No need for consecrated wine?

[YoungTradCath]

And even then, if he really is in a hurry, he could just bring back the communion rail. That is a lot more time efficent than communion lines.

Yep! But we’re too “modern” for that now.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

No, the reason the Utraquist heresy didn’t happen was that it came about after the seperation by the East.

The Chaldean Church, which allows for the reception of both species, but it remained uncommon, never had the Utraquist heresy.

BTW, the East does occasionaly offer the Eucharist in a single species. The Liturgy of the Presanctifed Gifts has the Eucharist in the form of bread alone, though it is served intincted in unconsecrated wine.

Not all of the East seperated. So that aurgment doesn’t seem to hold water.

The Chaledean Rite did allow common under both species. The Roman Rite totally forbade for the people opening the Roman Rite opening up the Church to the Utraquist heresy.

The Liturgy of the Presantified Gifts is only held occassionally. I believe much like our Good Friday Service.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Liturgy of the Presantified Gifts is only held occassionally. I believe much like our Good Friday Service.

Its more common than that. It can be held on any non-Sunday of Lent. We do it Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Its more common than that. It can be held on any non-Sunday of Lent. We do it Wednesdays and Fridays of Lent.

Thank you for the clarification. I often wondered about it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Thank you for the clarification. I often wondered about it.

The reason being is the Divine Liturgy is a joyous celebration of Christ’s triumph over death. Lent is supposed to be a time of deep reflection and repentance for our sins, so should be a somber atmosphere. It was decided way back that it wasn’t appropriate to incorporate the joys of the Divine Liturgy with the sorrows of repentance. So the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts was instituted. Communion was given to sustain us during the time of Great Fast. We need the spiritual strength of Christ to complete all 40 days of Fasting.

 

[Dymphna82]

In the Diocese of New York and the Diocese of Brooklynm, we have had Holy Communion in the one form alone for several years now, and no one has made a big thing about it.
It seems to me that Catholics in New York City and the surrounding States are far more obedient to and accepting of their Bishops than what I often read on this site.

That is untrue. I’ve been to St. Francis of Assisi, St. Columba and St. Thomas Aquinas. All of them offer the blood.

And I do make a big thing of it. Returning to the church, I really appreciate the blood. I would rather be in keeping with the story of the Last Supper.

 

[Dymphna82]

Yes, we just like to think we can do what we want here, I suppose.

Haha, you make it sound like we have no reverence at all. I would expect this kind of response if the priests were handing out the blood in paper cups and having everyone stand by the altar.

Although, that might not be such a bad idea with all the changes.

 

[Dymphna82]

I know. It seems the need for them was invented almost. First they throw out the altar rails to make communion take longer, then complain that it takes too long. It really makes no sense.

We’re the microwave generation. Faster we go, the more complaints there are that we’re too slow. I would love it if mass was 2 hours long.

 

[TheMc]

We’re the microwave generation. Faster we go, the more complaints there are that we’re too slow. I would love it if mass was 2 hours long.

Yes, but the point is, if you have the priest use the altar rail, it would be faster. Yet no one is jumping for that idea.

 

[Dymphna82]

I’ve never experienced the rail, so I have no opinion in those regards.

Loving the sunglasses, btw.

 

[TheMc]

I’ve never experienced the rail, so I have no opinion in those regards.

Yep, it’s quite faster.

Loving the sunglasses, btw.

Thanks

 

[Thomas_Redd]

And even then, if he really is in a hurry, he could just bring back the communion rail. That is a lot more time efficent than communion lines.

It would only be quicker if the Church returned to the very irreverant way communion was passed out before the Second Vatican Council. I remember many a times as an altar boy, not being able to keep up with the priest as he zipped along throwing the hosts into the people’s mouths. By the time I got the patton under someone chin, the priest was one to the next person.

What is taking a lot of time now is the big show some people are making as a sign of reverance before receiving communion. Some people are even genuflecting and kneeling. I know several times I have tripped over people. God Bless them. They don’t realize that the big show is actually very irreverent.

I think that the way communion is handled now is fine. I really like receiving communion in my hands. I find it very sacred to take the bread and the wine like what the Apostles experienced at the last supper. It doesn’t seem to take to long. It is after all the climax of the mass.

 

[ProVobis]

It would only be quicker if the Church returned to the very irreverant way communion was passed out before the Second Vatican Council. I remember many a times as an altar boy, not being able to keep up with the priest as he zipped along throwing the hosts into the people’s mouths. By the time I got the patton under someone chin, the priest was one to the next person.

I think you’re exaggerating a bit. Either that or overselling a point because I never had this problem nor even heard about it from others. For one thing, very few in the congregation even received, probably due to a three-hour fast and most felt they needed to go to confession before every time they received. It would be quicker if we returned to those standards but I wouldn’t call it irreverent if we did.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

I think you’re exaggerating a bit. Either that or overselling a point because I never had this problem nor even heard about it from others. For one thing, very few in the congregation even received, probably due to a three-hour fast and most felt they needed to go to confession before every time they received. It would be quicker if we returned to those standards but I wouldn’t call it irreverent if we did.

Absolutely no exaggerating here. We had a priest who zipped through mass in 12 minutes flat. The Second Vatican Council made such a huge and positive difference in the reverence at mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Absolutely no exaggerating here. We had a priest who zipped through mass in 12 minutes flat. The Second Vatican Council made such a huge and positive difference in the reverence at mass.

Maybe in your limited perspective and experience.

 

[Thomas_Redd]

Maybe in your limited perspective and experience.

