and sacramental life of the individual. In essence, it’s like saying that one mortal sin annuls all of the graces that God has given you.

So, according to the new teaching of the Catholic Church, one unrepentant mortal sin will not send you to hell, provided that you had led a good life otherwise? This would also seem to be in accord with the general watering down of Catholic teachings in effect since Vatican II.And this idea gives a boost to those who advocate open communion.

 

[EasterJoy]

This is what is known as open communion which some say has been given a boost by the change in the wording of the Mass. Before Vatican II, the teaching was that the Blood was shed for many, after Vatican II the teaching is that the Blood has been shed for all.

I find it hard to believe that a Christian not in communion with Rome would come to Mass and hear “many” instead of “all” and think, “Oh, well. That leaves me out.” If Holy Communion had never been offered in the hand, the Protestants would still be up there, kneeling at the altar rail, I can almost guarantee it.

I think that the same ecumenism that has had the fortunate result that little kids are far less likely to think that differing understandings of the truth give an excuse to push other little kids in the mud has had the unfortunate result that many, including many Catholics, think the unity of faith within Christendom is far greater than it is.

It has also had the result that Catholics and Protestants come in contact a lot more. You didn’t used to see Protestants coming to Mass at all, so of course they didn’t come to Holy Communion. The idea of a Catholic in the Oval Office was unthinkable. You certainly wouldn’t expect to ever see the Pope standing on the East Lawn at the White House!

Also, our culture has taken on the attitude that exclusion or exclusiveness are never appropriate, that they are undemocratic or arrogant or unloving, by definition. “Exclusive” is “snotty”…period. Let’s face it: too many question the degree to which marriage should necessarily be exclusive!! It is as if all intimacy in all degrees is right and good, by virtue of our common humanity.

This is particularly true in the case of non-Catholic Christians who are married to a Catholic, who regularly attend Mass rather than another church, whose children are being raised Catholic, who contribute to the life of the parish, and who are fully aware that those who formally belong to the church do not always accept Church teaching any more than they do!

We also live in a society in which “Question Authority” bumper stickers sell like hot cakes. I think that has everything to do with it.

 

[EasterJoy]

So, according to the new teaching of the Catholic Church, one unrepentant mortal sin will not send you to hell, provided that you had led a good life otherwise? This would also seem to be in accord with the general watering down of Catholic teachings in effect since Vatican II.And this idea gives a boost to those who advocate open communion.

The teaching of the Church is that it is within the ability of God to provide a soul with the opportunity to repent of mortal after that person has had their last chance to communicate with us.

In other words, no more denying Christian burial to suicides, or to anyone else we judge to have never repented or who we judge to have had full knowldege of the gravity of what they were doing and full freedom to choose. That judgement is where it belongs: with God. We are allowed to pray, and to hope. That is a far more appropriate place for us.

In other words, we can know “this act or that act is serious enough to be mortal”. We can’t know the interior disposition of* a particular soul* that would either make the original choice a mortal sin or that would render that soul past any opportunity for repentance. Again, I think that is a fully appropriate place to be, and not outside Sacred Tradition.

Go through all those ancient teachings of the Church and find a place where the Church has officially taught that “this particular person has been condemned to Hell for eternity.” It isn’t there. There is a reason for that.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Perhaps you can direct me to the passages and citations in John and in Paul where the words of the Consecration of the Wine include the phrase for all?

See the sections in each of the four gospels and not the difference in the wording. Thats all you have to do.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[EasterJoy]

This looks like another change in the Catholic relgion. You can embrace heresy, you can deny the Real Presence,m you can deny the infallibility of the Pope, etc., but even though you embrace and advocate heresy, you are not a heretic?

You have to admit that, at least based on exterior evidence (we can’t read souls) that Luther’s culpability is different than the culpability of a person raised in the Lutheran Church, right?

If everyone you ever knew and trusted, the people who baptized you and raised you to love God, taught one thing, and this other church out there taught another thing, surely you have been confronted with a barrier to accepting the faith in its fullness that Luther did not confront.

