Foregoing the Final Blessing: Leaving Mass after receiving Communion

[R_C]

I agree with R_C. But does “…every word that comes from the mouth of God” include the catechism also? I think the Holy Scripture is “God-breathed” is sufficient teaching, rebuking… (2 Tim 3:16-17). Not sure why we need another book, especially one that is “man-breathed”.

The Catechism - from a word that means “the words whose sound came down” - is a synthesis or summary of the 20 centuries of Sacred Tradition of the Church of Christ.

This is the Sacred Tradition to which St. Paul refers to in his second letter to the Thessalonians 2:15 when he refers to the teaching “by word of mouth”.

It is of this Sacred Tradition (of which the Catechism is a summary) that Christ spoke when He said:

I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own but will tell you what he has heard. …] He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is Mine and declare it to you. (John 16:12-14)

And this Sacred Tradition, of which the Catechism is part and summary, is not man-made, for Christ had this to say about the apostles (whether by His election or by apostolic succession) who brought it forth:

He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me. (Luke 10:16, John 13:20)

The Sacred Scripture is, in fact, one with Sacred Tradition, and obviously not sufficient, given that it contains the word of God, and yet the living Word of God still became flesh and instructed us, and often rebuked the learned teachers of the Scriptures…to give the Sacred Scripture a greater role than it has is, in fact, an act of idolatry, for it mistakes the Scripture with the Word (the Scripture came from the Word, and the Word is God).

At the very beginning of the Church, already the Holy Spirit shows that the apostolic guidance under His direction is indispensable:

Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of the Kandake (which means “queen of the Ethiopians”). This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the Book of Isaiah the prophet.

The Spirit told Philip, “Go to that chariot and stay near it.”

Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet.

“Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked.

“How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?”

This, brother, is the teaching authority given by Christ to the apostles, to His Church.

 

[stevie0027]

The Catechism - from a word that means “the words whose sound came down” - is a synthesis or summary of the 20 centuries of Sacred Tradition of the Church of Christ.

This is the Sacred Tradition to which St. Paul refers to in his second letter to the Thessalonians 2:15 when he refers to the teaching “by word of mouth”.

It is of this Sacred Tradition (of which the Catechism is a summary) that Christ spoke when He said:

And this Sacred Tradition, of which the Catechism is part and summary, is not man-made, for Christ had this to say about the apostles (whether by His election or by apostolic succession) who brought it forth:

The Sacred Scripture is, in fact, one with Sacred Tradition, and obviously not sufficient, given that it contains the word of God, and yet the living Word of God still became flesh and instructed us, and often rebuked the learned teachers of the Scriptures…to give the Sacred Scripture a greater role than it has is, in fact, an act of idolatry, for it mistakes the Scripture with the Word (the Scripture came from the Word, and the Word is God).

At the very beginning of the Church, already the Holy Spirit shows that the apostolic guidance under His direction is indispensable:

This, brother, is the teaching authority given by Christ to the apostles, to His Church.

I appreciate the response, brother, but as Proverbs 9:8 says, I shall rebuke a wise man. Hope you still love me for it.

The second word in “Sacred Tradition” is the key to your first point. We all have traditions that have been passed from generations to generations. Traditions within family, work, and community environments to name a few. But when it comes to our faith in God, traditions can be dangerous and dishonoring to God (See what Jesus says Matthew 15:1-13). In short, traditions can distort.

The apostles were servants of Jesus, not without fallibility - as humans. I understand that in the early centuries of Christianity, there was no consolidated written Word to follow until the New Testament was incorporated. And maybe people couldn’t quite interpret what the various the Word of God through scripture and letters meant, so they needed the apostles to interpret it (similar to your Acts 8 reference with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch). But we are way beyond that right now, don’t you think? Granted, the average American, Canadian, or Englishman may have more capability to interpret scripture than the average, say, Sudanese. Any of us can read with confidence in the Holy Bible what God has already written for us. How do we do this? Well, with guidance of the Holy Spirit within us, with prayer, meditation, scripture cross references (which by the way is so important – interpret scripture with scripture).

