Communion and changes

[Incomplete]

talking of passing judgement
I wonder how many of judgmental looks I’d get from everyone here etc if they saw me reading a book of my choice through communion whilst on the Altar. No worries, you be inline with half of congregation of the church I go to and he sure will get one complaint from the server who sits next to me. But I’ve sought permission from the priest who knows exactly why and reassurred me and strictly in my own fears told him too how one server be upfront pally with me but will complain ot him later. But we are all very good at judging each other aren’t we wanting to think the worst… pot kettle black. though only know that one person will complain because totally accidently overheard a complaint when I first started to serve by him all based on hearsay because I know who knows what per se because I have actually told no one anything and that will sound double dutch but… judging others is double dutch though we all do it from what he was complaining about too. No one realised I had over heard as what does one do but the current priest now knows that and will realise am not just being totally judgemental about the server though borderline perhaps. Judgemental but with personal reason

by the way to the opening poster, not all Protestant Church Priests sit centre stage as you termed it… No, our priest who was new last year, moved his chair to one side of the Altar which means he does some bits of the service down my ear…

Since this was right after my post, I couldn’t tell if the stuff about being judgemental was directed at me or the OP. I apologize if I came across as judgmental. That wasn’t my intent. But yes, people would question your behavior if you read a book of your choice at any point in Mass, because Mass is about worshiping together, not entertaining ourselves. Reading a book of your choice means you are not worshiping with us or even attempting to.

 

[revert_jen]

Having grown up in a Catholic “ghetto” or “bubble” in the late fifties and through the sixties I can assure you that many reverts have selective memory and nostalgia for a world that never REALLY existed.

I’d just like to mention here that at this point there are many reverts (like myself) who were born after Vatican II and thus have no memory (true, selective, or false) of the 50s and 60s.

–Jen

 

[revert_jen]

but to point out a fact: Jesus is Jesus. You don’t get “partial Jesus” by receiving from a Eucharistic minister rather than the priest. I’m concerned about the focus on “must come from a priest to be good enough” that seems to be cropping up lately. I mean, is the use of EMs to be avoided if possible? Sure, but they are allowed and Christ is no less Christ because of it.

Of course, but it can be considered a better sign to receive from a priest. I prefer receiving from a priest or deacon too, but being in the choir, I very rarely get to do it.

Side note: priests are civilians (unless they are military chaplains). Do you mean laity? Do you mean unordained persons giving out communion? If so, you should know that historically laity have given out communion from time to time and in such various places as it was required. Eucharistic Ministers were always utilized to deliver the Eucharist to those who were to sick to attend mass. In other words, those “civilians” have been there all along.

Not “Eucharistic Ministers.”

[154.]
As has already been recalled, “the only minister who can confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist in persona Christi is a validly ordained Priest”.[254] Hence the name “minister of the Eucharist” belongs properly to the Priest alone. Moreover, also by reason of their sacred Ordination, the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion are the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon,[255] to whom it belongs therefore to administer Holy Communion to the lay members of Christ’s faithful during the celebration of Mass. In this way their ministerial office in the Church is fully and accurately brought to light, and the sign value of the Sacrament is made complete.

[156.] This function is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened.

(emphasis mine)

–Jen

 

[Actaeon]

Not “Eucharistic Ministers.”

Mea culpa! Old habits die hard (of course, and for clarity, I meant “extraordinary ministers” and not eucharistic ministers.

Thank you for pointing that out!

 

[revert_jen]

This is the best advice to be given here. Reversion seems to produce a greater sense of devotion, which, if unguarded, can fall into “false devotion”, which is actually sinful pride. I say the following as a catholic who fell away from attending mass for several years (still “devout”, still knowing that I should be at mass, but no less at odds with that understanding in my practice):

It is important to remind ourselves that these people around us, whom we are judging, may be guilty of various sins… but one thing they are not guilty of is having abandoned the Body of Christ as we have.