This is not a change in the degree to which Lutheran tenets themselves are heretical, but a recognition of the barriers that now come between a person and their opportunity for full acceptance the faith.

 

[JReducation]

I think that some are trying to start a contraversy where none really exists.

1. The words of consecration “for all” or “for many” or “for you”. The Church has to decided which is more consistent with the teachings of the Apostles.

The synoptic Gospels do not agree on the wording. They do agree on the event. John is not a synoptic writer. His wording is different too. Paul is not an evangelist, he is a Pastor and theologian. He teaches that salvation is for all, hence his argument in favour of the Gentiles.

As the supreme authority in the interpretation and use of scripture, the Church can apply any of the concepts found in scripture without impunity, as long as they are faithful to the teachings of the Apostles.

1. The previous poster put it very well. Luther’s actions and the believes of those born and raised in the Lutheran community are not the same. Luther defected from the faith of the Church for many reasons. Some were legitimate and some were of his own making.

This is not the situation of a person who is born a Lutheran. They are faithful to what they believe is the path to holiness. The Church says that you cannot call such a person a heretic, because this is the path that they know. Just because the Catholic Church says something different, it is not easy for someone just to jump ship and join the Catholic Church.

If you read the biography of St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, it took a great deal of soul searching, years of prayer and a great deal of pain to convert to Catholicism. It is not a process that happens because a Catholic says that you’re wrong and I’m right. Every holy man and woman wants to do the will of God, this includes people of other faiths.

1. As to mortal sin, it is not up to us to judge the soul of any individual. All we can say is that objectively speaking an act is a mortal sin. We can also say that mortal sin damns the soul. But we cannot speak to the state of the soul.

If you examine Cistercian theology you will find that it clearly says “Sin is the rfusal of spiritual life, the rejection of the inner orer and peace that come from our union with the divine will. In a word, sin is the refulsal of Gos will and of his love. It is not only a refusal to “do” this or that thing willed by God or a determination to do what God forbids.” (Merton, 1963)

This theology was taught by St. Bernard of Cleirvaux to the Cistercians and through them to the universal Church since before the Middle Ages and held as truth by the Church until today. That’s why he’s a Doctor of the Church, because everything that he teaches on faith and morals are in harmony with the teachings of the Church.

Cistercian theology does not deny the existence of sin. It explains it in the light of reason and it leaves judgement to God.

Let us remember that our call is to become saints, not to battle over every little thing that the Church says or does.

What made the saints great was just the opposite. They reflected on the Church’s teaching and actions. When they reached a conclusion that was not in agreement with the popes or the bishops, they went to the popes or the bishops to ask if their conclusions were correct.

A saint never trusts his own conclusions. He lives for Christ and he knows that the final authoritative voice for Christ can only be found in the Church. So a saint always goes to the hierarchy. Then, as St. John of the Cross taught, the responsibility becomes the moral burden of the hierarchy. The soul has done its duty. It has asked and obeyed. If it has been misled, it is the person in authority who has moral accountability, not the individual soul. For Christ expects the soul to be obedient to the Church.

JR

 

[bobzills]

The teaching of the Church is that it is within the ability of God to provide a soul with the opportunity to repent of mortal after that person has had their last chance to communicate with us…

So will all souls then be offered the chance to repent and thereby be resotred to the friendship of God? And is this written down somewhere in an official theological pronouncement?

 

[bobzills]

1. The words of consecration “for all” or “for many” or “for you”. The Church has to decided which is more consistent with the teachings of the Apostles.

Yes, for almost two thousand years before Vatican II the Church has taught that the Blood of Christ has been shed for many.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, for almost two thousand years before Vatican II the Church has taught that the Blood of Christ has been shed for many.

If the Church changes the word from many to all, it is not in conflict with the teaching of the Apostles. It is changing an 800 year old tradition, but that’snot the first time that the Church has changed long standing traditions.

For hundreds of years there was a tradition of communion only once a year. For almost 1000 years we have had a tradition of celibate priests in the Western Church, now we allow married ministers and priests of other faiths who convert to be ordained Catholic priest and remain married.