My perspective is not limited. I would submit perhaps yours is. I lived through the days before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I have seen how the many added on medevel customs hurt our Church. I have seen how wonderful and welcomed the reforms were when they happened. They were not forced on the people. 99% of the people were thrilled with them. There were only a very tiny minority that complained. I have gone to tridentine masses and been disheartened to see how in many ways they were disrespectful. The masses I went to were basically a “holy than thou” shows. I have a graduate degree in anthropology with an emphasis on comparative religions. So I have a different perspective and somewhat wider than most people.

 

[YoungTradCath]

My perspective is not limited. I would submit perhaps yours is. I lived through the days before the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. I have seen how the many added on medevel customs hurt our Church. I have seen how wonderful and welcomed the reforms were when they happened. They were not forced on the people. 99% of the people were thrilled with them. There were only a very tiny minority that complained. I have gone to tridentine masses and been disheartened to see how in many ways they were disrespectful. The masses I went to were basically a “holy than thou” shows. I have a graduate degree in anthropology with an emphasis on comparative religions. So I have a different perspective and somewhat wider than most people.

Let us judge on the current state of things. Are we really better off now? Not just liturgically, but culturally, as Catholics? Catholic identity is practically dead compared to then, and that’s undeniable.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

 

[Aramis]

Let us judge on the current state of things. Are we really better off now? Not just liturgically, but culturally, as Catholics? Catholic identity is practically dead compared to then, and that’s undeniable.

Lex orandi, lex credendi.

You really seem to lack the experience to make that judgement validly.

There are places where Catholic identity is QUITE strong… most of the US, however, it was dying BEFORE Vatican II. Many left the church during the 1950’s - more than in the 60’s in many places. Many of my older kinfolk fled - V II brought most of them back. (And the relaxation of laicization meant my cousin, Rev. Fr. Tom, could stay Catholic and leave the priesthood.

Culturally, as Catholics, we are, in many places, growing with informed converts, not just children of the faithful. There is a vibrant Catholic Lifestyle - in the world yet not of the world. And a renewal of the Eastern Churches in Union with Rome.

Yes, there IS a priestly vocations crisis in the US - but it predates Vatican II by 10 years or more. Cousin Tom wasn’t asked if he wanted to be a priest. He was sent to minor seminary, then automatically sent to the major seminary, and ordained, without ever being asked if he felt called. He was not comfortable as a priest, and left the priesthood as soon as he could. But until V II, he saw no way to say, “I’m not certain this is right” other than fleeing to protestantism.

We do not need priests who really don’t want to be priests - and especially ones who are not authentically called to the priesthood.

 

[paperwight66]

It would only be quicker if the Church returned to the very irreverant way communion was passed out before the Second Vatican Council. I remember many a times as an altar boy, not being able to keep up with the priest as he zipped along throwing the hosts into the people’s mouths. By the time I got the patton under someone chin, the priest was one to the next person.

That’s how I remember it too, As a communicant ,I had to be very aware of the next gap in the altar rail, and hurriedly kneel down before the priest got to me and yes, shovelled the Host on to my tongue, then leap up with no real chance to make a thanksgiving beyond a quick ‘;thank you, Lord,’ as there would literally be someone breathing down the back of my neck waiting to take their place.
I have to say, I wish some of the posters who weren’t there before Vat.II would just listen when we old-timers triy to convince them what it was really like. Golden Age it wasn’t.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You really seem to lack the experience to make that judgement validly.

There are places where Catholic identity is QUITE strong… most of the US, however, it was dying BEFORE Vatican II. Many left the church during the 1950’s - more than in the 60’s in many places. Many of my older kinfolk fled - V II brought most of them back. (And the relaxation of laicization meant my cousin, Rev. Fr. Tom, could stay Catholic and leave the priesthood.

Culturally, as Catholics, we are, in many places, growing with informed converts, not just children of the faithful. There is a vibrant Catholic Lifestyle - in the world yet not of the world. And a renewal of the Eastern Churches in Union with Rome.

Yes, there IS a priestly vocations crisis in the US - but it predates Vatican II by 10 years or more. Cousin Tom wasn’t asked if he wanted to be a priest. He was sent to minor seminary, then automatically sent to the major seminary, and ordained, without ever being asked if he felt called. He was not comfortable as a priest, and left the priesthood as soon as he could. But until V II, he saw no way to say, “I’m not certain this is right” other than fleeing to protestantism.

We do not need priests who really don’t want to be priests - and especially ones who are not authentically called to the priesthood.

I don’t doubt that reforms were needed. However, I also don’t doubt that our identity has been severely damaged in the process of implementation. I’m confident that it can be restored, while being in complete harmony with Vatican II, but it is daunting to think about. I think it’s fair to say that, at least in developed countries, though, that Catholicism is in serious jeopardy.

I think your cousin’s situation is a rather unfortunate one. I think that even if minor seminaries were as common now as they were then, he would have more options after his graduation than just going straight to major seminary. By the way, I find it extremely funny that your cousin’s name is Tom, and went to minor seminary, because my pastor’s name is Tom, and he went to minor seminary, and is still very much a priest.

Also, we have to ask ourselves something about the convert situation. At least in developed countries, it is very true that there are many converts to the Catholic faith, and it is undeniable that they have a zeal which average cradle Catholics do not, generally. However, our Catholic culture, identity, and religion is not perpetuated in this manner. The majority of Catholics are children of Catholics. That’s where we’re losing people. Our convert situation is live and well, albeit much better in some places (Africa). But, we have to focus just as much on keeping Catholics Catholic.

We need to jump on the New Evangelization bandwagon, but not get it confused with evangelical in the Protestant sense of the word. That’s the only fear I have about that.