Anybody else disappointed by

[alessandro]

First, let me say that I was quite pleased by the ample media coverage of the Pope’s visit. Needless to say, and true to form, the holy Father’s speeches were eloquent and insightful. I hope many people will give as much time to pondering what he said as they did rallying to welcome him.

But let me ask you… Was anyone else disappointed by the following?

• That the Mass at St. Patrick’s was not the Extraordinary (Tridentine) Form? I feel it would’ve made a nice counterbalance to the ecumenical “party”-like Masses in D.C. and Yankee Stadium.
• That 99% of priests and religious at St. Patrick’s received Communion in the hand? Granted, they had a processional and did not use the Communion rail (with so many people, it is understandable why this was the case)… But somehow, I expected more to receive Communion on the tongue. (Cf. this article.)
• That Giuliani was allowed to receive Communion without comment. Even if he went to Confession, is a divorced man (I don’t think his marriage was annulled) now living with another woman allowed to do so?
  Also, anyone know the answer to this? At St. Patrick’s, when the Pope himself was receiving Communion, a fragment of the Host fell upon the Altar table. I did not notice it being salvaged at that time or doing the ablutions. Did anyone?

I’m not trying to nitpick… I’m genuinely curious how others feel about these things.

Once again, overall, I’m quite pleased by the message the Pope got out while here… And I hope people study this message and take it to heart.

 

[revelations]

Also, anyone know the answer to this? At St. Patrick’s, when the Pope himself was receiving Communion, a fragment of the Host fell upon the Altar table. I did not notice it being salvaged at that time or doing the ablutions. Did anyone?

On the altar is laid a cloth that is intended to catch such crumbs and fragments. I dont know what it is called, maybe you liturgical buffs could help me out, but i do know its main purpose is for that.

Also, i am very happy with the popes statements. His message brings healing and refocus. I am saddened when i hear many who only focus on the outward things, such as the way others received communion.

Upon some reflection i realised that if we have noticed these things, our holy father has also.

Finally, as to the fact that giulliani received communion, i pray that all who receive irreverently without knowing it will be graced with the knowledge of what they do. I personally have a hard enough time staying in a state of grace to worry about others personal situations.

 

[brigid12]

Alessandro,

I can understand much of what you say - really I can, however I don’t believe that’s what the Holy Spirit would have us focus on or even think about. I don’t see that it would further our journey to Him.
For me, no matter what happened or didn’t happen that I would have preferred changed, nothing can keep the memory of our Holy Father’s face along with the message “Christ Our Hope” away from my mind. That was the clearest evangelization I’ve ever seen.

 

[markadm]

Numbers 2 and 3 maybe irk me, but even as a TLM afficionado, I don’t think we have a leg to stand on about 1. We should be reasonable in our expectations.

 

[bobzills]

First, let me say that I was quite pleased by the ample media coverage of the Pope’s visit. Needless to say, and true to form, the holy Father’s speeches were eloquent and insightful. I hope many people will give as much time to pondering what he said as they did rallying to welcome him.

But let me ask you… Was anyone else disappointed by the following?

• That the Mass at St. Patrick’s was not the Extraordinary (Tridentine) Form? I feel it would’ve made a nice counterbalance to the ecumenical “party”-like Masses in D.C. and Yankee Stadium.
• That 99% of priests and religious at St. Patrick’s received Communion in the hand? Granted, they had a processional and did not use the Communion rail (with so many people, it is understandable why this was the case)… But somehow, I expected more to receive Communion on the tongue. (Cf. this article.)
• That Giuliani was allowed to receive Communion without comment. Even if he went to Confession, is a divorced man (I don’t think his marriage was annulled) now living with another woman allowed to do so?
  Also, anyone know the answer to this? At St. Patrick’s, when the Pope himself was receiving Communion, a fragment of the Host fell upon the Altar table. I did not notice it being salvaged at that time or doing the ablutions. Did anyone?

I’m not trying to nitpick… I’m genuinely curious how others feel about these things.

Once again, overall, I’m quite pleased by the message the Pope got out while here… And I hope people study this message and take it to heart.

Apparently, the present Pope believes in Communion in the hand.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Apparently, the present Pope believes in Communion in the hand.