For hundreds of years we had confesssioin once a year.

How many years did we pay the Divine Office the way it was handed down to us from Judaism? From the time of the Apostles who brought it into the Church from Judaism until the early 1970s. Should we go back to that form again? Are you willing to pray the Liturgy of the Hours every three hours? Do you have the time?

Did you know that the words of consecration in the Roman Rite and the Eastern Rite are not exactly the same? The Eastern Rite has always used “for all”.

We have to preserve the theology and the mysticism of the liturgy. We also have to preserve our obedience to the Church. There is nothing wrong with the changing of the words from “many” to “all”. What would happen if they decided to go with Luke’s form “you”? Would that be wrong?

Apparently, the evangelists and the Apostles had the same experience of the Eucharist, but did not agree on the wording. Yet, none of their words are incorrect, “the many”, “for you”, “for all”.

Christ did sacrifice for all the above.

We need to focus on the mystery of the Eucharist and the union of the Divine with the soul. When the theology of the Eucharist is not compromised, to focus on these details is more of a distraction than a help.

We go to the Eucharist to be united with Eternity, not to do exegesis.

JR

 

[bobzills]

Did you know that the words of consecration in the Roman Rite and the Eastern Rite are not exactly the same? The Eastern Rite has always used “for all”.

What you are writing here is not true. Here is the link to the liturgy of St. John chrysostom and as anyone can read:
"… this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. "
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
Here is the link to the liturgy of St. Basil:
“This is my blood of the new Covenant, shed for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.”
goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/basil.asp

 

[JReducation]

What you are writing here is not true. Here is the link to the liturgy of St. John chrysostom and as anyone can read:
"… this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. "
ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html

What St. John Chrysostom does is combine what Mt, Mk and Lk use in their forumulas.

This is just one form. There are more than 15 Byzantine liturgical forms.

Again, we do not go the liturgy to do exegesis, we go to achieve union with the Divine.

As long as the wording is approved by the Church, it is a distraction to focus on why the change. Stick to the purpose of the Eucharist.

JR

 

[bobzills]

What St. John Chrysostom does is combine what Mt, Mk and Lk use in their forumulas.

This is just one form. There are more than 15 Byzantine liturgical forms.

Again, we do not go the liturgy to do exegesis, we go to achieve union with the Divine.

As long as the wording is approved by the Church, it is a distraction to focus on why the change. Stick to the purpose of the Eucharist.

JR

You said that the Eastern rites use the formula containing “for all”. I have given you two separate texts, the liturgy of St. Basil and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom showing that this is not true for these Eastern rites. Now do you have any reference to support your statement?

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

I would love to see the communion rail back in place, hands folded in reverence. I really don’t kow why the rail was taken away, but if it was to make communion go faster, it was for the wrong reason. Spending an addidtional 2 minutes in church might be a good thing.

Mom of 5

One of my dearest friends is Lutheran, and they have a Communion rail even without believing in the Real Presence! Another of my friends is Episcopalian (not even High Church), and her church choir often uses Latin chant.

Why did we think that we could make the Church more attractive to potential converts (not a bad intention in and of itself) by abandoning some of Her most beautiful traditions? Quite frankly, if one of these Protestant friends of mine expressed interest in attending a Catholic Mass, I would probably take them to our local Indult parish rather than to my parish’s weekly “Teen Mass.”

 

[EasterJoy]

So will all souls then be offered the chance to repent and thereby be restored to the friendship of God? And is this written down somewhere in an official theological pronouncement?

I don’t believe I wrote that anyone is guaranteed anything, let alone that all had a guarantee. What I meant to point out was that it is the perogative of God to offer others chances of which we have not been made aware. As Our Lord’s parable of “the last shall be first” points out, that God may be counted upon to be just does not imply that God may not choose to be generous.

For instance:
CCC 2283: We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide opportunity for salutory repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.

He has revealed to us how we may expect to be judged. As part of that, the Lord said very pointedly that it is very not our place to judge others. The measure we measure with will be measured back to us. I take that warning very seriously.