R
rwoehmke
Guest
Sorry, I guess hijacked the thread.
- Status
S
StephanieC
Guest
I like a good 'ole opinion-based thread debate just as much as the next
, but it seems to me that this is quickly going to become a 5-10 page thread with precious little effort to dig for some facts/resources/links out of which the OP may find some clarity.
Here’s from the US Bishops:
, but it seems to me that this is quickly going to become a 5-10 page thread with precious little effort to dig for some facts/resources/links out of which the OP may find some clarity.Here’s from the US Bishops:
I once read a great article explaining the “why” in more detail, and it made a lot of sense, etc., but of course I can’t find it when I need it–so sorry!
J
Joysong
Guest
Also from the USCCB:
Do we become expert liturgists simply by reading documents?
Do we have unalienible rights to demand that our interpretations of them be implemented according to our understanding?
So often we fail to know the unspoken permissions granted to clergy by their Bishops when they converse in private about the rubrics. These interpretations of the GIRM and other documents are explained more thoroughly than an average Joe would know simply reading on his own. We had a special presenter in our parish from the diocese explaining the new changes in detail, to prevent these private misunderstandings that generate many unnecessary and angry letters to the Bishop.
Take the above rubric, “This formula should not be altered.” Rigorists would say adding a name in front of the essential words will alter the formula. Yet is the formula actually altered? Is the priest saying, The Body of Jesus, instead of the Body of Christ? Or maybe The Body of Your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, or some other alteration?
The addition of ‘other words or names’ as in Stephanie’s quote, could well mean additions of other unsuitable wording within the essential formula, such as I mentioned above, which would then alter it. It all depends on how the bishops interpret this rubric. Not … on our guessing of the meaning.
I get upset that some jump in and instruct others, who then instruct more ‘others,’ and start a chain of terrible rumors against the priest. All because of strict reading and interpretation nailing the priest to the black and white.
Is this the meaning of Eucharist? Let me repeat Jim’s words:
Do we become expert liturgists simply by reading documents?
Do we have unalienible rights to demand that our interpretations of them be implemented according to our understanding?
So often we fail to know the unspoken permissions granted to clergy by their Bishops when they converse in private about the rubrics. These interpretations of the GIRM and other documents are explained more thoroughly than an average Joe would know simply reading on his own. We had a special presenter in our parish from the diocese explaining the new changes in detail, to prevent these private misunderstandings that generate many unnecessary and angry letters to the Bishop.
Take the above rubric, “This formula should not be altered.” Rigorists would say adding a name in front of the essential words will alter the formula. Yet is the formula actually altered? Is the priest saying, The Body of Jesus, instead of the Body of Christ? Or maybe The Body of Your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, or some other alteration?
The addition of ‘other words or names’ as in Stephanie’s quote, could well mean additions of other unsuitable wording within the essential formula, such as I mentioned above, which would then alter it. It all depends on how the bishops interpret this rubric. Not … on our guessing of the meaning.
I get upset that some jump in and instruct others, who then instruct more ‘others,’ and start a chain of terrible rumors against the priest. All because of strict reading and interpretation nailing the priest to the black and white.
Is this the meaning of Eucharist? Let me repeat Jim’s words:
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.
P
paradoxy
Guest
Something like this is also the standard practice in Eastern Orthodoxy. A priest will ask your baptismal name if he doesn’t know it. Some priests omit it, though.
S
Seatuck
Guest
Since when is getting upset a mortal sin? Pretty ridiculous comment in my not so humble opinion. Sitting and Pouting is not constructive. Offering up this bit of suffering is. Why are Jim and others completely ignoring and discounting the bit of pain this causes at an extremely intimate moment in the Mass?
I have heard from several people that hearing the Ministers call some by name and not others is extremely upsetting and disinifying. This is why we have the rule we do. The minister is supposed to all but disappear at that moment. Not be present so you experience that intimate moment with Christ. When you say a name it emphasizes the relationship with the minister and the communicant . That’s not appropriate.
Thanks for the GIRM reference, Stephanie . It is clearly not allowed. I was trained as an EMOHC that it is absolutely not allowed as the reference shows. It upsets me the members of my group care so little for hurting anyone.
I have heard from several people that hearing the Ministers call some by name and not others is extremely upsetting and disinifying. This is why we have the rule we do. The minister is supposed to all but disappear at that moment. Not be present so you experience that intimate moment with Christ. When you say a name it emphasizes the relationship with the minister and the communicant . That’s not appropriate.