To say that The Catechism and those who wrote it are without the possibility of error (“Sacred”) is not honoring God. Don’t we all think God wants us to preserve what He originally intended, not be deceived? Paul warned us of this in 1 Timothy 4. You state that it is a fact that Sacred Scripture is one with Sacred Tradition. That is a hard sell, brother. The tradition of Papal Infallibility for example – how can that be one and the same? Only Jesus was/is infallible. We all sin and fall short of His Glory.
2 Thes 2:16 Let’s get some context here. Paul was imploring the Church there who were the “firstfruits of the saved by the Spirit and belief in the TRUTH.” He was stating that because he was warning them of false teachers. The only way to avoid them is to stand firm in the Word with the help of the Holy Spirit. The holding of traditions he speaks of is to the Church at Thessalonica at the time, not necessarily meant for future generations (as it can be distorted). If we held to future generations of teachings, we’d still be trying to torture and burn people who denounce the Catholic faith.
You say in John 16:12-14 that Jesus is speaking of the Sacred Tradition? In short, the Lord is speaking of the Holy Spirit (Advocate, Helper, etc). He wanted us to preserve the truth (straight from Him). Is it just in the higher-ups of the Vatican that has the Holy Spirit? We ALL DO (We meaning those who truly repent and accept Christ as our Lord and Saviour).
We are not rejecting Jesus if those in the Vatican are rejected. Of course I guess you feel that the papal succession warrants the assumption that the leaders of the Catholic church is the “you” in “he who listens to you…” for which I disagree.

I have struggled and not questioned these doctrines as a Catholic of 16 years after marriage. Weeks and years of doing mind-numbing and senseless sacraments as sheep being lead astray. I know the Holy Spirit has lead me to this point where I cannot remain ignorant of the TRUTH.

In Christ.

 

[1571]

I attend a parish that only offers the traditional mass and I have never witnessed someone leave after communion. This may be because there are still several things after communion, such as the last gospel and five prayers that everyone says out loud in the same of a low mass.

 

[R_C]

I do love you, dear Stevie, more than you perhaps can imagine. However the Proverb does not apply, for I am, if anything, a fool.

I will, however, further speak in my foolishness, for what I speak is not my own thought but what I have learned.

Sure, we do all have traditions. The Gentiles had traditions, the Hebrew had traditions. However, God was well-pleased with the worship in Jerusalem, and not pleased at all with the worship of Zeus, Baal, and Jupiter. Indeed, some traditions were dangerous and dishonoring to God.

However, when we speak of what is properly known as Sacred Tradition - on which all Christianity is built upon, we don’t speak of just any tradition - we speak of the corpus of teachings that the Holy Spirit has revealed to the Church of Christ.

Throughout history, ever since the days of the Apostles, we have had Christian communities move away from Sacred Tradition. St. Paul admonishes them often, and already the second Pope, St. Clement, disciple and successor of St. Peter, wrote in the first century:

Heretical teachers pervert Scripture and try to get into Heaven with a false key, for they have formed their human assemblies later than the Catholic Church.

From this previously-existing and most true Church, it is very clear that these later heresies, and others which have come into being since then, are counterfeit and novel inventions.

These communities are the ones that either take away from the Sacred Tradition or add new, man-made teachings, thus creating a distorted tradition that is partially erroneous (sometimes, to great extents).

Of course the apostles were fallible. However, not all Christians received the fullness of the Holy Spirit as the apostles did. Recall that Christ specifically appointed 12, and when Judas Iscariot betrayed him and killed himself, they did not just pick any Christian, but, rather, God called one. This, brother, is what we call the apostolic succession. Even St. Jude was amazed at this, and asked the Lord: “how is it that you reveal yourself to us and not to the whole world?”, and yet it is to them, the Lord says, that the secrets of the kingdom are revealed, while they are hidden from all others. It is to them that the resurrected Lord appeared first and told them: “as the Father had sent me, so I send you. Receive the Holy Spirit. Whosoever sins you forgive are forgiven. Whosoever sins you retain are retained.” It is over them that, on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came down with special charisms and gifts.

What a great error of pride, then, would be to consider that the average XXI Century Christian is somewhat wiser than the I Century Ethiopian eunuch…after all, were not the teachers of the Law people who spend their entire lives studying the Sacred Scripture? And were they not unable to understand what Christ spoke?

No, nobody can read with confidence and hope to understand. Nobody can claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Surely we can all read the Scripture, but we can only hope to not be deceived by our imperfect reasonings and by the deceptions of Satan - who, by the way, masters the Scripture and even employed it to tempt Christ himself - then we must necessarily refer to the teachings of Holy Church, who was given the wisdom to put together the Canon of the Old and New Testament, and was given the understanding so that she may “preach the Gospel to all the nations”.

