Non-Catholic Exclusion of the Eucharist

[Padres1969]

Wow! The day I would be refused to receive Christ for not holding my hands properly would be the last time the priest would see me. And I’ve seen head bows on EWTN. But like Padres, I’ve been to countless Masses, in many different parishes and a few different states, and bowing I haven’t seen as required. “Amen” yes that is common.

I looked into it a bit more and I guess bowing in the OF of the Roman Rite was added to the mass last fall (2015)? Along with not returning to your pew to pray after receiving, embracing rather than shaking hands during the peace, and holding your hands up during the our father?

In my admittedly limited experience to Catholic mass since these changes were brought about (don’t know the exact date they were made), acceptance has not been universal at all. I mean heck, acceptance of the last set of changes made to the mass in 2011 has not been universal. I still here “and also with you” at Catholic masses among other things. It would seem an odd thing to deny the Body of Christ to a Catholic who is either unfamiliar with the bowing addition or simply hasn’t memorized it into their long remembered motions during the mass.

It hardly seems a proper identifier of who is and isn’t Catholic (never mind worthy to receive).

 

[rcwitness]

I looked into it a bit more and I guess bowing in the OF of the Roman Rite was added to the mass last fall (2015)? Along with not returning to your pew to pray after receiving, embracing rather than shaking hands during the peace, and holding your hands up during the our father?

In my admittedly limited experience to Catholic mass since these changes were brought about (don’t know the exact date they were made), acceptance has not been universal at all. I mean heck, acceptance of the last set of changes made to the mass in 2011 has not been universal. I still here “and also with you” at Catholic masses among other things. It would seem an odd thing to deny the Body of Christ to a Catholic who is either unfamiliar with the bowing addition or simply hasn’t memorized it into their long remembered motions during the mass.

It hardly seems a proper identifier of who is and isn’t Catholic (never mind worthy to receive).

I agree. A priest may be out of line for doing such. Abusing his position, that is

 

[Sy_Noe]

I looked into it a bit more and I guess bowing in the OF of the Roman Rite was added to the mass last fall (2015)? Along with not returning to your pew to pray after receiving, embracing rather than shaking hands during the peace, and holding your hands up during the our father?

In my admittedly limited experience to Catholic mass since these changes were brought about (don’t know the exact date they were made), acceptance has not been universal at all. I mean heck, acceptance of the last set of changes made to the mass in 2011 has not been universal. I still here “and also with you” at Catholic masses among other things. It would seem an odd thing to deny the Body of Christ to a Catholic who is either unfamiliar with the bowing addition or simply hasn’t memorized it into their long remembered motions during the mass.

It hardly seems a proper identifier of who is and isn’t Catholic (never mind worthy to receive).

Padres, thank you so very much for this. I do have experience since the 2011 changes which I confess were not an easy transition for me. I was guilty of wrongly saying “also with you” probably longer than most. It just flowed better off my tongue But it appears you have more experience with the Roman Catholic Mass, however limited, than admittedly I do since last fall. I had no idea these additional changes were made.

I have been guilty yrs ago of not always returning to my seat or pew after Communion. Though I was never alone as the parishes I most often frequented were large ones with another Mass in some cases within 30 minutes with limited parking. And cars would be arriving at the same time others were exiting. But mostly I have returned to the pew and not left until the priest pronounced the Mass ended. Although I’ve also seen, I think, where the priest is to be the last to enter and the first to receive. I could be mistaken on that though. That was rarely if ever the case of any Masses I’ve been to though. I remember even a priest who stayed after, calling the little children forward and allowing them to pick a flower to give to their mothers on Mother’s Day. Most did not wait for him to depart. Maybe only the parents of the little ones.

But what happens now if someone does not return to the pew after receiving?

And I am understanding you correctly that shaking hands is no longer allowed? Or is it embracing that is not?

No holding hands upward during the Lord’s Prayer? Or are worshipers supposed to hold their hands upward?

Thanks again for the insight. If I were to attend a Roman Rite Mass again either this weekend or at another future date, I wouldn’t want to embarrass myself extending a hand if I was supposed to embrace or visa versa, etc.

 

[rcwitness]

But what happens now if someone does not return to the pew after receiving?

This is not a good habit. Our Pastor has repeatedly “asked” our members not to do so. If it came to his attention that someone is regularly doing so, I’m sure he would speak privately with them about it. If they continued after that? I’m not sure what his actions would be, and if witholding Communion from them is ililicit according to Canon Law. IMO, I think it probably deserves witholding.

And I am understanding you correctly that shaking hands is no longer allowed? Or is it embracing that is not?