Well, I never really learned what the Church teaches before I left, and the parts I did know, I didn’t understand properly. However, it was certainly sinful of me to leave. OTOH, God hs forgiven me for it. Assuming you have gone to confession, He has forgiven you for it. Would it have been better for me to have stayed in the Church and continued to take communion in a state of mortal sin? (That’s probably what I would have done if I had stayed.) But we are to avoid judging the souls of other people at all, not just to avoid judging them harshly. Judging that they are better than you are is also speculating on the state of their souls.

We should not judge the state of another individual’s soul. Period. We don’t have to place ourselves in a special place of shame to make it wrong.

However, there really is a difference between saying something like, “surveys show that some huge percentage of Catholic couples use birth control, and yet almost nobody stays in the pews at Communion. This seems wrong,” and saying anything about any individual Catholic who is in the congregation with us. We really are allowed to say the former, as long as we do NOT then go on to something like, “When you go to communion and see those long lines, which of those people do you think shouldn’t be receiving…” Saying that some unidentified people, whose identity is not even speculated upon, should not receive if they are in a state of mortal sin is something we really are allowed to do. Going on to look at individuals and figure out which ones are in a state of mortal sin is something we really are not allowed to do.

And there is always a danger with American Catholics (IMO, of course) that we will quash genuine feelings of piety and devotion to avoid looking like we are trying to appear holier than others. (I found that less in the Protestant churches I attended while I was away, but maybe that was just my choices of places to go. )

We are not living in an age where excessive devotion is common. A burst of devotion upon returning to the Church is a gift from God and we need to be careful not to reject it, because it can help us make up for some lost time in our relationship with God. Sometimes, it can cause you to say or do something that sounds judgemental. Later, you will regret having misrepresented yourself. (I’ve been back for several years now, and there are a couple of occasions I remember, for sure. But I also know, looking back, that those errors were made in a childlike spirit, and not out of pride. In me, it would be more prideful to try to look all sophisticated and cool, and not stand out, because that is one of the main ways that pride takes me.) Anyway, that is not sufficient reason to “guard” against devotion to God and to His Church.

Of course, we always have to guard against pride, and if we’re in a great state of pride when we come back, then it will color our devotion as well. I mean, if we think we’ve done something clever or special by coming back, rather than just being grateful that the Holy Spirit finally hit us over the head hard enough for us to listen, then we are sure in for problems. But those problems aren’t really related to any burst of devotion.

If the thought of Christ really present, body, blood, soul, and divinity, right there for you to receive Him, makes you fall on your knees in wonder and adoration, I think you should go ahead and do it (assuming you are physically able! ). You shouldn’t let what other people will think deter you. Because, you see, they’re not allowed to judge the state of your soul, either. It’s a two-way street.

–Jen

 

[market224]

Well stated – I consider it a privilege to be able to attend Mass. It is only thru the power of the Holy Spirit that I was given this second chance of redemption. I am the worst sinner amongst the congregation. I fully believe that they have led a far better life than I have in terms of their relationship with God. I am a work in progress and place no judgment on anyone nor am I interested in engaging in any campaign against the Church.

When I first returned to the Church I received communion standing. Unfortunately, it bothered me and it was a hard decision to kneel. I felt that I must kneel in reverence to our Lord. I found comfort in the fact the Pope Benedict was encouraging this practice. The sermon on the Feast of Corpus Christi further supported my decision.

I find no fault with those who receive communion in another fashion. I have enough problems with my own salvation. I love the Lord Jesus and I have been given the opportunity to receive His body and blood in the Holy Eucharist and based on His real presence, I am compelled by my love of Christ to kneel. I have no desire to impress anyone and at the moment of receiving the Eucharist I am in prayer and not aware of my surroundings.

Unfortunately, I articulated on areas that some found offensive, which was nothing more than stating my observations past and present. I would be devoted to helping other non practicing Catholics to return to the Church and enjoy the benefits of weekly worship, and in particular, the Eucharist.

