Female altar servers at Latin Mass

[stmaria]

There is no need to cringe. It is how Communion was received for several centuries. It is not like it is some innovation.

Even Pope Paul was against it. He allowed it to contiuue but only where it had been already started, without his permission. Here he gives a history of communion in the hand.

Memoriale Dominiewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced **without prior approval **having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. **Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.**This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, **the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way **of administering holy communion to the faithful.
Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.
In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation"

 

[Cat]

EHMCs are Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion.

Yes, the way communion in the hand is practiced is an aberation and innovation. In the early Church where it was practiced, the Host was placed in the right hand, not the left as the current instructions say, and it was consumed without the communicant touching it with the other hand.

Yes, the current practice will also be outlawed when our bishops finally love our Lord and care more about His safety more than the wishes of men.

I am saddened by this post. This is, IMO, an insult to my beloved bishop and to many other bishops. My bishop, Thomas Doran of the Diocese of Rockford, LOVES the Lord, and cares very much about the “safety” of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

This type of attitude splits the Catholic Church into two camps based on how they receive the Holy Communion–the “right” Catholics who love the Lord and are truly reverent, and the “wrong” Catholics who love themselves and are irreverent. How tragic and how untrue.

 

[estesbob]

I am saddened by this post. This is, IMO, an insult to my beloved bishop and to many other bishops. My bishop, Thomas Doran of the Diocese of Rockford, LOVES the Lord, and cares very much about the “safety” of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

This type of attitude splits the Catholic Church into two camps based on how they receive the Holy Communion–the “right” Catholics who love the Lord and are truly reverent, and the “wrong” Catholics who love themselves and are irreverent. How tragic and how untrue.

Arguing over how best to receive communion tivializes this sacred Sacrament. I once heard two Moslem frineds arguing about how to face Mecca when you prayed-one said you look east because thats the direction of Mecca. The other said no you look North as the Polar route is shorter to Mecca. I thought at the time “how siily.” I have the same thoughts when i see the hand vs tongue arguments.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am saddened by this post. This is, IMO, an insult to my beloved bishop and to many other bishops. My bishop, Thomas Doran of the Diocese of Rockford, LOVES the Lord, and cares very much about the “safety” of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.

This type of attitude splits the Catholic Church into two camps based on how they receive the Holy Communion–the “right” Catholics who love the Lord and are truly reverent, and the “wrong” Catholics who love themselves and are irreverent. How tragic and how untrue.

No, Cat, I think you miss the point. There are some of us who grew up prior to Vatican II. I made my First Communion in 1959 and I was confirmed in 1963. Back then, there were two lines of “defense” for Our Lord in the Eucharist. The first was the paten which was carried by the altar boy and placed under the chin of the communicant. The second was the linen cloth which covered the communion rail. In all of my younger years I never saw the Eucharist dropped.

It’s not a question of one being “better” than the other. It’s how some of us were raised. In all of my 56 years I have never received the Eucharist in my hands and I’m not the only one in my choir or in my cathedral parish. In preparation for my First Holy Communion, the nuns taught us that it was possible for the host to become stuck to the roof of your mouth. You did not profane the Body of Christ by touching it with your fingers. You dislodged the host with your tongue.

I’m not standing in judgment on you. I have a completely different understanding of the Eucharist - a product of my upbringing. Some of my generation accepted communion in the hand without pause. But, it has to be acknowledged, that there was a significant number of us who kept to that which we were taught. I don’t believe that I am holding myself out to a greater standard than you. I am simply adhering to the standard I was taught.

Same thing goes for female altar servers. When I grew up, to be an altar boy was to consider a vocation to the priesthood. We even had a high school in New Orleans which was designated as pre-seminary. You shouldn’t fault the mindset of 1960 because it does not agree with today.

I loved the HMC of my youth. I was comfortable with Latin. I dropped out of HMC around 1972 because I couldn’t stand the strummin’ and a’grinnin’. By the time I got married in '78, we were driving to the cathedral parish because it was a reverent NO. In 1982 we moved 25 miles out into the country (then) to take care of my wife’s aging mother. We endured the local parish until 1983 when I was invited to join the cathedral choir.
(There’s alot more to this story which I won’t go into). We’ve been members of the cathedral parish since 1984 and, yes, we still drive 25 miles.

My point. I am not out to “inflict” what I hold true on you. But I ask you to consider this. How many Catholic parishes do I drive through in predominately Catholic south Louisiana to find a reverent NO? I’m not trying to inflict my views on you but it seems that the converse is not true.

I really, really thought that with the advent of the MP and given the fact that my choir has been singing Gregorian Chant and Latin motets for years that we would be able to have a sung TLM. My bishop “acknowledged” the MP.

I know it has been 40+ years since Vatican II. But there are still large numbers of us who are still alive and following our consciences which were formed before Vatican II. We’re not asking you to follow our beliefs. All we’re asking is that our beliefs have a place at the table.

 

[SFD]

“Even Pope Paul was against it. He allowed it to contiuue but only where it had been already started, without his permission. Here he gives a history of communion in the hand.”

Stmaria,

Paul VI allowed it. He allowed the abuses that he knew would follow. The abuses today are legion and no one seems to care. Why? Because there is a “different understanding” of the Eucharist today; how do I know? That what many tell me. It’s symbolic; not real. And if they say it is real, that is because they have a “different understanding” of what “real” means.

SFD

 

[brotherhrolf]

Real is body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The most precious thing on the planet. People have given their lives rather than see the Eucharist profaned. Good point SFD.

