Assembly Line Communion

[ChurchTorch]

It’s sad when a traditional act of reverence when receiving a blessing (and the greatest blessing imaginable - the Lord Himself!) is regarded as “superfluous”.

Why not just cut out Communion altogether? The Church requires us to receive Communion only once a year, and the same with Confession. All those old fuddy-duddies who encourage us to receive both frequently and together - what do they know? It’s just superfluous.

Catholicism is about doing more than just the bare minimum. That’s what I can’t stand about the post-modern, post-VII mentality. Everything but the bare minimum is cut out. Just walk into church in everyday clothes, don’t cross yourself too much, don’t kneel too often, don’t say all those crazy prayers that the old people do, don’t worry about Communion or Confession too much (it’s only once a year, after all). Makes me recall the Lord’s words where He wondered if He’d find any faith left on the earth when He returns.

This is why we’re wandering in the spiritual desert of the post-VII era. We haven’t learned how to truly appreciate the gift of the Catholic faith the Lord has given to us. Some have, too many have not. No wonder there is no spiritual renaissance…

Catholicism is about being a disciple of Jesus Christ…

The problem is that some equate more crossing and kneeling as ALWAYS good things and they are not. Some even try to equate others faith with how they handle these externals and that’s terribly wrong.

Someone on these forums once related a story in how a priestly celebrant of the Mass knelt for the entire Eucharistic Prayer. Immediately people responded with praise for such a wonderful local tradition. That they wished their priests would adopt it.

What they never seemed to consider is that doing that would be a liturgical abuse and most importantly that the priest is standing in the Person of Christ at Calvary and Jesus Christ did not kneel! All they could see was the kneeling and how it fit their personal measure of being pious.

 

[ncjohn]

I was told not to chew it. Now it would feel odd to grind on the Body Of Christ with my teeth. You can do it, or don’t. It’s easy just to let it dissolve nowadays, as it’s not like shop-bought bread. A courtesy, perhaps, to the King of Kings? Just a little extra, symbolic, deference?

And yet, as I recall my scripture study of John, Chapter 6, the actual language used when Jesus said that unless we eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood we have no life in us was originally the verb “gnaw” or something equivalent to it.

I too was taught in my early Catholic school years to let it dissolve, and do so out of habit from those early years, but I don’t really think it has anything to do with “courtesy”. I suspect it had more to do more with the same kind of assault on the sensibilities that Jesus’s original comments had.

And if one is looking for symbolism, there is certainly just as much in really “chewing on” the Word made Flesh that implies taking that Word more seriously and less passively. Symbols often work different ways for different people.

Of course this whole discussion is totally off the original topic so I’ll just leave it at that.

Peace,

 

[Lycorth]

Catholicism is about being a disciple of Jesus Christ…

The problem is that some equate more crossing and kneeling as ALWAYS good things and they are not. Some even try to equate others faith with how they handle these externals and that’s terribly wrong.

Someone on these forums once related a story in how a priestly celebrant of the Mass knelt for the entire Eucharistic Prayer. Immediately people responded with praise for such a wonderful local tradition. That they wished their priests would adopt it.

What they never seemed to consider is that doing that would be a liturgical abuse and most importantly that the priest is standing in the Person of Christ at Calvary and Jesus Christ did not kneel! All they could see was the kneeling and how it fit their personal measure of being pious.

Outward acts usually reflect inner feelings. Conversely, when there is nothing within, there will be no outward acts to follow.

This is not and never has been about anyone’s “personal measure of being pious” but rather about how little outward acts both reflect holiness and help to build it. One cannot but be suspicious when people rail against traditional displays of devotion and love towards the Lord, as if tradition is some kind of heresy

Besides - are you Catholic? There is nothing “inflammatory” about being asked that on a Catholic forum. No need to be so defensive.

 

[otjm]

CHEWING is not okay.

I was taught before the VII never, under any circumstances, to ever chew the Sacred Host.

Yes, the nuns taught us that and implied we were all going to hell if we did.

The only problem is that they ahd no theological or disciplinary basis on which to make such a statement.

Strange how the Gospels say that Christ said “Take and eat”… and that they refer to Him distributing the Host in the form of bread, not wafer thin hosts.

Ah well, the Gospels must be wrong; Sister said so…

 

[otjm]

Hello,

The Mass I attend would be a NO Mass. When Communion comes people go up, get the Body (in the hand), and walk away chewing on it (about 85% skip the Blood). This happens in almost rapid fashion. I thought nothing of it for the most part as I am just learning and it was all I had ever seen.