 

[R_C]

The Catechism, like I said, is only a summary of Sacred Tradition. What does not honor God is to put it - and the Sacred Tradition - side by side with the distortions brought forth by heretics and schismatics. And Paul also warned us of this, when he told us to beware of anyone preaching a new gospel, and to stand firm in defending the Tradition transmitted either in writing or by word of mouth - thus affirming the oneness of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

I won’t even get into the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ on Earth when acting Ex Cathedra on matters of faith and morals, because it is so grossly misunderstood by our separate brethren. I invite you to understand what it truly means, and how very few times in history has it been exercised. However, it does not extend to sinfulness - I can tell you that dishonoring the father is wrong, and perhaps I do it daily.

Where do you read that the only way to avoid false teachings is to stand firm in the Word? Where does that come from? Surely not from the Scriptures. And is it the Scripture that you mistakenly call Word with the uppercase, as if it were something more than mere words? Surely the true Word who became flesh did not hesitate to correct the very Scriptures, though explaining that it could not be abolished, only fulfilled. Surely the Church and the Apostles understood that the precepts of the New Covenant were different and released us from many of the commands of the Old Covenant - for instance, circumcision. Had they - as you claim - stood with the Scripture alone, we would basically still do everything our Jewish brothers do, in addition to what we do.

Obviously also your understanding of what Holy Church is is quite imperfect and limited. The Catholic Church is composed of 26 sui iuris churches, from east and west, of which the “Vatican”, or Latin church, is considered ever since ancient times the Mother and Teacher of all churches. To the Church - the mystical body of Christ, which for practical purpose we limit now to the saints of the Church Militant - is granted the teaching authority, and a hierarchical division that separates three levels of Holy Orders (bishop, priest, deacon) for the guidance of the faithful (the upper two of which configure the apostle in order to act in the person of Christ). The Church Militant as a whole shares in the gifts of the Holy Spirit, received at Baptism and Confirmation, but to the universal Magisterium (the body of the shepherds) is given special light to guide the flock. If this were not so, then we would not need shephers, and each sheep would guide itself to heaven.

Rejecting not just the Vicar of Christ but all the apostles and 20 centuries of teachings would not be a rejection of Christ, if this rejection did not mean accepting someone else.

Surely those who walk away from the Church at once walk into some other community or religion. Surely when they do so, they are accepting some other teachers and their teachings. And when we track those teachings, we can always infallibly p(name removed by moderator)oint their human origin, and explain their errors based on Sacred Tradition. Why, then, reject the Sacred Tradition on behalf of an imperfect distortion of it?

Surely the fact that you call the jewels that Christ gave His Bride “mind-numbing and senseless” describes an issue on your side rather than on the side of the Church. The saints sometimes were raptured in ecstasis before the Holy Eucharist or in prayer. Us poor mortal men, wretched sinners in this valley of tears, are not insensible to the touch of the Spirit in Reconciliation, to the embrace of Christ in the Eucharist, to the seal of the Father in Confirmation, to the strengthening bound of Matrimony, to the powerful character of the Holy Orders. These Sacraments do not, of course, bind God, but they are indeed the channel established by Christ for grace to be poured and renewed in our hearts.

It is in fact impossible for the Holy Spirit to lead away from the Catholic Church. If you had, in due time, been humble enough to seek the spiritual direction of a priest, you would have understood this by yourself. This would be going against the very will of Christ, who calls us to be “one flock with one shepherd”, and who rejects and condemns divisions amidst his children. In fact, it is always the father of all lies who makes men proud in their supposed knowledge and understanding, and discourages them from the most humble of all behaviors: understanding that alone we can only deceive ourselves, and that outside of the Church we are nothing but lost sheep, like the son who, having been given all riches from his father, decides to walk away and live his own life, certain that he did not need his father’s guidance and teachings.

I do not know which teachers you now follow. Nor do I know how the adversary lead you away from the Church. Surely you must have very strong - yet definitely erroneous - ideas against the Church. Without meaning that you should change your mind, we may discuss about them in another thread, or privately if you so wish. However remember this: decisions are definitive only on deathbed; before that time, we can always humble ourselves and change our ways when we find a greater truth.

