D
“The hour has come .... abandon the practice of Communion standing and in the hand”
- Status
M
Mickey_Jackson
Guest
It is interesting to note that nowhere do the Eastern rites contain the words Mysterium Fidei or their equivalent. So much for the argument that Paul VI invalidated the Novus Ordo by moving these words to the end of the Words of Institution!
C
consumedconvert
Guest
This seems primarily a pastoral decision. As another poster said, way above my pay grade.
I usually recieve on the tongue, though this can be very awkward if the priest or EMHC is a lot shorter than you are. More than once I’ve been afraid of the Sacred Host falling out of my mouth; so sometimes I reverently take in the hand.
Whatever Rome says, I’ll do. I’m a Papist like that.
I usually recieve on the tongue, though this can be very awkward if the priest or EMHC is a lot shorter than you are. More than once I’ve been afraid of the Sacred Host falling out of my mouth; so sometimes I reverently take in the hand.
Whatever Rome says, I’ll do. I’m a Papist like that.
I
I_Believe
Guest
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I think that some are trying to start a contraversy where none really exists.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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)
- 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.
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
JR, these are both excellent posts.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
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
J
JReducation
Guest
This kind of focus can be very dangerous. We have to be very careful. Our focus is on the faith of the Church
There seems to be a tendency to get hooked on the words that do not change the faith of the Church. The faith of the Church is that Christ came for the salvation of all people.
I’m not sure what parish you attend or what Sacramentary they use; therefore, I can’t speak to the wording in their Sacramentary. In our parish we have Friars Minor Capuchin. The Friars Minor (Franciscans) have their own missal, their own lectionary and their own breviary. It differs from the Roman one is some very slight areas that the average person doesn’t even notice. But it is very faithful to the theology of the Church. For example, at the consecration of the host the Brother lifts the host and uses Luke’s words “given up for you.” At the consecration of the wine the Brother holds up the Chalice and uses Marks words, “for many”
Whether it’s for you or for many, the issue does not change. The Eucharist is the sacrifice of Calvary and remains the solemn proclamation of our faith.
There are small details that are added by religious communities who have Pontifical Rights that are not in the universal missal, but do not change the faith of the Church or are in conflict with it. In our parish’s Eucharistic prayer, when the saints are mentioned they must always say “our Holy Father Saint Francis” before they mention the name of the patron saint of the parish.
The issue here is that the Eucharist is the unifying prayer of the Church. It is the most mystical experience of any Christian.
The real meaning of faith is not the acquiescence to every written word as the right wing fundamentalist religions of the world do.
The real meaning of faith is the rejecting of everything that is not Christ in order that all life, all truth, all hope, all reality may be sought and found in Christ.
When the deacon calls us to proclaim the mystery of faith right after the consecration, this is the act of faith that he calls us to make, rather than scrutinize this word or that word which does not change the faith of the Church and which is not in contradiction with the mystery of Christ or the teachings of the Church.
JR
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Please somebody fill me in. I am missing something somewhere. Whether the priest says for all, for many, for some, etc. this does not effect the consecration in any way whatsoever. The words of consecration are ***"This is my Body’ ***and "This is the Cup of my Blood". These words are what make a valid consecration. If you believe this, what is the debate about but nothing rather than the way you would like it to be said and nothing else. It does not effect the liturgy in any way whatsoever.
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & Blessings
Deacon Ed B
I
I_Believe
Guest
A Cardinal’s thoughts…
wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/petrus-archbp-of-lima-on-communion-in-the-hand-no/
The rest of the interview is here…
wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/petrus-archbp-of-lima-on-communion-in-the-hand-no/
J
JReducation
Guest
The Cardinal is not condemning or defending the Church’s laws. He says very clearly that there is more the perfect liturgy than following rules. He defends the rules, but emphasises their purpose which is to celebrate the liturgy as it is meant to be celebrated with reverence and joy.
As to the communion in the hand he has exercised what is his legitimate right as the Ordinary of his diocese and it seems that he has had some good reason to do so.
This is not the case in every diocese around the world, nor does he say that it must be the rule for every diocese in the world. He is very correct in his attitude. His diocese had problems, therefore he forbade communion in the hand.
We have to be careful not to generalize something that is not always applicable to every situation. We also have to careful to trust the judgement of the bishop of each diocese and give him the respect that is due to his authority. The Cardinal does not take that away.
Some may take an interview as this and try to proclaim it as a universal truth just to fit their own desire to see things done in a manner that they see fit.