Thanks for the GIRM reference, Stephanie . It is clearly not allowed. I was trained as an EMOHC that it is absolutely not allowed as the reference shows. It upsets me the members of my group care so little for hurting anyone.
J
Joysong
Guest
Rubrics come, and rubrics go, and some are just too wrapped up in themselves to accept them. Have you noticed that the same people post these negative comments and threads repeatedly? Not only for this particular practice, but for almost every other rubric that happens to displease their sensitivity? It would help them to take a large dose of tolerance, understanding, forgiveness, patience, and love, together with positive thinking that maybe things aren’t so bad as they ‘think.’
I remember the old liturgy when all kneeled silently and the priest simply placed the host on our tongues. There was no requirement to say “amen.” One might think I should be upset that my precious silence is intruded upon within the new liturgy asking that I now respond. Silly, isn’t it?
There is no liturgy that is 100% free of things that annoy us interiorly, but it is after all, the Lord’s sacrifice, with rubrics chosen to accomodate the entire Body of Christ universally. It would be naive to expect that humankind is going to be in perfect accord and agreement with each aspect that was primarily chosen in view of the ‘common good of all.’
And I was trained, also, and never instructed that it was forbidden. Not that I do this, but I certainly cannot see proof that your interpretation is absolutely correct. Maybe it is a matter under diocesan jurisdiction? Or maybe it is a matter that has no clear definition.
That is purely a matter of opinion, based on some people’s preference. Some I know don’t think anything whatsoever, one way or another, and others have found it to be a good practice. So who’s right?
This silliness is the basis for inclusive language. A number of female complainers were “upset” that the male gender was excluding them. In their intolerance, the push for universality in language has caused a rift that created a reverse pendulum for the majority who find this language offensive. Again, whose preference is the perfect solution? And to whom should liturgists cater?
T
THurifer2
Guest
PeaceJoyandLove- I sense in your posts a over emphasis on the communal nature of the Mass. I too believe that it has a communal component to it but that communal experience is subordinate to the sacraficial nature of the Mass. A priest can offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass alone (well I guess you can say the saints and angels are there) and it is still just as much a Mass as if it is celebrated in a church filled with people. On the other hand you could have a situation where there is a church full of people in prayer but no Mass. Question is which event is the supreme form of worship? I think many of us traditionalist are have caution with the overtly communal attitude towards the Mass. I think our caution is legitimate. In many places this “communal” notion has destroyed personal pius acts and devotions like the rosary, Adoration, personal confession. To me it is a shift of focus on the community…which is us…Not God. This is precisely why I like the TLM…I don’t come to Worship us I come to worship HIM. Over-emphasis on things “communal” can even erode the sense of personal sin. Soon sin becomes a corporate thing and individual guilt goes out the window.
Here is what John Paul II says on the Matter
ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA
Unfortunately, alongside these lights, there are also shadows. In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet.
J
Joysong
Guest
T
THurifer2
Guest
Fair enough however with your quote of the GIRM what are you to say when a priest offers Mass alone? Is it still a Mass? Is it as legit as a Mass with 10,000 people in attendance? WIth that in mind which of the two following elements must be present to qualify a valid Mass?
- A Priest
- A group of people (a community)
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
This verse comes to mind:
In the same way, if you come to receive Holy Communion and are upset at your brother or sister(the EMCH), because they used the name of the person receiving, you are probably not well disposed for receiving the holy sacrament.
Jim
V
VociMike
Guest
Notice the dynamic here. If somebody violates the plain dictates of Vatican II and the GIRM, and somebody else is disturbed by that, then it is the person who is disturbed who is somehow at fault, and not the person who is disobedient to the Church.
This is a very common view in the modern world.
J
Joysong
Guest
No, VociMike,
A peaceful person who is there to worship God devotedly is not seriously ruffled by minor things like this. Faith is much more active. I would think that these anxious people are the exception, not the norm, and as I stated previously, how about exercising patience, understanding, tolerance, love?
. . . and finally a prayer for the so-called offender? If one is greatly angered and disturbed, then I agree with JimOCDS, that it would be better to refrain from communion.
Once more, there is no proof the EMHC is disobedient. POSSIBLY misinformed, POSSIBLY perfectly within their rights. Where’s your proof?