Once again the Eucharist separates the Catholic world from other religions. I maybe way off the track in attempting to bring logic to this subject. Nonetheless, the Lord Our God is right in front of me in the form of the Holy Eucharist, out of my love and adoration of what the Lord has done for me, I will kneel.
Kullum

 

[Corki]

This is a US survey that I know about, from 2011:

ncronline.org/news/catholics-america/knowledge-and-belief-about-real-presence

The surveyed fall into four groups:

1. knowledgeable believer (46 percent of adult Catholics) - typically S or SW US, born 1941 to 1980
2. unknowing unbeliever (33 percent of adult Catholics) - typically NE US, Democrat
3. unknowing believer (17 percent of adult Catholics) - typically Hispanic, Midwest/West US
4. knowledgeable doubter (4 percent of adult Catholics) - typically born 1961 and later

"We found that half of adult Catholics (50 percent) know the church’s teaching regarding the real presence and half do not. We also found that close to two-thirds of adult Catholics (63 percent) believe that “at the consecration during a Catholic Mass, the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Therefore, more adult Catholics believe the statement than understand its source. "

“Among all Catholics who know what the church teaches about the real presence, fewer than one in 10 (9 percent) say that they do not believe the doctrine.”

From the table:

Knowledgeable believers: 46%
Among those that know,
91% believe

Yes, we lost a generation through bad catechesis. Yes, we need to do a better job at reaching adults and filling in the gaps from their religious education. But it doesn’t mean that the Church herself has changed for the worse.

I would also say to the OP that his experience is not at all universal. In my own parish, we hear about sin and the need to go to Confession just about every week. I have also been to many, many Masses that were standing room only or where the ushers had to break out the folding chairs. The demographics is what has mostly changed. Neighborhoods that used to be full of Irish and Italian immigrants who were overwhelmingly Catholic, may now have other cultures more predominantly represented.

 

[Incomplete]

Unfortunately, I articulated on areas that some found offensive, which was nothing more than stating my observations past and present.
Kullum

My apologies if I read you wrong. To me your first post seemed a bit judgmental. It wasn’t the ideas in themselves as much as that it seemed critical in some ways, critical of things you couldn’t know a lot about.

But this second post seemed very charitable, so I’m chalking my misunderstanding up to miscommunication on my part. The problem with this kind of communications is in not hearing tones of voice and seeing facial expression.

I do greatly understand your desire to kneel before your most gracious and holy Lord.

Thank you for coming back and saying this. And again, welcome home!!!

 

[Cat]

You’re certainly ALLOWED to kneel, even though the norm in the United States is to stand for reception. You’re also ALLOWED to change “lines” if it suits you…

but to point out a fact: Jesus is Jesus. You don’t get “partial Jesus” by receiving from a Eucharistic minister rather than the priest. I’m concerned about the focus on “must come from a priest to be good enough” that seems to be cropping up lately. I mean, is the use of EMs to be avoided if possible? Sure, but they are allowed and Christ is no less Christ because of it.

Unrealistic or not (not that I don’t agree with you on the statistical analysis part), nobody on earth is able to look at another person and determine if they are in a state of sanctifying grace or not… nobody. For all we know, everyone at your parish attends confession regularly, or is exceptionally devout and in a state of grace. That is the presumption that the Catechism asks us to make regarding rash judgements.

As a side note, if we are spending our time considering what proportion of the laity is receiving unworthely, then I would guess that our spiritual and mental state at that time is NOT one in which we OURSELVES are disposed to receive, and that in that regard it is US who should be staying in the pews, trying better to focus on Christ rather than the laity around us.

Side note: priests are civilians (unless they are military chaplains). Do you mean laity? Do you mean unordained persons giving out communion? If so, you should know that historically laity have given out communion from time to time and in such various places as it was required. Eucharistic Ministers were always utilized to deliver the Eucharist to those who were to sick to attend mass. In other words, those “civilians” have been there all along.

The location of the tabernacle should be a “place of prominence”, not necessarily against the wall in the center of the church. An example where the “chair” is centered directly behind the altar? St Peter’s Basillica.

In fact, there are very MANY old cathedrals and churches where the tabernacle is and was on a side altar rather than “front and center”. The idea that there was ever a strict rule that the tabernacle would ALWAYS be placed directly behind the altar is fallacy.