To try to force our idea of the holy onto everyone else is what Thomas Merton called charicature sanctity. The individual has a perfect image of sanctity in his mind and believes that this should be the universal model.
This is far from what the Cardinal is speaking about.
JR
M
MrS
Guest
While I admit, again, that my preference is for the properly said NO, the infusion of traditionalism from my youth does seep out often…To try to force our idea of the holy onto everyone else is what Thomas Merton called charicature sanctity. The individual has a perfect image of sanctity in his mind and believes that this should be the universal model.
This is far from what the Cardinal is speaking about.
JR
so I add to what you say by asking:
“Posters who keep declaring that both forms are okay, most all music is okay, dress apparel is okay, variations in posture are okay, holding/not-holding hands is okay…and on and on … are also “forcing” their idea, are they not?”
My concern grows from what I see as the difference between the camps:
1] Things that make the liturgy appear more **horizontal **after the change is made are not good for the liturgy, and thus not good for us.
vs
2] Things that make the liturgy appear or retain the vertical , often by adhering to “tradition”, are good for the liturgy, and thus good for us.
In other words, when the "perfect image of sanctity" is everchanging and adjusting to an even more everchanging culture (for the culture’s sake), the resulting “universal model” - regardless of the well meaning intentions of lay or clergy - is no model at all… it is first a distraction, then a division.
.
I
I_Believe
Guest
I agree, but…Some may take an interview as this and try to proclaim it as a universal truth just to fit their own desire to see things done in a manner that they see fit.
JR
So, when forming opinions, the laity should not consider statements by those in the Hierarchy, because they can be used as a basis to support their opinions ?
I posted the interview as a point of discussion. It’s on topic. But instead of ackowledging that there are those in the Hierarchy that agree receiving on the tongue is more reverent, you decide to advise me against posting such, simply because it “might” be used as ammo by those with an agenda. Why throw that in there ? The interview is what it is. One Cardinal’s opinion, and he did say “Personally,…”. If I was hoisting a banner, I’d have quoted Ranjith.
My opinions are not always Truth, and neither are yours. You are certainly more articulate in expressing your opinions than I am, but to say that we have to be careful interpreting the words of members of the Hierarchy, certainly must include warnings regarding the opinions of laity as well.
That said, should we even be here discussing divisive topics ? Who among us is right ? The one who gets the most back pats and “well saids” ?
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that what you say have great merit.
When people say that both forms of the liturgy are “ok” they should really limit themselves to what the Motu Proprio has said, to be fair to the liturgy. The Motu Proprio has said that there is sanctity in both forms. It has established that the EF and the OF are not separate rites, but forms of the same rite.
As to the movement within the liturgy, there are going to be prescriptions within both. I’m not referring to what the laity wears to doesn’t wear or whether the laity chews gum in church or not. That has nothing to do with the liturgy. That has more to do with the loss of good manners and the sense of propriety in our culture. Just look at what kids are allowed to wear to school. It has gotten so out of hand that my school board has banned certain styles of clothes under threat of suspension or even expulsion.
When I speak about gestures, I’m talking about the gestures of the people in the sanctuary. Those are regulated by rubrics and of course there is also culture.
I like your idea of vertical and horizontal. However, I would add to that. The EF is certainly very vertical and should remain that way. That’s an ancient tradition that serves the need of many people. On the other hand, the OF has its own contribution to make to worship. It is more like a cross, vertical and horizontal. It takes from tradition and from current culture, but it all leads men to Christ, when it is done properly.
In the end, this is what liturgy is supposed to do, to bring people to Christ by bringing the incarnate Christ before us in word and flesh.
I’m not to clear on what you mean by a universal model, as I have never experienced such a concept. So I’ll not address what I know nothing about.
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
No no no, please I did not mean to say that you were wrong in posting the article. If I gave that impression I apologize.
You are certainly correct that the laity should look at the opinions of the hierarchy to form their opinions.
I do believe that there are poeple out there who have already made up their minds and are going to use a Cardinal’s opiniion to support their own, rather than as something to reflect on. This was the warning that I was trying to give.
You bring up an interesting question, which is whether we should be discussing divisive topics.
As I teach my students, every topic is going to have several perspectives. The method is to bring the perspectives to the table knowing before hand several things.
- This is my perspective.
- In the end we have not authority to make certain changes in the way that the Church does things.
- Unless the Church askes us, she really doesn’t want to know what we think.
We have to be humble enough to accept this. This is a difficult thing to do, at least it is for me. We are human beings and we believe that we have something to add. We may feel ignored when nothing is further from the truth.
