C
Cecilianus
Guest
Okay. Thanks for clarifying that.
Archbishop of Bologna bans Eucharist by hand in select Churches
- Status
F
Frosty
Guest
May I ask what your source is for the statement I bolded? If you think that because the Pope now gives Communion to those who are chosen to receive from him on the tongue and kneeling means that Communion in the hand has been banned from either the papal Masses or any other Mass celebrated in the Diocese of Rome you are mistaken. Somehow I doubt that in the three weeks since I was last in Rome a directive was issued ceasing the practice of Communion in the hand for that diocese. One would think that if such were the case, it would be really big news and Traditional Catholic forums (including this one) and bloggers would have been all over it. If you have official information on this that I have somehow missed, perhaps you would share it?
O
otjm
Guest
It seems that there are a few people out there who cannot distinguish between a norm and an indult.
The Pope is the Pope of the entire Catholic Church - which to the amazement of not a few people, includes Eastern rites. He is also the head of the Roman rite, and as such most normally will follow the norm of the rite, rather than the indult.
Doing so is no more a sign of the illegitimacy, lack of respect for, a change impending about, or anything else in reference to the indult than that for the whole of the rite, the norm is on the tongue. The presumption that because the Pope follows the norm rather than the indult, that this signifies that he disapproves of the indult, or intends to revoke the indult is nothing more than mental opium.
Should he choose to distribute in the hand, that would not be a sign that it was more favored thant the norm; it would simply mean that he used the indult at that time and place.
The fact that the bishop of Bologna has done something, in and of itself tells us very little or nothing. We have no information of why he did this, with the possible exception of a line or two in the press. And if anyone chooses to believe that the press tells the whole story, well, maybe they might be interested in some ocean-front property in Arizona; I am sure I could arrange a sale. There could be any number of reasons he did so, and any number of them would not support the hopes and desires of those who do not like the indult.
Re-reading the post that started this whole discussion, and opening Father Z’s note, it states in there that the good bishop revoked Communion in the hand in three large churches or basilicas. As noted in there, and particularly if one reads the whole post, it was not doen to the diocese, but only to three churches, all of which because of their size are open to seeing tourists as a goodly percentage of those who may attend Mass. How do I say this? The further notes are that it was not withdrawn in the other churches because the priest is more likely to be familiar with the people present at Mass. And so we have some basilicas which may draw tourists, notall of whom are going to be Cahtolic nor even necessarily Christian, who go up to receive and do so having no clue what they are about; they take the Eucharist home as a souvenier. Not your standard parish activity, as noted in the column by Father Z. So we are totally much ado about nothing, for those seeking a world-wide ban.
The Pope is the Pope of the entire Catholic Church - which to the amazement of not a few people, includes Eastern rites. He is also the head of the Roman rite, and as such most normally will follow the norm of the rite, rather than the indult.
Doing so is no more a sign of the illegitimacy, lack of respect for, a change impending about, or anything else in reference to the indult than that for the whole of the rite, the norm is on the tongue. The presumption that because the Pope follows the norm rather than the indult, that this signifies that he disapproves of the indult, or intends to revoke the indult is nothing more than mental opium.
Should he choose to distribute in the hand, that would not be a sign that it was more favored thant the norm; it would simply mean that he used the indult at that time and place.
The fact that the bishop of Bologna has done something, in and of itself tells us very little or nothing. We have no information of why he did this, with the possible exception of a line or two in the press. And if anyone chooses to believe that the press tells the whole story, well, maybe they might be interested in some ocean-front property in Arizona; I am sure I could arrange a sale. There could be any number of reasons he did so, and any number of them would not support the hopes and desires of those who do not like the indult.
Re-reading the post that started this whole discussion, and opening Father Z’s note, it states in there that the good bishop revoked Communion in the hand in three large churches or basilicas. As noted in there, and particularly if one reads the whole post, it was not doen to the diocese, but only to three churches, all of which because of their size are open to seeing tourists as a goodly percentage of those who may attend Mass. How do I say this? The further notes are that it was not withdrawn in the other churches because the priest is more likely to be familiar with the people present at Mass. And so we have some basilicas which may draw tourists, notall of whom are going to be Cahtolic nor even necessarily Christian, who go up to receive and do so having no clue what they are about; they take the Eucharist home as a souvenier. Not your standard parish activity, as noted in the column by Father Z. So we are totally much ado about nothing, for those seeking a world-wide ban.