A peaceful person who is there to worship God devotedly is not seriously ruffled by minor things like this. Faith is much more active. I would think that these anxious people are the exception, not the norm, and as I stated previously, how about exercising patience, understanding, tolerance, love?
. . . and finally a prayer for the so-called offender? If one is greatly angered and disturbed, then I agree with JimOCDS, that it would be better to refrain from communion.
Once more, there is no proof the EMHC is disobedient. POSSIBLY misinformed, POSSIBLY perfectly within their rights. Where’s your proof?
N
Nevarlander
Guest
I was told in my thread over on the EC forum that it’s normal for this to be done in the Eastern rites. So I guess theoretically it’s OK.
A
AlexV
Guest
This practice does indeed create two classes of communicants…the cognoscenti and the “others”. Some are identified as clearly “part of the community”, while others are excluded from that special little label.
It’s also a bit tacky…it’s another example of “Gee, how can we screw around with the liturgy just a little more?”
The rubrics call for a simple proclamation: Corpus Christi. English, “The Body of Christ”. No cutesy additions, no labels, nothing. And doing it is another example of a minister imposing their will on someone else.
And welcome back, “Joysong”. Thought you were gone from around here? Guess that didn’t last long.
It’s also a bit tacky…it’s another example of “Gee, how can we screw around with the liturgy just a little more?”
The rubrics call for a simple proclamation: Corpus Christi. English, “The Body of Christ”. No cutesy additions, no labels, nothing. And doing it is another example of a minister imposing their will on someone else.
And welcome back, “Joysong”. Thought you were gone from around here? Guess that didn’t last long.
J
Joysong
Guest
Alex, this is not the TC forum. Sorry to disappoint you.
A
AlexV
Guest
Well I am happy to confront your liturgical errors anytime, anywhere.
VociMike is right. People who abuse the liturgy and cause irritation for those who would simply like to experience the liturgy as it is, without personal additions of lay or clerical ministers holding captive audiences, are the problem.
And notice how quickly some move from defending abuse to…astonishingly…making the shocking claim that perhaps the person getting upset isn’t appropriately disposed to receive Communion.
Ah…the fascism and false charity of the progressives…
VociMike is right. People who abuse the liturgy and cause irritation for those who would simply like to experience the liturgy as it is, without personal additions of lay or clerical ministers holding captive audiences, are the problem.
And notice how quickly some move from defending abuse to…astonishingly…making the shocking claim that perhaps the person getting upset isn’t appropriately disposed to receive Communion.
Ah…the fascism and false charity of the progressives…
V
VociMike
Guest
More modern-speak. EMHC rights?!
Yes, they may be misinformed. So who’s misinforming them?
They may just think it’s nice. Who’s monitoring them?
How hard is it to gather all the EMHCs together and point out that this practice is not in the rubrics of the Roman rite and is therefore not allowed (and references to Vatican II and the GIRM have already been cited here to that effect)?
Why the incredible resistance to just doing what the Church asks, and not doing what the Church forbids? Why the stubborn, unyielding defiance?
P
paramedicgirl
Guest
All the more reason to attend the TLM…
H
HopefulOne
Guest
Though we are in a friendly parish, our pastor has told us it is NOT permitt4ed to say a person’s name. After all, it is The Body of Christ we are receiving and worshiping and adoring, and we don’t need our names mentioned. Some EMs still do it anyhow, and I do find it a bit distracting, but there are other things more distracting…
J
Joysong
Guest
I see you are a positive thinker …
Yes, the ‘right’ to distribute communion as they were taught. You are reading far too much into it.
The pastor no doubt is monitoring them and trained them. If they have adopted the practice as a result of hearing him speak the person’s name in their own communion line, then they are not to blame whatsoever if they do the same.
This conversation is circular. Why not write to a person who knows how to properly interpret the GIRM regulation on this and get back to us. So far, all we have is the private interpretation of a layman. Try writing Fr. McNamara at Zenit, or EWTN, ok? I’m from Missouri, ya know. and there are two ways of reading that rubric.
The only ones I hear resisting are the traditionists who seem to find fault with just about everything that is not in line with their interpretations. I know of no people in my area who object to this practice, other than the OP, perhaps.
Let’s move on to more serious topics than the use of one’s personal name. Any who are following this thread and who may possibly be concerned, will have now more than one opinion at least. Hopefully before they march off to Rome or the Bishop’s office, they will consult a higher source than a lay person.
- Status