Your wording is confusing. By “believe in” can be meant:

1. knows of
2. tolerates
3. is ambivalent towards
4. encourages
   or,
5. mandates

You observe that the Pope allowed many people to receive Communion on the hand. As an aside, this should not be surprising given the indult now in place for receiving in such a manner. So, what does this observation lead to?

(1) is obvious. (2) also follows, but is likewise insignificant - the indult in place, which has not been removed, already serves to demonstrate that the practice is tolerated.

(4) and (5) are out of the question, because simply allowing something to go on does not reflect that one desires that thing, or would like to see more of it.

Likewise, both methods of receiving does not imply anything about ambivalence, because to be ambivalent means complete equality of preferences, which cannot be determined short of a direct interview or controlled experiment. Certainly, it cannot be inferred simply by observing the tolerance of both methods.

So, upon clearing up your wording, the observations only prove that the Pope “believes in” receiving on the hand only insofar as (1) and (2), which were not in question. The substantive claims (3)-(5) do not follow.

 

[bobzills]

Your wording is confusing. By “believe in” can be meant:

1. knows of
2. tolerates
3. is ambivalent towards
4. encourages
   or,
5. mandates

You observe that the Pope allowed many people to receive Communion on the hand. As an aside, this should not be surprising given the indult now in place for receiving in such a manner. So, what does this observation lead to?

(1) is obvious. (2) also follows, but is likewise insignificant - the indult in place, which has not been removed, already serves to demonstrate that the practice is tolerated.

(4) and (5) are out of the question, because simply allowing something to go on does not reflect that one desires that thing, or would like to see more of it.

Likewise, both methods of receiving does not imply anything about ambivalence, because to be ambivalent means complete equality of preferences, which cannot be determined short of a direct interview or controlled experiment. Certainly, it cannot be inferred simply by observing the tolerance of both methods.

So, upon clearing up your wording, the observations only prove that the Pope “believes in” receiving on the hand only insofar as (1) and (2), which were not in question. The substantive claims (3)-(5) do not follow.

This is nitpicking, because the Pope himself, as well as just about every other priest at his papal Mass, is seen to give Communion in the hand. So obviously, he must think it is OK.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

This is nitpicking, because the Pope himself, as well as just about every other priest at his papal Mass, is seen to give Communion in the hand. So obviously, he must think it is OK.

Restating a biased and unsupported claim does not make it true. You cannot prove anything past the fact that the Pope tolerates the practice of receiving in the hand.

If this is exactly what you mean, then we agree, but this result is not significant since we all knew that the practice is not banned.

I “nitpicked” because your original claim contains ambiguity.

 

[ProVobis]

This is nitpicking, because the Pope himself, as well as just about every other priest at his papal Mass, is seen to give Communion in the hand. So obviously, he must think it is OK.

Or maybe he doesn’t want to rock the boat, proverbially?

You have to remember, option of communion in the hand is still the law, whether we like it or not. They or he must change the law before he breaks it. And, seeing that most are anti-trad in this practice, this probably would not be a good time to change it.

Personally I chose not to watch any of the Mass coverage. For other reasons, I would have been more disappointed than you if I had. I heard some of the commentaries though on CNN.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I feel it would’ve made a nice counterbalance to the ecumenical “party”-like Masses in D.C. and Yankee Stadium.

**What was “ecumenica” or “party-like” in the masses at DC and Yankee Stadium?

Be specific.**

 

[stmaria]

=alessandro;3598382]
But let me ask you… Was anyone else disappointed by the following?

• That the Mass at St. Patrick’s was not the Extraordinary (Tridentine) Form? I feel it would’ve made a nice counterbalance to the ecumenical “party”-like Masses in D.C. and Yankee Stadium.

I thought that the Mass at St Patrick was fantastic. Some vernacular, some Latin. Traditional music. If only all of the Masses of the Ordinary Form were this good.

That 99% of priests and religious at St. Patrick’s received Communion in the hand? Granted, they had a processional and did not use the Communion rail (with so many people, it is understandable why this was the case)… But somehow, I expected more to receive Communion on the tongue.

More lay people at the DC mass and the Yankee Stadium Mass received on the tongue than did the priests and religious. The laity set the example.