S
Supercatholic
Guest
Okay, everythings gotten out of hand. The original thread was “Archbishop of Bologna bans Eucharist by hand in select Churches.” Like it or not, he has the authority to do that. We all argued our points. Some of us were kind. Some of us were not. Some claim it’s not whether it’s hand or tongue, but how you feel when you’re receiving it. Well if it’s how you FEEL, then it’s okay to be pro-choice, because pro-choicers sincerely FEEL it is an act of love for the mother, and they FEEL that the unborn baby is not a person, just a burden to be done away with. That it’s okay to support same sex marriage because of the love they FEEL for each other. Rome gave an indult to receive communion in the hand and people have misunderstood what that really meant. It was not a mandate, a blessing, or alternate option. It was a way of saying: Take it in the hand if you want, but we prefer that you wouldn’t. This argument will go on, but I want you to think about this. If you gave your teenage children permission to come home late on Friday night and that they could do their homework over the weekend, wouldn’t you be happier if they did their homework right away, and came home early Friday night? If you gave your spouse permission to spend the all the fun money on themselves, but instead they chose to spend a little on you and save the rest for an emergency, wouldn’t that make you feel that they truly care about you and the relationship? Permission is not an edict of what we can get away with. It’s a test of where our hearts are.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
All of the Papal Masses in Rome since Benedict’s elevation have Communion received only kneeling - I’ve read this in countless places (including on various forums here). I don’t have any “official” knowledge - I assumed it was commonly known. I certainly hear it enough - it seemed really big news to me.
F
Frosty
Guest
Uhm, if you have read postings here or elsewhere claiming that Pope Benedict has only given Communion kneeling and on the tongue since his elevation to the papacy then some people are posting outright fallacies. The fact is that Pope Benedict only began distributing Communion that way on the Feast of Corpus Christi, 2008. Only a little over a year ago. For the first three years of his papacy he did distribute Communion to people who stood and while most of those people receiving from him did so on the tongue, there were also many who received in the hand. This was the case even more so at the Masses he celebrated during his pastoral visits to the various parishes in Rome.
Even now, although the people receiving Communion from the Pope do so kneeling and on the tongue, the remainder of the congregation still may receive either in the hand or on the tongue and most do so standing.
I understand that it is often difficult on some of these forums to sort out facts from fallacies, particularly when people are trying to get others to agree with their own preferences or personal agendas and use liberal distortions of the truth to try and prove a point. I’m not faulting you for repeating what you say you read. However, we as Catholics have a duty to the truth on whatever subject is brought up, not our own personal preferences or ideologies. On a Traditional forum one would expect that duty to be strictly adhered to wouldn’t you say?
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
F
Frosty
Guest
You are welcome.
H
holy_moly
Guest
Isn’t it a bit over the top to compare receiving in the hand w/ abortion & gay marriage SC? You are right about it not being a ‘feeling’ however; reverence in any form can never be reduced to such superficiality…
L
LilyM
Guest
Firstly, it’s not as though indults have been given for abortion or gay marriage for starters! These are behaviours that are not EVEN permitted by the Church under any circumstances. The comparison fails right there.
Secondly, if I thought with any sort of conviction that my teenager doing their homework over the weekend was really worse than their doing it on Friday, or my spouse spending money on themselves was really worse than their spending it on me, I would BOTH express my disapproval AND not give permission (assuming permission lies within my power) for either.
I wouldn’t be a good parent or spouse if I misused my authority by permitting them do something that was seriously offensive or that I thought was genuinely wrong. That’s WHY indults have never been given for abortion or gay marriage, that’s why the Church has never felt the urge to ‘test our love’ in those areas - those are issues that the Church feels strongly about
P
Pat_the_elder
Guest
Still think that no real difference between receiving Holy Eucharist on hand or tongue. Reverence is within us. Remember that Jesus denounced the Pharisees on more than one occasion for their rigid interpretation and insistance on sticking to the letter of the law whilst ignoring the spirit of the law. As I quoted in another thread, when my father was inquiring of the rights and wrongs of taking communion in the hand, many years ago his old PP told him “More harm can be done with a spiteful tongue than a kindly handshake”. As for the argument that pieces of the host can break off and be brushed away… Well how far do you go? Microscopic particles will break away from the host constantly and can be found in fabrics in the church and probably in the clothing and skin of communicants
Pat
Pat
P
paperwight
Guest
I was so glad to see your post challenging the claim that CITH was forbidden in the Diocese of Rome, as I was about to do so on the grounds that it had never made the Catholic press so was unlikely to be true. It would, after all, have been pretty startling news.