I don’t presume to judge a bishop or his motives. He may have known something about this woman that we do not. The church is founded in the bishops, and when we start standing against the bishops, we are in dire straights.

Without knowing what was asked in this survey, or the catechesis and perceptions of those who answered, we can’t really say much about those results. For example, if the survey asked “do the bread and wine physically become the Body and Blood of Christ”, there is probably a lot of ambiguity because the physical aspects of bread and wine do not change, while the physical aspect of substance does.

But even overlooking survey ambiguity, in the age of information I find it difficult to believe that western society catholics do not know that the church teaches transubstantiation as a doctrine. That information is out there and in every RCIA and catechism class that I’m aware of. Whether or not people choose to accept that probably has more to do with the rampant spread of the materialist heresy than with the structure of the ordinary form.

What is needed is good catechesis and good apologetics to combat materialism, and that movement is already taking shape as the vatican urges catholics to participate in social and technological media.

I’m generally opposed to shorts for mass, but again, they are allowed provided they are modest and of acceptable appearance.

Furthermore, suits used to be the go to for social events. By and large, SOCIETY as a whole has shifted away from more formal attire to more casual. The fact that people in the 40s wore suits to mass does not indicate that they held mass in any greater regard than people do today… it’s just that people dressed differently in the 40s.

For example, people going to a baseball game, or people enjoying an evening at a nightclub

Suits USED to be the go to for any social event. Today they are not.

Contrary to what you state here, the Catholic church is growing in numbers faster than it has in history. Since Vatican II, the Catholic Church has nearly doubled in size.

Even if we look ONLY at the United States of America, the Catholic Church is one of the few churches which is increasing in size, while most of the protestant denominations are on the decline.

I’m also not convinced that the “dumbing down” of the mass is at fault for decreased mass attendence (although mass attendence is on the rise again as well). Again, I would blame the widespread heresy of materialism for diluting Catholic teachings, which are more available to the laity today than at any point in history.

Again, there is the materialist heresy. There is also the fact that there’s no membership card to call onesself catholic. Simply put, there are many people who name themselves as catholic who have little present-day connection to the church.

The number of churches as well as the number of masses each weekend has also increased (in fact, moreso than the number of lay persons). More people having to work on Saturday and Sunday means that more people have to attend masses at odd times. When a parish that PREVIOUSLY had two masses a weekend now has 6, one expects the number of people per mass to decrease.

The Church is well aware of tradition, what it really is, and its place in teaching. And, as a cursory glance at news regarding the HHS mandate shows, the church IS a “powerhouse” for stopping encroachment on church teaching.

I always hesitate when someone says this, because pedophilia is an acute mental disease with very complex causes. To say what you have here definitely denies the reality of the circumstance to suit what you’re trying to push… but the reality is that many many of the cases date back prior to the days of Vatican II.

The decline in membership is a farce, since the church is growing both globally and domestically. The “revolt” by the nuns isn’t about the fact that they are unaware of catholic teachings, so much as they don’t care because of materialistic perceptions.

The bottom line is this: there are REAL problems in the church, as there have always been. Combatting a major and spreading heresy is one of them, and combating abuse of the priesthood by pedophiles joining to gain access to children is another… but blaming those very real problems on the make-believe boogey-man of the ordinary form of the Mass is counter-productive, and can only serve to allow these problems to continue while REAL solutions evade us.

This is such a wonderful, well-thought out post with so many wise and pithy comments! Thank you!

 

[WingsOfEagles]

So you’ve been gone for decades, and now you come back and expect everything to be just like it was when you were a child?

Just remember, when it was like that, you left the Church.

Whenever I hear this kind of thing from reverts, it always sounds to me like a person who left home for bad reasons when they were young, stayed away from Mom and Dad for decades, then finally repented and came home, only to complain to Mom and Dad that “you moved the furniture around!” or “why don’t you still have meatloaf on Wednesdays like you always did when I was growing up?!” or “I feel like a stranger in my own house!”