 

[Cat]

brotherhrolf, I have much respect for you and I believe that you are a person who respects both Mass forms.

But do you not see the rancor and the pride in this post?–
“Yes, the current practice will also be outlawed when our bishops finally love our Lord and care more about His safety more than the wishes of men.”

This poster is accusing our bishops of not loving our Lord and of caring more for the wishes of men than His safety.

brotherhrolf, I am not trying to divide Catholicism, but this particular poster has already divided them into the sacred and the profane. According to him/her, my bishop and many of the Catholics in his diocese (including me) are part of the profane.

I don’t think this is good, kind thinking. I think it is hatred and bitterness.

I have used this example before. Saint Maximillian Kolbe had everything taken from him, but he didn’t complain. He was a light in the darkness of Auschwitz. The Masses he conducted there were probably among the most reverent and holy that have ever been said, even though there was no organ, no golden chalice, no patin, no altar cloth, and great danger for those who participated.

Reverence is in the heart, not in the trappings. A TLM can be irreverent if the hearts of the people participating are filled with hatred and bitterness. It is valid, it is licit, but the sacrifice that the Lord seeks is a contrite and humble heart.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Cat: There is a profound and fundamental shift between, let’s say 1970 and today. I do not see Leeta’s statement to be filled with rancor and pride. The mindset of we Catholics in 1965 is entirely different from the mindset of we Catholics in 2007. That’s an objective rather than subjective observation. It is totally realistic.

Leeta’s observations were realistic and an accurate representation of the times. They are not a slap against our bishops. They are a pretty accurate portrayal of that which I grew up with.

I would die rather than receive Our Lord unworthily. I’ve seen the Eucharist dropped and have seen Father having to run after folks who did not consume the Eucharist (e.g sales on Ebay). I simply did not see this before 1970. There are those of us who have memories of HMC which are far, far different from today.

As much as I believe that it is fundamentally unfair for me to hold today’s Catholics to the standards under which I grew up, so too is it fundamentally unfair to hold those of us who retain those standards by the standards of today.

There is a pretty significant group of people my age (who aren’t dead yet) who grew up with the TLM and who are comfortable with it. On the other side of the equation are folks like my friend, NCJohn, who is of an age with me who takes the opposite side.

That’s fine. What has been lost is that those of us who didn’t agree with what happened after 1970 are finally getting their say
I’m not asking you to surrender your beliefs but I would like for you to acknowledge my beliefs.

I’m not out to convert anyone. I’ve got Gregorian Chant and Latin motets at my cathedral parish. I have a priest who says the TLM privately. Am I asking too much to be able to combine the two without my bishop saying he “acknowleges the Motu Proprio”?

In the 40+ years after Vatican II, it should be remembered that not all of us willingly went along with the changes. The Holy Father would not have isssued the Motu Proprio w/o reason.
.

 

[Cranch]

It might be helpful for you to go back and read some of the earlier posts.

Thanks, but I’ve read every post in this thread, as I usually do if I comment.

Yes, the rubrics of the 1962 Missal are in force. However, the rubrics of 1962 do not cover the sex of the altar server nor who may distribute Communion, nor if Communion may be received in the hand.

If you have any documentation that the rubrics of 1962 specifically prohibit these things, please post them.

My post which you quote concerned one thing: the inadmissability of EMHCs in the EF. The rubrics of 1962 Missal are quite clear:

The Celebrant then goes to the communicants and, holding the Host a little above the paten or ciborium, shows it to each communicant, saying:Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.

(May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto life everlasting. Amen)

And just to be clear, no one is advocating the adoption of these permitted practices, we are just defining what the Church actually teaches.

You’ve said that a few times already.

 

[Sure]

Thanks, but I’ve read every post in this thread, as I usually do if I comment.My post which you quote concerned one thing: the inadmissability of EMHCs in the EF. The rubrics of 1962 Missal are quite clear:

The Celebrant then goes to the communicants and, holding the Host a little above the paten or ciborium, shows it to each communicant, saying:Corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. Amen.

(May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy soul unto life everlasting. Amen)

You’ve said that a few times already.

So would the missal also exclude priests and deacons from distributing Communion? I mean, if there are 1,000 communicants at Mass the distribution of Communion alone would take about 1 1/2 hours.

 

[TMC]

So often I have heard the supporters of the Latin Mass say they are not trying to undo the advancements of the last half century, but merely trying to make available the beautiful older form of the Mass. Now we hear that of course this will mean no women in the sanctuary, and of course no communion by hand, and of course no instruments used in Mass. How many more “of courses” are out there? And why, exactly, are the successors to the Apostles who were given to bind or loose all things in this world not qualified to make simple decisions about the liturgy. Oh, I forgot, the ones that don’t agree with us don’t really love the Lord.

 

[Sure]

So often I have heard the supporters of the Latin Mass say they are not trying to undo the advancements of the last half century, but merely trying to make available the beautiful older form of the Mass. Now we hear that of course this will mean no women in the sanctuary, and of course no communion by hand, and of course no instruments used in Mass. How many more “of courses” are out there? And why, exactly, are the successors to the Apostles who were given to bind or loose all things in this world not qualified to make simple decisions about the liturgy. Oh, I forgot, the ones that don’t agree with us don’t really love the Lord.

It is rather ironic that the same people who applaud priests who refuse Communion in the hand (an approved posture) start foaming at the mouth if a priest refuses Communion to someone who kneels (also an approved posture). Let’s be consistent: if a Communicant approaches in an approved posture, the priest ought not to refuse that person on the basis of their posture, whether that posture is kneeling or in the hand.