That Giuliani was allowed to receive Communion without comment. Even if he went to Confession, is a divorced man (I don’t think his marriage was annulled) now living with another woman allowed to do so?/

If you watched the Mass on Fox, the priest did comment on the fact that Giuliani received even though he was married outside the Church. He said that the Pope has stated that people should be free of sin when receiving communion.

 

[alessandro]

I can understand much of what you say - really I can, however I don’t believe that’s what the Holy Spirit would have us focus on or even think about. I don’t see that it would further our journey to Him.

Oh, I agree! We should not focus on nitpicking and nagging, but rather the Holy Father’s messages. Be that as it may, I was curious how other Catholics felt about a few things that stuck out in my mind.

By “believe in” can be meant:

1. knows of
2. tolerates
3. is ambivalent towards
4. encourages
   or,
5. mandates

…] the observations only prove that the Pope “believes in” receiving on the hand only insofar as (1) and (2), which were not in question. The substantive claims (3)-(5) do not follow.

This is a good clarification. I never supposed that Benedict XVI advocated Communion in the hand, but it is obvious that he tolerates it. I doubt he’s ambivalent toward it. Even though there may exist an indult for it now, he is still free to speak his mind about it. For example, just as he clarified that extraordinary Eucharistic ministers are just that – to be used in extraordinary situations, when priests are not available – he could do the same to clarify that Communion in genuflection and on the tongue is both historically accurate and more appropriate to the situation. That said, I don’t think Masses with 10,000 or even 1,000 people can be done easily/efficiently with genuflection – i.e., a procession is necessary to “keep things moving.” But this does not necessitate Communion in the hand. Simply elevate the priests on one step or on a box, and the ergonomic difficulty of administering Communion on the tongue to someone standing is no longer an issue.

Or maybe he doesn’t want to rock the boat, proverbially?

You have to remember, option of communion in the hand is still the law, whether we like it or not. They or he must change the law before he breaks it. And, seeing that most are anti-trad in this practice, this probably would not be a good time to change it.

Pope Benedict has done and said so much for renewing faith in the Real Presence. Yet a true belief in the Real Presence logicallly leads to a desire to receive Communion on the tongue. Conversely, receipt of the Host in the hand eventually leads to its objectification as a mere wafer that is only symbolic of something greater, and thus belief in the Real Presence is lost. Bishop Schneider recently had much to say about this. It would be nice to have heard a few words from the Pope. Now, perhaps there was too much going on, and he didn’t want people to “lose the forest for the trees” (i.e., lose sight of his larger messages), or perhaps all these large, televised services were not the best forum to do so. Yet – to the contrary – I would argue that they were exactly the right forum to do so: What better way to get your message out to the thousands who came to see you and the millions who are watching? (After all, what percentage of those people will read his encyclicals?)

 

[bobzills]

Restating a biased and unsupported claim does not make it true. .

The claim is supported by the fact that the Pope and just about every priest there was seen by thousands and thousands of witnesses to have given Holy Communion in the hand, and that public figures who have been publicly divorced and remarried outside of the Church and who have publicly allied themselves with the pro-choice position were witnessed by thousands and thousands of witnesses to have been given Holy Communion in the hand. And I didn’t see any news report that there was the slightest objection raised to this by the Pope?

 

[m134e5]

First, let me say that I was quite pleased by the ample media coverage of the Pope’s visit. Needless to say, and true to form, the holy Father’s speeches were eloquent and insightful. I hope many people will give as much time to pondering what he said as they did rallying to welcome him.

But let me ask you… Was anyone else disappointed by the following?

• That the Mass at St. Patrick’s was not the Extraordinary (Tridentine) Form? I feel it would’ve made a nice counterbalance to the ecumenical “party”-like Masses in D.C. and Yankee Stadium.

I’m not disappointed at all. The Mass at Saint Patrick’s was one of just a few papal liturgies during his visit. It is called the Extraordinary form for a reason- it is not the norm.

• That 99% of priests and religious at St. Patrick’s received Communion in the hand? Granted, they had a processional and did not use the Communion rail (with so many people, it is understandable why this was the case)… But somehow, I expected more to receive Communion on the tongue. (Cf. this article.)

That disappoints me, but the Church allows it- what can you do? I don’t think it is as reverent- and it wouldn’t be, if I were to receive in the hand.

