Can you name be said when you're given communion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Elzee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So much rigid invididual piety.

I have news for you: for the early Church, communion was a communal meal - literally. The community of believers gathered together to teach, learn, share business, and have a meal - where they believed that Jesus Christ, literally, became present in the appearance of bread and wine.

Why is it so hard for us to understand a couple thousand years later?
 
JimR-OCDS said:
So according to this statement I take it that you disagree and that a person who goes up for communion and becomes upset because the EMHC says,"(Fill In The Name)" the body of Christ, should still receive? :rolleyes:

Jim
Click to expand...
Ex Opere Operato.

But seriously, nobody is claiming here to be upset. Some are imagining that people are upset, but nobody is actually saying they are upset. This vast cloud of upset communicants does not, as far as we know, actually exist in the real world. 🙂
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
So much rigid invididual piety.
Click to expand...
But the question is not about individual piety. The question is about communal and corporate liturgy, and the rubrics and rules for that communal and corporate liturgy are laid out in the Roman Missal and the GIRM, and they don’t say to use the person’s name when distributing Communion. And just in this short thread we have seen a couple of reasons why:
  1. Some people find it distracting.
  2. Some people get called the wrong name (potential distraction)
  3. Some people don’t get mentioned by name, after hearing others mentioned by name (more potential distraction).
The common thread here is the very real possibility of being distracted at the moment of receiving Communion. Now, what do we have on the other end of the scale? How does adding the name enhance the liturgy?

What this thread is really about, it seems to me, is the never-ending modern tale of feel-good liturgical tinkering.
 
VociMike said:
But the question is not about individual piety. The question is about communal and corporate liturgy, and the rubrics and rules for that communal and corporate liturgy are laid out in the Roman Missal and the GIRM, and they don’t say to use the person’s name when distributing Communion. And just in this short thread we have seen a couple of reasons why:
  1. Some people find it distracting.
  2. Some people get called the wrong name (potential distraction)
  3. Some people don’t get mentioned by name, after hearing others mentioned by name (more potential distraction).
The common thread here is the very real possibility of being distracted at the moment of receiving Communion. Now, what do we have on the other end of the scale? How does adding the name enhance the liturgy?

What this thread is really about, it seems to me, is the never-ending modern tale of feel-good liturgical tinkering.
Click to expand...
You just help explained why some people leave the Catholic Church for other religions.

Thanks 😃

Jim
 
this used to be the practice in our old parish, but the pastor ended it because it became exclusionary, since the minister could only repeat names of people known to him. At BIL’s protestant church, everyone wears nametags, because they do a big hospitality thing, but if that innovation ever comes to Catholic Mass I am outta there. It is not the liturgical forumula so it should not be done.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
You just help explained why some people leave the Catholic Church for other religions.

Thanks 😃

Jim
Click to expand...
You mean they leave because of the Roman Missal and the GIRM? I’m sorry to hear that.

Or did you mean that they leave because of the modern addiction to liturgical tinkering? I’m sorry to hear that too.
 
VociMike said:
But the question is not about individual piety. The question is about communal and corporate liturgy, and the rubrics and rules for that communal and corporate liturgy are laid out in the Roman Missal and the GIRM, and they don’t say to use the person’s name when distributing Communion. And just in this short thread we have seen a couple of reasons why:
  1. Some people find it distracting.
Why do they find it distracting? Because it impedes forgetting about everyone else and just focusing on the host. This was stated earlier in this thread.
  1. Some people get called the wrong name (potential distraction)
  2. Some people don’t get mentioned by name, after hearing others mentioned by name (more potential distraction).
The common thread here is the very real possibility of being distracted at the moment of receiving Communion. Now, what do we have on the other end of the scale? How does adding the name enhance the liturgy?

What this thread is really about, it seems to me, is the never-ending modern tale of feel-good liturgical tinkering.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is about feel good liturgical thinking. I think it’s about celebrating the mass in a communal way and recognizing it both as an experience with real presence and as communal meal. And I find nothing in the GIRM that forbids it.
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
I don’t think this is about feel good liturgical thinking. I think it’s about celebrating the mass in a communal way and recognizing it both as an experience with real presence and as communal meal. And I find nothing in the GIRM that forbids it.
Click to expand...
Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

That’s from Vatican II, and it is repeated in the GIRM. Also from the GIRM:

If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

So we’ll just have to disagree on this one. There is no question in my mind that this is all part of the mania for liturgical tinkering, to “improve” the stuffy old Mass found in the Roman Missal.
 
There is no question in my mind that this is all part of the mania for liturgical … tinkering, to “improve” the stuffy old Mass found in the Roman Missal.
Click to expand...
There is no question in my mind that this is all part of the mania for liturgical …
rigorousness based on private interpretation of documents, manipulated and posed as absolute truth.

Yes, I agree that we must disagree.
 
Joysong said:
There is no question in my mind that this is all part of the mania for liturgical …
rigorousness based on private interpretation of documents, manipulated and posed as absolute truth.