 

[englishredrose]

It could be the difference between service and lip service possibly?

We have smiles when people come in late but no one leaves early. Perhaps may be because we are in church because we want to be there. We just don’t go at all if we have to leave early. On rare occasions do people step in front of the choir communion and then leave but it is very rare these days. Perhaps its different when its not an official obligation. Though most folk really are there every week and a lot in the week. All I know, that in our Anglican Church whilst a few people come in late and we can’t help smirks… it isn’t a regular habit of anyone to leave early-thankfully.

 

[jeb53]

I am not Catholic (yet) but have been attending Mass since October. I have to say that this really bugs me. The church is usually packed on Saturdays, but once Holy Communion is received there is a mass exodus. I mean, you can’t stay five to ten more minutes? There may be people that have to leave due to some other obligation, but it is so rude. I guess the Priests are used to it, but it is a sad commentary on the life of the Catholic Church. Of course, I am coming in from a different perspective–having no real religious upbringing other than being “Protestant” and then attending non-denominational churches. I know I am not supposed to judge…(maybe that will be my first confession!):getholy:

 

[Lormar]

**The Priest should hang a sign over the doorpost to the Church so that the leaving congregation can see it. On the sign should be written:

“Judas left early too”

**

 

[Lormar]

Attended Mass today at a church I normally do not attend. Noticed that approximately 1/3 to close to half of the Mass goers had left Mass after Communion. I really felt embarrassed for the presiding priest. (Although he may be used to this).

I am sure that we receive graces when blessed by the priest at the conclusion of Mass. Why do many decide to forego such graces? Maybe they are unaware of the significance of the final blessing. Maybe they feel it is enough to receive enough graces through reception of the Eucharist. Maybe they just want to beat the traffic and catch their favorite tv program in time.

Should priests inform their congregation that is of benefit that they remain til the end of Mass? Is the final blessing that important anyway?

About a third leave my parish early too. Most of them want to get out of the parking lot before the others do.

As to why they think that the final blessing is of no importance, you will have to ask them.

 

[Spera_in_Deo]

As I am 69 years old and grew up with what is now known as the EF Mass, when Mass began and ended was clearly taught to me by the parish priests and sisters (yes, we had both “back in the day.”) However, the definition they gave me that I am about to give you, is technical or black and white. However, I have always felt it made sense and have lived by it.

Mass begins with the Credo (Creed). In the early church the cathecumens were dismissed after the gospel and homily as, not yet being Catholic, they could not remain for the true Mass.

I was furhter taught that, techinically, when the priest uttered the command, “Ite missa est,” (Go, the mass is ended) obviously we were free to leave. Of course no one did as that commnad was followed by the last Gospel. But, nevertheless, techinically the Mass was over at the “Ite missa est.”

Anyway, even in the OF Mass, those who bail out right after communion, have, in my book (Judgmental Me!) not “techinically” heard Mass.

 

[1571]

I was furhter taught that, techinically, when the priest uttered the command, “Ite missa est,” (Go, the mass is ended) obviously we were free to leave. Of course no one did as that commnad was followed by the last Gospel.

.

I bet if a priest was having a problem with people leaving early and he marched over to the gospel side of the altar and read the last gospel after every mass everyone would stay because they would want to hear it, as it is he most sublime passage in the entire Bible.

 

[R_C]

I am not Catholic (yet) but have been attending Mass since October. I have to say that this really bugs me. The church is usually packed on Saturdays, but once Holy Communion is received there is a mass exodus. I mean, you can’t stay five to ten more minutes? There may be people that have to leave due to some other obligation, but it is so rude. I guess the Priests are used to it, but it is a sad commentary on the life of the Catholic Church. Of course, I am coming in from a different perspective–having no real religious upbringing other than being “Protestant” and then attending non-denominational churches. I know I am not supposed to judge…(maybe that will be my first confession!):getholy:

Wonderful testimony, indeed. In fact, even though we are not bound to believe in these, we do know from private revelations that Christ is very displeased with the way he is trated after Holy Communion. We are, in fact, living tabernacles for about 15 minutes or so. Some describe this time as “a fusion, like when two candles melt together”. Not all, of course, leave the Church right after Mass, and many may do so in order to spend time at the chapel of the Blessed Sacrament. But we are called to be recollected after Mass, for at least a quarter of an hour.