• That Giuliani was allowed to receive Communion without comment. Even if he went to Confession, is a divorced man (I don’t think his marriage was annulled) now living with another woman allowed to do so?

He shouldn’t have received communion if he hasn’t gone to confession for his policies as a politician, but that’s between him and God. Priests can’t just deny people communion whenever they feel like someone isn’t worthy. Who knows if Giuliani has been to confession or not?

Also, anyone know the answer to this? At St. Patrick’s, when the Pope himself was receiving Communion, a fragment of the Host fell upon the Altar table. I did not notice it being salvaged at that time or doing the ablutions. Did anyone?

I am sure the fragment- if there was one- was properly cared for.

 

[alessandro]

Priests can’t just deny people communion whenever they feel like someone isn’t worthy. Who knows if Giuliani has been to confession or not?

But priests can deny people Communion when those people are known to be in a state of sin. And even if one goes to Confession, if that person refuses to change his state of sin, then he cannot receive absolution, despite the confession.

Giuliani received an annulment of his first marriage after he was unfaithful to his wife. His second marriage was also by Catholic ceremony but was similarly plagued by several bouts of infidelity and ended in civil divorce. He subsequently married, by civil ceremony, the lady with whom he had been sleeping and, of course, lives with her presently.

Even if he had gone to confession and confessed his infidelity during his first and second marriages, he could not be absolved due to his ongoing affair. His divorce is not recognized by the Catholic Church, and neither is his third marriage; and thus, he continues to commit adultery. (He would have to end the present affair and either go back to his second wife or choose to live celibately to the end of his days in order to qualify absolution.)

I bring this up not as a slight against Giuliani, but rather to exemplify that certain people in the public eye – whose life histories are well known and well documented – can be judged by priests, in certain situations, to not be in the state of grace necessary to receive Communion.

Now, Giuliani should’ve know better than to have gone up to receive Communion. But he didn’t. (Or maybe he did know better, but didn’t care and was going to do what he wanted to do anyway.) Handling the Host with reverence extends to not administering it to those who are not in a state of grace. This is for the protection of the sacred Species – as well as out of charity for Giuliani himself, since receipt of Communion while knowingly in a state of sin brings condemnation and punishment.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I don’t know if this helps or not, but it is incorrect to say that a concelebrating priest receives in the hand. When there are large numbers of concelebrants, the priests come up in line and take a host from the ciborium or paten, whether the ciborium or paten be on the altar or held by a priest or deacon. If the latter, the priest or deacon will not say, “Corpus Christi”, nor will the concelebrant answer, “Amen.”

As far as Rudy is concerned, it’s a shame Archbishop Burke wasn’t the one distributing Communion in his line…

 

[holdencaulfield]

At St. Patrick’s, when the Pope himself was receiving Communion, a fragment of the Host fell upon the Altar table. I did not notice it being salvaged at that time or doing the ablutions. Did anyone?

Could you show me some citation for this? If it is true than he sinned. Sorry. I like Pope Benedict XVI, but he’s a sinner just like all of us.

 

[ProVobis]

Who knows if Giuliani has been to confession or not?

That might work only if he has obtained an annulment for every divorce. And that’s usually public information. No annulment, no sacraments.

 

[ProVobis]

I would prefer that people and networks don’t use the Mass for political advantage. I don’t know when it started but the problem surfaced when Bill Clinton, a nominal Baptist, went up to receive back in the 90’s. No it wasn’t a Papal Mass, but he still managed to make news. This action really undermines what Catholics know and believe about the Eucharist.

It was poetic justice when the Baptist Church excommunicated Clinton later. We admired them for that. Maybe the Catholic Church should start with these policital rascals, whether they’re pro-choice or otherwise. The Mass is just not a place to make statements.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I would prefer that people and networks don’t use the Mass for political advantage. I don’t know when it started but the problem surfaced when Bill Clinton, a nominal Baptist, went up to receive back in the 90’s. No it wasn’t a Papal Mass, but he still managed to make news. This action really undermines what Catholics know and believe about the Eucharist.

It was poetic justice when the Baptist Church excommunicated Clinton later. We admired them for that. Maybe the Catholic Church should start with these policital rascals, whether they’re pro-choice or otherwise. The Mass is just not a place to make statements.

I love that idea.