I have been on Youtube.com looking at videos of TLM and FSSP Masses as there is only one church around that I know of that offers the TLM (I can not yet go as I have RCIA obligations). I was watching an FSSP Mass and I was so blown away when I saw how they did Communion. The preparation was so detailed and so reverant. The people came up and on their knees took the Body (on the tongue) and did the Sign of the Cross and then remained in a kneel position for a few moments (obviously reflecting and respecting what they have just taken part in).

Perhaps it might help to review what should occur and what often does occur.

One of the things that seems to skew the observation is that if people are receiving standing, there seems to be a constant movement and it appears to be going very fast. It also appears that people kneeling at a rail are there for a much longer time.

However, lets go through step by step time-wise as the priest and the recipient are facing each other.

Standing: properly done, the person who is about to receive steps up to the priest and then bows (unlike what almost everyone does, which is to bow to the back of the one in front of them, or for the more rare person, to genuflect while the person in front is receiving). The bow is supposed to be to the Eucharist, not to a person’s back.

So, steping up and making a bow is going to take about 2 seconds. Then (an not while the person is bowing), whoever is distributing the Eucharist says “Body of Christ” and waits for the response. The response is “Amen”. That takes about another 2 seconds. The recipeint then extends their hands, or opens their mouth and sticks out their tongue, and the Host is placed on it; they then place it in their mouth or retract their tongue. Another two to three seconds. They then move on (to receive from the Cup, or not; if receiving from the cup, it takes perhaps a second or two more becasue of transfer of the Cup).

So, let’s look at receiving during the EF. The priest stops in front and recites the short latin phrase, while the recipient has their head back slightly and their tongue out: the priest then places the Host on the tongue and moves on. Time, about 2 seconds.

So the process of an individual receiving is actually about 3 to three and a half times longer in the OF than it is in the EF.

Puzzleannie also pointed out that it depended on the parish as to what the protocol actually was in terms of getting to and from the Communion rail. It may be the Mass you saw on television had them lingering much longer than what I have seen elswhere. Depending on whether there is one or two priests distributing, one may ahve time on one half of the rail to kneel and contemplate; if two priests are distributing, you had best get up pronto as you will hold up the whole process if you do not.

Perception is an interesting thing. I happen to belong to a parish which has 24 hour Perpetual Adoration, so reverence is nowhere near the issue there that it may be elsewhere; I also attend at the local Trappist abbey, which has its own, slower pace tot he whole Mass (including Communion). I also occasionally attend Mass at a Dominican parish, OF but receiving at the rail, and I can say that it is more hurried than standing and receiving in terms of the time I and the priest are facing each other. How do I know? Because I ahve seen this issue elsewhere, and it made me more observant of what was going on.

When I take my first Communion on Easter Vigil I fully intend on maximizing my reverance to Christ and I dont want to be pushed aside or asked to move along while doing it.

And you should receive reverently. Welcome to the Church!

You should also be catechized on both forms of reception. Receiving on the tongue is the universal norm, and receiving in the hand is by indult. You should be able to make your choice without having to justify it to anyone.

 

[Erin_Anne]

Wow, ok. I’ve read most of the posts in this topic, and I’m a little disappointed (though not surprised) that there’s a struggle between Traditional Catholics, and Post Vatican II Catholics. I guess I’ve never really discussed the topic with anyone before.

This is how I see it, as a “Traditional”: Neither the Novus Ordo, or the TLM is more valid or invalid, reverent or irreverent than the other. Not in the way that the Church has approved of them. It comes down to a matter of personal preference. Liturgical abuses in either the Novus Ordo or the TLM is what we should speak out about, not the Masses themselves. If it’s ok with the Pope, its ok for us and the reverse is true as well. Either way they are BOTH the Sacrifice of the Mass and that’s what we’re there to focus on – not which parishioner is doing or not doing what. That’s not our business. That is between them and God.

Going back to the OP’s observations: Yep. Communion is often an ‘Assembly Line’ no matter which Mass you attend. It helps if there are a number of Eucharistic Ministers (or in the Traditional Mass, multiple Priests) to keep things moving. When kneeling, most people know that time is a factor so they only spend a couple seconds in reflection at the Altar, and the rest in prayer when they return to the pew. Communion goes pretty quickly in our Church, but it definitely can be confusing to newcomers.

Erin-Anne

 

[otjm]

I’m familiar with the Semitic verb and I’ve never seen it translated as “gnaw” or anything else other than “eat.” I would certainly never translate it another way.

It has been far too long since I took any koinae Greek. But the reference was to the Greek word used in John 6, where there is an ascending revelation of the Eucharist (to come). The word Christ used when he said “unless you eat My flesh” is a word that would be used to describe gnawing or aggresive eating. I ahve no idea what Semitic word may ahve been used in that passage, and I don’t recall that we have it except in Greek in terms of any of the oldest textual manuscripts.