By the way, for someone who is not a Catholic (yet) you profess a very sincere love for the Beloved in the Holy Eucharist. Many who convert - including myself, though I was somehow always Catholic - experience this profound love for Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. Such love can change our lives, and it surely lead many not just to holier lives, but even to sanctity. Have you ever attended a Holy Hour before the Blessed Sacrament? It can be an extraordinary experience.

 

[maryjk]

I bet if a priest was having a problem with people leaving early and he marched over to the gospel side of the altar and read the last gospel after every mass everyone would stay because they would want to hear it, as it is he most sublime passage in the entire Bible.

The Gospel is read before Communion.

So I don’t know what “marching over …and read the last gospel” would do.

How about this? Worry about yourself. Focus on Mass. I bet all of us have plenty of our own sins to worry about. I know I do. If people leave early, it is their problem. If the pastor has an issue with it, he is free to comment on it.

 

[Godric2]

But people didn’t seem to mind when the Last Gospel was no longer read, so I can’t quite see it has the impact described.

Godric

In Solidarity with Agatha

 

[1571]

The Gospel is read before Communion.

So I don’t know what “marching over …and read the last gospel” would do.

How about this? Worry about yourself. Focus on Mass. I bet all of us have plenty of our own sins to worry about. I know I do. If people leave early, it is their problem. If the pastor has an issue with it, he is free to comment on it.

The last gospel is read after communion, hero.

And this was a discussion about how to get people to stay for the entire mass, so good ideas such as mine are appropriate for this forum.

 

[maryjk]

The last gospel is read after communion, hero.

The Mass contains one Gospel and it is read before Communion. Of course, I am speaking about the OF or Ordinary Form of the Mass, rather than the EF or Extraordinary Form. Because it is, well, the Ordinary Form.

 

[1571]

The Mass contains one Gospel and it is read before Communion. ./

That is a very close minded, neo-Catholic worldview.

 

[thistle]

We have 10 Masses every Sunday to accommodate an 80% Mass attendance in our parish and I’ve never seen many people leaving early. I have actually been to every Mass time - of course not all on the same Sunday.

 

[InLight247]

The priest in Mass is persona Christi, he represents Christ. When Christ is still there, no one is supposed to leave.

Eucharist is the Real Presence. Mass is the heaven on earth. Anyone wants to leave early does not understand these facts; otherwise, why would anyone wants to leave early?

 

[paulrus]

My family moved last year and began attending a new parish and we’ve noticed the same thing at this new one, which we almost never saw at the old one. We have young children who often require being tended to in the narthex. Since I’m already back there, I get to see what happens.

First, when I go to the narthex it is always filled with people (usually 25-50) who stand or kneel on the floor the entire mass. This wouldn’t be so strange if the church was packed, but it’s not. It’s pretty full, but there’s certainly room for another 50 people. This is also a problem since there’s no place else to take a screaming child (other than outside) so although I’m trying to be considerate of the other parishioners by taking said child to the back, I inevitably end up distracting dozens of people anyway. My best guess is that these are people who come in late and either don’t want to disturb others or don’t want to be noticed. I say this because on a few occasions we have cut it awfully close (e.g. arriving at 9:58 for 10:00 mass) and there was nobody back there when we walked in.

Next, after communion, roughly 1/3 of congregants leave, including most of those in the narthex. And after the final blessing, but before the recessional, at least another 1/2 leave. We always stay until the end of the recessional hymn, and when I look around as the last note is playing at least 90% of the people have left.

Interestingly, a couple months ago, the priest devoted a substantial portion of the homily to this problem, and then mentioned it again in the final announcements (requesting that people stay until after the recessional). Despite this, there was no noticeable difference compared to other weeks; people just flat-out ignored him. It was wild to hear him make this request in the final announcements, and then watch probably 200-300 people get up and leave as the recessional was starting, not more than 60 seconds later.

Another strange thing is that there seems to be no protocol whatsoever for going up for communion. As soon as the priest and other ministers are in place, there is a mad dash to the front. Every other church I’ve attended followed the rule that you don’t get up from the kneeler until the people in the pew in front of you have. But here, I can’t even get out of the pew because the aisle is crammed with people who were sitting behind me. Maybe they’re just really excited to receive the Eucharist. That’s what I have to keep telling myself.