Your witness through having been in Rome recently was worth so much more. It was providential that you were reading the thread. As you say, we have a duty to the Truth ; it’s too easy to make sweeping generalisations, or be misled by a kind of Chinese Whispers.
S
Supercatholic
Guest
holy moly, I wasn’t comparing the (act) of receiving it in the hand to abortion and gay marriage. I was emphasizing the sincerety of feelings. Pro-abortion and gay marriage supporters (feel) as strong about their position as do the people that oppose it. I’ve checked some EWTN posts and they say there have been discussions at the Vatican of possibly mandating all parishiners to receive holy communion on the tongue.
S
Supercatholic
Guest
Pat, true reverence dictates action. If a man does not pull out a chair for the lady he’s with at a restaurant or stand when she leaves the table to use the ladies room, regardless as to how much he may love her, he is still ill-mannered.
O
otjm
Guest
Perhaps you might want to avail yourself of actually reading the indult, since you have so many opinions of what it says or doesn’t say.
And as to feelings, I am a bit baffled; perhaps you could site the post(s) to which you refer? You seem intent on feelings, because you feel that reception in the hand is less worthy than on the tongue. Reverence is an attitude, not a feeling.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
Communion in the hand is not intrinsically evil, like abortion or gay marriage; I don’t think any of us ever meant to claim that it was. This is why the Church gave an indult permitting. It is, however, unworthy of the dignity of the Blessed Sacrament and a profanation of It, which is why the Church has never full-heartedly approved it either.Firstly, it’s not as though indults have been given for abortion or gay marriage for starters! These are behaviours that are not EVEN permitted by the Church under any circumstances. The comparison fails right there.
Secondly, if I thought with any sort of conviction that my teenager doing their homework over the weekend was really worse than their doing it on Friday, or my spouse spending money on themselves was really worse than their spending it on me, I would BOTH express my disapproval AND not give permission (assuming permission lies within my power) for either.
I wouldn’t be a good parent or spouse if I misused my authority by permitting them do something that was seriously offensive or that I thought was genuinely wrong. That’s WHY indults have never been given for abortion or gay marriage, that’s why the Church has never felt the urge to ‘test our love’ in those areas - those are issues that the Church feels strongly about
The comparison with a teenager doing homework on Friday seems to me to be a perfect analogy; some parents would in fact be that lenient (especially if their child is pushy and difficult to manage, as we sinners are), and the Church - prudently or imprudently - also granted us that lenience.
O
otjm
Guest
You are, however, presuming that true reverence dictates a specific action. actions are often culturally set; thus it is tru reverence to stand during the entire Consecration in some of the Eastern rites, and true reverence to kneel in the Western rite. Both are true reverence; there is nothing intrinsic in either posture making it more or less reverent.
C
Cecilianus
Guest
But we ARE in the Western Rite, and therefore without the cultural context of the East, to stand during Communion is in fact less reverent.
N
ncjohn
Guest
The point is that it IS a cultural context and not in any way objectively more or less reverent. It only has that value to the extent you give it that value. Many others don’t give it the same value you do.
O
otjm
Guest
Factually it is not less reverent; culturally you can argue that it is; but cultural issues are subject to change over time. THe Church has the authority to change the posture, as it is a disciplinary matter. You don’t like it, and I have no bone to pick with you about your likes and dislikes. But if the Church says that we stand, then the Church within its authority has the ability to do so and we out of obedience do so, and over time that becomes the culturally accepted posture. However, cultural changes happen over time; 10, 15, 20, 40 or more years may go by before something is accepted as the cultural norm.
Reverence can be had either way; irreverance, or a lack of reverence can also be had either way. Reverence is an attitude, not a feeling.
I recently took our new Catholics from RCIA to our local Byzantine rite Mass (as well as the Maronite Mass). Interestingly this time people seemed to favor the Maronite over the Byzantine rite.
We stood during the Consecration. I felt awkward doing so. However, there certainly did not appear to be any sense of lack of reverence among those who are members of that parish. I could see and participate in the reverence even though the posture was very foreign to me.
Factually, we are required to perform or take the postures which are in the rubrics for our rite. Standing, if that is now the posture for Communion, is in the rubrics; you might not feel comfortable; but confusing your feelings with your attitude puts feelings, or emotion, over attitude - will.
I may have a feeling about someone I don’t like. I can let the feeling adjust my attitude, and the results are never particularly good, or pretty, or usually, Christian. Or I can understand my feelings, but change my attitude. That is an act of the will.
Like my grandmother said, often to my chagrin: “Offer it up”. That puts will over feelings.
- Status