 

[malphono]

It has been far too long since I took any koinae Greek. But the reference was to the Greek word used in John 6, where there is an ascending revelation of the Eucharist (to come). The word Christ used when he said “unless you eat My flesh” is a word that would be used to describe gnawing or aggresive eating.

Yeah, I know. But even the Greek is a translation: the words were certainly not spoken in Greek, although they were recorded in Greek. In any case, I simply meant to note that the Aramaic word (as used in the Pshitta which is the same word used in the various Syriac Anaphorae), is translated as “eat.”

 

[otjm]

Yeah, I know. But even the Greek is a translation: the words were certainly not spoken in Greek, although they were recorded in Greek. In any case, I simply meant to note that the Aramaic word (as used in the Pshitta which is the same word used in the various Syriac Anaphorae), is translated as “eat.”

has anything been established to some level of - w hat, reasonable assumption what language John used to write the Gospel? I recall reading an article of someone taking one or more of the Gospels “backwards” to Hebrew ( if I recall correctly, not Aramic) and being vvery surprised that the process seemed to confirm that Gospel had been written first in Hebrew - some of the telltales were the use of idioms and patterns that seem fairly specific to Hebrew writings.

Would that we had a direct copy of what Christ said. However, it is my understanding that what is recorded was not meant to be a word by word reporting from a specific day.

 

[malphono]

has anything been established to some level of - w hat, reasonable assumption what language John used to write the Gospel?

Not that I know of, but I’m not a scripture scholar.

I recall reading an article of someone taking one or more of the Gospels “backwards” to Hebrew ( if I recall correctly, not Aramic) and being vvery surprised that the process seemed to confirm that Gospel had been written first in Hebrew - some of the telltales were the use of idioms and patterns that seem fairly specific to Hebrew writings.

What I can here say is that it would be almost inconceivable that any of it was originally in Hebrew. But it’s very common that the word “Hebrew” is erroneously substituted for “Aramaic.” It’s also true that the dialect of Aramaic used had a certain amount of Hebrew influence (which is why it’s usually called “Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic”) and as I understand it, certain constructions in the dialect are more Hebrew than true Aramaic in character. (Of course that doesn’t render it incomprehensible to one who knows another Aramaic dialect, but it would seem a little clumsy. I guess it’s something like Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian.) One other thing that’s interesting is that a lot of idioms in Aramaic are pretty much the same as in Hebrew (including even modern Israeli Hebrew).

 

[otjm]

Not that I know of, but I’m not a scripture scholar.

What I can here say is that it would be almost inconceivable that any of it was originally in Hebrew. But it’s very common that the word “Hebrew” is erroneously substituted for “Aramaic.” It’s also true that the dialect of Aramaic used had a certain amount of Hebrew influence (which is why it’s usually called “Palestinian-Jewish Aramaic”) and as I understand it, certain constructions in the dialect are more Hebrew than true Aramaic in character. (Of course that doesn’t render it incomprehensible to one who knows another Aramaic dialect, but it would seem a little clumsy. I guess it’s something like Old Church Slavonic and Bulgarian.) One other thing that’s interesting is that a lot of idioms in Aramaic are pretty much the same as in Hebrew (including even modern Israeli Hebrew).

I wish I ahd kept the article; I am not sure I could even find it now. In any event, whether he traced it back to Hebrew or Aramaic, the gist of the article was that if he had been skeptical before, after completing a “backwards” he was convinced.

 

[Layman]

You’d have had to gnaw the bread in those days. I’ll bet it was pretty solid. Now, we don’t need to.

We could also lounge about a big table and re-enact the Last Supper, but we’ve added 2000 years of refinement since then.

 

[ProVobis]

The word Christ used when he said “unless you eat My flesh” is a word that would be used to describe gnawing or aggresive eating.

Sounds so cannibalistic.

 

[otjm]

Sounds so cannibalistic.

Which was also the reaction, apparently, of a number of His followers; if I recall correctly off the top of my head, they said something to the effect “This saying is hard” and left Him.

The whole chapter is worth reading again, and again.

The Greek is particularly fitting at that point, as the chapter starts with multiplication of loaves, moves to His comments concerning the Eucharist, and His comments become more and more pointed, specific, and graphic. John was the ultimate theologian and his gospel is so different from the other Gospels. Chapter 6 is an excellent example of his style and focus.

 

[malphono]

I wish I ahd kept the article; I am not sure I could even find it now. In any event, whether he traced it back to Hebrew or Aramaic, the gist of the article was that if he had been skeptical before, after completing a “backwards” he was convinced.