On an issue such as this, the end is that the local bishop will do what he believes is best. Those who read this article must keep in mind that the Cardinal did what he thought was best for his diocese. If your bishop does not do the same, it’s because he believes that what he’s doing is the best for his diocese and you hae to trust that.
This trust only comes from accepting the fact that we have not been left orphans. But this is a hard fact to accept when something is happeing and we have very strong feelings about it. This is where humanity is sanctified. These are the beautiful moments that in his eternal time God chooses to call a soul into a deeper union with him by asking him to trust.
JR
I
I_Believe
Guest
No apology needed JR. I guess I’m just too caught up in all of this. I’m very supportive of the traditionalists concerns, and the harder I look, the more I find to support their opinions.No no no, please I did not mean to say that you were wrong in posting the article. If I gave that impression I apologize.
You are certainly correct that the laity should look at the opinions of the hierarchy to form their opinions.
I do believe that there are poeple out there who have already made up their minds and are going to use a Cardinal’s opiniion to support their own, rather than as something to reflect on. This was the warning that I was trying to give.
You bring up an interesting question, which is whether we should be discussing divisive topics.
As I teach my students, every topic is going to have several perspectives. The method is to bring the perspectives to the table knowing before hand several things.
The Church does not go out and take a poll to see what we think. However, sometimes she leaves the door slightly ajar to hear what people are saying and thinking. You know this by the way that she responds. There are other times when the door is completely closed. You know that too, because there is no response. The Church goes ahead and does what she believes to be right regardless of what we are saying.
- This is my perspective.
- In the end we have not authority to make certain changes in the way that the Church does things.
- Unless the Church askes us, she really doesn’t want to know what we think.
We have to be humble enough to accept this. This is a difficult thing to do, at least it is for me. We are human beings and we believe that we have something to add. We may feel ignored when nothing is further from the truth.
On an issue such as this, the end is that the local bishop will do what he believes is best. Those who read this article must keep in mind that the Cardinal did what he thought was best for his diocese. If your bishop does not do the same, it’s because he believes that what he’s doing is the best for his diocese and you hae to trust that.
This trust only comes from accepting the fact that we have not been left orphans. But this is a hard fact to accept when something is happeing and we have very strong feelings about it. This is where humanity is sanctified. These are the beautiful moments that in his eternal time God chooses to call a soul into a deeper union with him by asking him to trust.
JR
But, as a revert, my conscience won’t let me go running off to the nearest independent chapel. I feel that would be a mistake because it would mean a rejection of what I’m trying to return to.
I’m a member of, and support, an NO parish. But I’m always busy taking up for the traditionalists. I’ve become a fence sitter. And that isn’t good for my spirituality as a Catholic.
I’m going to bow out of this thread, and the TC forum as well. Please pray for me to overcome my bitterness and confusion.
Perhaps the Spirituality Forum will be a better place for me for now. What drew me here in the first place is the description of the TC sub forum… A place to discuss Traditional Catholic Spirituality. Something you do quite well actually
But the divisive topics stay at the top of the page, and it’s time for me to avoid that. Your post helped me realize this.God Bless.
J
JReducation
Guest
Unfortuntely we tend to unleash too much anger in Traditional Catholic forum.No apology needed JR. I guess I’m just too caught up in all of this. I’m very supportive of the traditionalists concerns, and the harder I look, the more I find to support their opinions.
But, as a revert, my conscience won’t let me go running off to the nearest independent chapel. I feel that would be a mistake because it would mean a rejection of what I’m trying to return to.
I’m a member of, and support, an NO parish. But I’m always busy taking up for the traditionalists. I’ve become a fence sitter. And that isn’t good for my spirituality as a Catholic.
I’m going to bow out of this thread, and the TC forum as well. Please pray for me to overcome my bitterness and confusion.
Perhaps the Spirituality Forum will be a better place for me for now. What drew me here in the first place is the description of the TC sub forum… A place to discuss Traditional Catholic Spirituality. Something you do quite well actually
God Bless.
JR
E
EasterJoy
Guest
I teach 2nd-year catechism, part of which is getting the kids ready for their First Communion. Your post reminds me of a priest who remembered (without nostalgia), the re-current problem of “red snappers”: those women wearing lipstick, who also seemed to be the very ones who snapped the mouths shut too quickly after receiving on their tongues!