Yes, I agree that we must disagree.
Click to expand...
Look, if you want to play the dreaded “private interpretation” (cue ominous music here) card, so be it. I suppose that my interpretation of the words of Vatican II “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” as meaning “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” could be wrong.

But I doubt it. 🤷
 
I read on an apologist’s page that while not forbidden, it should not be done because if the priests and EMHCs don’t know every person’s name then some people won’t have their name mentioned and could feel slighted. So, it seems to me, names should be mentioned for every one or for no one.
Click to expand...
Methinks you really need to get with the new order program. If your name isn’t known, then you should wear a nametag on your shirt with your name so everyone can see it. Or if you’re at the communion rail at a Latin Mass then you need to stand up and insist the priest says your name before he gives you communion, even if it makes you look like a jerk. :rolleyes:

Of course I’m being sarcastic. The only person who really knows my name in Church is God, whether I’m at confession or at the communion rail. That is enough for me.
 
I suppose that my interpretation of the words of Vatican II “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” as meaning “Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.” could be wrong.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t wrong, just misapplied to make your point look more authoritative and truthful. That’s the hunt and poke philosophy of the sola scripturists.

To berate a priest or EMHC for speaking someone’s name would need to be proven to me that it is a grave liturgical abuse. 🤷 Simply quoting the “therefore” clause is not proof that this is strictly forbidden, for the documents do not specifically address it. IOW, I wouldn’t write to Rome with my list of “guess what Father so-and-so is doing!”

Is there ever going to be an end to this sort of condemnation?
it should not be done because if the priests and EMHCs don’t know every person’s name then some people won’t have their name mentioned and could feel slighted.
Click to expand...
Is this therefore simply a ‘recommendation’ to spare people’s feelings? I go to daily mass with probably a dozen people who go every day, every year. Father speaks all of our names. If someone arrives who is unknown, I doubt they will think anything of it whatsoever if their name is omitted. Jeesh!

Should Father fear that someone will report him for gross deviation, and neglect to personally address his flock with recognition? I wonder what Jesus said to His disciples at the Last Supper. Probably quoted the Torah. :rolleyes:
 
I cannot speak for the Latin rubrics, but in the Byzantine tradition, the Priest or Deacon says, “The servant of God N. receives the precious Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and life everlasting.”

A young child who has not made first confession hears, “The Child of God N…unto life everlasting.”
 
bpbasilphx said:
I cannot speak for the Latin rubrics, but in the Byzantine tradition, the Priest or Deacon says, “The servant of God N. receives the precious Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and life everlasting.”

A young child who has not made first confession hears, “The Child of God N…unto life everlasting.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for that info. There is clearly no question of absolute right or wrong here. The key point is that this is a traditional (one might say official) part of that rite. It is in the rubrics or instructions. It is not a matter of “let’s add something extra to ‘improve’ the Mass”.

I wonder how Byzantine Catholics would feel if some priest decided on his own initiative to leave out these words?
 
bpbasilphx said:
I cannot speak for the Latin rubrics, but in the Byzantine tradition, the Priest or Deacon says, “The servant of God N. receives the precious Body and Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ unto remission of sins and life everlasting.”

A young child who has not made first confession hears, “The Child of God N…unto life everlasting.”
Click to expand...
On the other hand, my name in Latin would be cool. I believe it was used at my baptism.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
So, if it upsets you when the EMHC says your name, don’t say Amen and don’t take communion. Go sit in the pew and pout, for you’re probably not properly disposed to to receive communion. :cool:

Jim
Click to expand...
:rotfl: 👍 Good one!

Kathy
 
I wouldn’t mind if it happened as it is a community thing, it certainly isn’t anything evil such as a promotion of female priests or changing the words of consecration.

Now in large groups, this shouldn’t be done as it is exclusionary and does not contribute to community but to a exclusive group mentality. At daily Mass I don’t see much of a problem. We should be careful about any innovation, yet developement should be evaluated and discussed.

What sickens me is the horrible abuse of pouring consecrated blood into separate vessels, why not pour when it is just wine. This shows a complete disregard for the presence of Christ and a direct rejection of the norms from the Vatican. I just close my eyes each time at Mass so I do not have to see it.

There are plenty of horrible abuses and outright rejections of the place of God in the Liturgy and in our Church, yet things like this are not too bad at all.

Gay Priest promotion, Lesbian nuns trying to be Priests, Liturgical Dancing, disrespect for the Eucharist, now these are things we should be disavowing as Catholics.

In Christ
Scylla
 
It has been interesting over the months to read the posts of those who want everything “according to Hoyle” and those who really don’t seem to mind a little innovation. It seems to me that one side or the other on any given issue soon need to find a questionable motive or motives on the part of those they disagree with. Things like, Ah all they wanna do is fun up a dull Mass." Things like “clappy happy.” And like “Well it ain’t mentioned specifically as wrong in the GIRM, so it must be OK.” If my kids niggled each other like that, I would soon give them a slap up the side of the head. The one thing that causes bile to rise in my throat is Liturgical Dance, not because it is forbidden in this country, but because it just looks so out of place and stupid when white folk gather for Mass. 👍 🙂 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top