Of COURSE you do! You ARE a stranger in your own house, because Mom and Dad have gotten older and have made some necessary changes in their lives! You missed all that because you chose to be gone–you MISSED the day that Mom started suffering pain from arthritis and made a decision to re-arrange the furniture so that she could move without stumbling over things, and your MISSED the day Dad came home from the doctor and announced that he is at high risk for heart disease and can no longer eat red meat (hence no meatloaf on Wednesdays).

Perhaps if you had stuck around the Church all those decades instead of leaving and staying away, you would understand all the reasons why things have changed. I suggest asking some of the older folks in your parish who have been faithful for all those decades that you were gone. I’m sure some of them probably agree with you and miss the old times, but they will also be able to explain to you why things have changed.

Finally, according to the rubrics, it is still OK for you to kneel and receive Communion (on your tongue if you wish), and to receive only from a priest. Quite a few people in our very modern OF parish do this. Most of them wait until the very end of the Communion out of politeness, so that they don’t accidentally trip someone who is not prepared to have a person in front of them drop to their knees. If your parish does not follow the rubrics for some reason, then perhaps you could look for a more up-to-date parish that is in compliance with Holy Mother Church.

But please think about something–you say that the pastor “assumed you had an agenda” when you knelt for Communion.Remember that for decades, you were in rebellion against the Church. No wonder the priest is a little leery of your behavior now and perhaps wonders if you are really on the level.

Of course, I am assuming that the priest actually knows who you are.

OR…is it possible that the priest wasn’t assuming anything about you? Did you ask him, and did he actually say to you, “What’s your agenda?” Or was his “attitude” towards you all in your imagination?

Or consider this–if no one else in the parish kneels for Holy Communion and you did, the priest would show an expression of surprise on his face–that doesn’t mean that he suspects you of harboring an agenda. It just means he was surprised.

Please examine yourself very carefully–is your suspicious, somewhat superior attitude towards the priest perhaps the same judgmental attitude that originally caused you to become disillusioned with the Church and walk away from Her?

It seems to me that already, in the short time that you have been back in the Church, you are looking for an excuse to complain about the Church. Don’t do this. This can and does lead to people leaving the Church. **You of all people, a person who HAS left in the past, have to be on your guard against any attitudes in yourself that would give you a reason to once again depart from Holy Mother Church. Satan has gotten to you before–don’t let him trick you again. **

Close your mind to any negative thoughts about the Church, and if you do become aware of something that is not perfect in your parish, then YOU take practical steps to make it perfect. If for some reason (age, disability, etc.) you are not able to take those steps to help your parish, then *it must not be something that you are meant to be concerned about or worry about, so put it out of your mind *and concentrate on all the glories and wonders of Holy Mother Church and your local parish.

I would suggest humbling yourself in your heart–you have been away for a long long time, and now you have returned. Don’t expect everyone to welcome you as though you had never been away.

Earn your way back into the good graces of your parish by acting humbly and docilely, and by seeking ways to demonstrate that your heart has changed and that you now love Jesus and His Church above all else. I would suggest that you ask your priest if you can help with the most humble task in the parish, and then be faithful about fulfilling that responsibility.

I think you have somewhat misread what OP was trying to say. She said for the most part she can get used to the changes. She has actually been enjoying attending Mass. She is just having a tough time understanding and accepting why Catholics are no longer expected for fall on their knees to receive the Eucharist. She also feels weird receiving from a Eucharistic Minister because they didn’t exist in the past. I think her main point is don’t assume someone is being arrogant/pious/rebellious because they still kneel to receive. It was how she was taught as a child. It is also still a valid way to receive, but it’s fallen out of practice.

I do think OP should keep in mind that large group penance occurs at the beginning of Mass now, so venial sins are forgiven. It is only mortal ones that need to be done in a confessional. This probably increases the number of people allowed to receive. That being said, I think the concept of mortal sin is no longer well understood, and many people probably receive when committing sins of grave matter (although not necessarily mortal sins, if not understood to be grave).