In addition to instructions about carefully receiving in the hand–make sure you hold your hand open enough and at a good height so that it isn’t hard for the priest or EMHC to make a safe transfer, consume right away, check your palm to make sure you consume every tiny fragment, and so on–I make certain to tell the kids that if they elect to receive on the tongue that they should practice how wide to open their mouth, how far to extend their tongue, and how to wait just a bit so you DO NOT SNAP YOUR MOUTH SHUT on the person’s fingers!!
PS Maybe tall guys like you and “moving targets” were the real reason the altar rail with kneelers was introduced!
E
EasterJoy
Guest
This sounds like what I taught our kids to say when I have asked them how they like dinner.
The allowed answers range from “I love it” to “It was a fine job, I’m sure, but don’t make it again for my sake, Mom. I guess curried zucchini just isn’t really my thing.”
M
MrS
Guest
I too am a revert. VietNam left me feeling both immorally invincible and God-less. And I continued afterwards being an MIA to the Church. When I finally returned, I wondered what had happened to the Church I knew, but I could not in conscience continue to reject her because of the uncomfortable feelings I had.
I was not the frog in the pot that so many other Catholics (who had stayed in the changing Church) around me were… so it seemed.
So, the harder I look, the more I find in both forms that is good and holy.
It is not so much the liturgy that has changed…it is the people in the Church who have changed.
After 25 years of being on the outside, I guess what I see is that the people in the Church are different. They seem to have accepted way too many things that make Catholicism easier for them.
- Little or no continuing adult religious education
- Less reception of the sacraments of confession and communion
- Less effort to make Sundays different from any other day
- Less concern for co-workers, family etc who have fallen away
- Less support for their priests
and more of course many more that posters could add to the list…
I just don’t often see us trying to put God at the center when the reason for our 'changes" is what WE want.
There is an interesting article (on an unrelated topic) in a recent This Rock that actually helps to explain what I feel about this topic, the DC Music issue etc. I will get it out and post an exerpt.
Being a Catholic should be the hardest thing we can be/do. But it is the greatest and most fruitful
I wish we could understand that our Liturgy was not something that was broke and now continually needs to be fixed.
.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I agree with you totally on this part. For what my humble opinion is worth, many are placing the blame on the wrong place. If we consider what went on in the 60’s, 70’s 80’s etc Change was all around and still going on. However, it was not Vatican II with the changes it implemented that caused this in the Church.
Starting during this time period was the sexual revolution, removal of prayer from the schools, Roe v Wade which ushered in abortion and the culture of death which now includes euthanasia and peoples belief in their own right to take their own lives, psychiatrist stating that homosexuality is not a deviant disorder but is natural and then the coming out of gay and lesbian to where they now have gay pride days instead of gay shame days. Added to this, there is no more discipline in the schools, children can sue their parents, home discipline is almost non existent. Put all of this together and our culture has received a blow that has knocked it off balance and from which it is still trying to recover. Children are not even allowed to refer to God at any school exercises or graduations. Prayer cannot even be said at the beginning of a sporting event in public schools.
Then along came Vatican II. What we see in the Church with many falling away because of what *I have listed above, is blamed on Vatican II, instead of looking to the real cultural disintegration which has rocked this nation to the core in the last 1/2 century. I am not denying or sweeping under the rug those abuses which entered the Church after Vatican II. That is being corrected. Maybe those who left their vocations should not have been there in the first place.
The child abuse issue was certainly not caused by Vatican II. It came from a culture of “protect the Church whatever the cost”. This was wrong, has been realized and now for the most part corrected. Am I saying this can never happen again? No I am not, but it is not from Vatican II but rather from our fallen human condition. That does not excuse it, it explains it. I guess this is enough rambling on my part for now, but I sincerely hope that some will truly consider the entire picture and not just look for a single cause. Looking at the big picture can give a more broad understand and fix to what we are all facing.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
B
bobzills
Guest
I would propose the contrary for consideration. Before Vatican II, everything was just fine in the Catholic Church with reference to the many serious problems that we are facing today. It was only after Vatican II, with the New Mass, with the Communion in the Hand, with the words of the Consecration changed from “for many” to “for all”. that these serious problems arose. To take one example, compare the number of marriage annulments given out by the Catholic Church in the USA today with the number before Vatican II. It is simply astounding and almost incredible. Nine marriage annulments granted in the USA in 1930, compared to more than 60,000 marriage annulments granted by the Catholic Church in the USA in recent years. And on top of that, as we can see from a recent papal Mass. many Catholics get divorced and remarried outside of the Catholic Church and don’t bother to get a marriage annulment and still, even though they are public figures, with their history well known, they are seen to receive Holy Communion in the hand.
- Status