Oh, yeah, I got that. Many years ago I did a test of the same type of thing, (and it was also something from the Gospel of John, but not from the Greek). It was just an exercise, and I started with the idea that the original was Aramaic, so I wasn’t at all surprised at the result. As I implied earlier, it was mainly in the idioms. Some of them are just plain clumsy in Greek, (and end up being clumsy in Latin and other non-Semitic languages), but work well in Aramaic. The idioms seem to work in other Semitic languages as well. I’m thinking here of the classic “Jesuit Bible” of 1876 in Arabic.

 

[Lycorth]

Well, I went for it and let the Host dissolve on my tongue at Palm Sunday Mass. I went to the vigil and to Mass on Sunday. I must say, it certainly works - the Host dissolves pretty quickly, so long as I didn’t make the mistake of reflexively pressing it against the roof of my mouth like I would a cough drop and instead just let it sit on my tongue.

I will try to continue this practice and encourage my wife in it when she is able to receive. I can truly see the extra measure of reverence that one is practically forced to employ this way. Letting it sit there and dissolve lets me focus even more on the Eucharist that is now within me and really seemed to help focus my prayers and my concentration on the Lord and what I needed to ask of Him.

Once again, a traditional practice has unexpected and edifying results. I recommend it

 

[ChurchTorch]

Well, I went for it and let the Host dissolve on my tongue at Palm Sunday Mass. I went to the vigil and to Mass on Sunday. I must say, it certainly works - the Host dissolves pretty quickly, so long as I didn’t make the mistake of reflexively pressing it against the roof of my mouth like I would a cough drop and instead just let it sit on my tongue.

I will try to continue this practice and encourage my wife in it when she is able to receive. I can truly see the extra measure of reverence that one is practically forced to employ this way. Letting it sit there and dissolve lets me focus even more on the Eucharist that is now within me and really seemed to help focus my prayers and my concentration on the Lord and what I needed to ask of Him.

Once again, a traditional practice has unexpected and edifying results. I recommend it

Why?

 

[Lormar]

Ah, Lycorth, did you think I’d forgotten? I even thought about you (when I should have been thinking about Our Lord!!!) when I received Holy Communion, to notice what it is I do in case you needed further tips and had problems. I was going to tell you to let Him rest on your tongue as you walk back to your pew and that by the time you knelt down the Holy Eucharist was ready to be swallowed. But I see you found that out yourself!

Deo gratias!

 

[Lycorth]

Why?

That’s how it struck me, like an extra measure of reverential behavior.

We chew when we eat, as a normal and necessary thing. We chew up our meals, our snacks, food that is good for us and food that we should avoid. In a very real sense, chewing is a very common action.

Therefore, why not do something different and extra-respectful when consuming the Blessed Sacrament? I grew up, as long as I can remember, just chewing up the Host like I would a potato chip or anything else. I didn’t *consider *inserting a unique and specially reverent approach to it, even in the “glory days” of my faith about a decade ago.

Now, on Lormar’s advice, I gave it a try. I didn’t really expect anything different to happen; I was only interested in seeing if the Host would actually dissolve. To my surprise, and pleasantly so, it did dissolve, and very quickly. In fact, I’d say it dissolves at least as fast as I can chew it up, if not faster.

Like with all traditional practices, even the most seemingly pointless ones, it practically reinforces itself the moment it’s given a fair chance. I say this with all the honesty I can muster.

Ah, Lycorth, did you think I’d forgotten? I even thought about you (when I should have been thinking about Our Lord!!!) when I received Holy Communion, to notice what it is I do in case you needed further tips and had problems. I was going to tell you to let Him rest on your tongue as you walk back to your pew and that by the time you knelt down the Holy Eucharist was ready to be swallowed. But I see you found that out yourself!

Deo gratias!

Hah! Thank you for thinking of me! Your advice was certainly on the mark.

There really is something I cannot describe about so simple and seemingly meaningless an action as this. Big deal, I’m letting it sit there, what’s so special, right? That is honestly what I though before I chanced upon this thread.

Fitting that I read this thread and your advice before I went to Communion this weekend, which was the first weekend in about five years since I received the Eucharist last…

 

[Jotobo]

Why?

In all seriousness, dont you get tired of being the devils advocate with every single post in every single thread that deals with “Traditional Catholic” ideals and practices. In literally every post Ive seen you reply on this is what you do. I just dont get it. You think everything is subjective and relative…great…go have fun with it. But what sense is there in constantly attempting to inject your viewpoints into conversations that clearly arent aimed at your interests?