I haven’t heard these new changes either (I was in Brasil for that year, and maybe didn’t understand the announcment), but I’m sure it would be: no embracing, we are to shake hands and offer peace to one another.

No holding hands upward during the Lord’s Prayer? Or are worshipers supposed to hold their hands upward?

Again, I haven’t heard, but last night we held hands at Holy Thursday Mass.

Thanks again for the insight. If I were to attend a Roman Rite Mass again either this weekend or at another future date, I wouldn’t want to embarrass myself extending a hand if I was supposed to embrace or visa versa, etc.

Please don’t feel that way! The purpose of some of these customs is to worship as one body, and respect the liturgy. I think leaving Mass directly after Communion is more that a simple lack of conformity in minor customs. It is leaving before Mass is finished. Not cool.

But the more important thing, is that we should not be neglecting to come to Mass, especially for long periods of time. When we do attend regularly, everything else comes. When we miss Mass because of sinfullness (laziness, shame, indifference) we are to confess.

mewaw’s Pastor seemed very over aggressive to me. I don’t feel this is how Priests are instructed by the diocese. Whether he is in the right, according to canon law, I do not know. It is my understanding that it is an abuse, especially if he has not pulled these people aside to ask if they are Catholic or not.

 

[Memaw]

I think a head bow is common. But mainly saying “Amen” is most appropriate.

Either way, it certainly doesn’t suggest a person is in a state of grave sin. It may be “telling” to the pastor that the individual is not Catholic. I remember approaching Communion before becoming Catholic. I said, “Thank you.” He looked at me funny, and I just kept it, without eating. Later I gave it to a 3 yr old (daughter of a friend), and she put it on the ground. It is actually appropriate to put it to the ground.

Live and learn, grow in peace.

This is exactly why the Catholic Church tries to be very careful about who receives the Sacred Host. Even one abuse of the Sacred Host is one to many. I’m sure our Pastor had good reason to give a Blessing in place of a Host. It would have been better if you had consumed the Hose instead of giving it to a child. Who knows what happened to Our Lord then! I hate to even imagine. Why did you take HIM in the First place??? One has to be a Faithful Catholic in order to fully understand the Catholic Church’s belief in the Holy Eucharist. Sad to say to many Catholics do not even understand it. It is our responsibility to "know, Love, and Respect our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. There are sooo many ways to learn. It’s never to late to start. I would start by spending time with Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. God Bless, Memaw

 

[TC3033]

It has to do with wanting what is acceptable norms for you to be forced into a Catholic context, where your norms aren’t universal and do not apply. Open Communion is a phenomenon of multiple denominations, the Catholic Church existed before denominationalism and has rules that those not actually in communion with his bishop (due to excommunication, sin, heresy or refusal to accept his leadership) have no right to Communion. Has anything changed? Are non Catholics in Communion with the local Catholic bishop? If not, why pretend for that moment that you are?

Who here tried even once to force anything on the Catholic Church? We have one person (the boyfriend in the OP) that thought they should get communion in the Catholic Church because they were Christian. That most likely has a lot to do with their upbringing, lack of understanding, and probably a lack of preparedness on the OP.

If there was another reply or poster in the last 25 pages that brought up forcing our norms on the Catholic Church rather than trying to explain to the OP what open communion is and where the boyfriend may be coming from to help her out, I’m all ears and we can address from there because I must have missed it.

Your last line, the bolded, has been explained throughout the thread probably a dozen times. Cliff’s…they didn’t grow up in Catholicism and most likely thing all Christians are in Communion with each other. They (OP’s boyfriend in this case) didn’t know/understand the division.

 

[rcwitness]

This is exactly why the Catholic Church tries to be very careful about who receives the Sacred Host. Even one abuse of the Sacred Host is one to many.

Ok. There is a valid reason (when a person approaches to receive, but doesn’t practice the common customs) for a priest to inquire/ask if they are indeed Catholic. I agree with that. But refusing Communion because of a lack of conformity to these customs is probably not what a priest is instructed to do.

I’m sure our Pastor had good reason to give a Blessing in place of a Host.

Yes. Hopefully he confirmed with the person that the reason for denying them Communion was because they were not Catholic, or another valid reason.

It would have been better if you had consumed the Hose instead of giving it to a child. Who knows what happened to Our Lord then! I hate to even imagine. Why did you take HIM in the First place???

Do you understand that this was before I became Catholic? Before I went through RCIA. I was raised Evangelical Free. I knew almost nothing about the Catholic faith, except the things that particular community had in common with the Catholic faith. Communion was not open to children. We would leave the service altogether. And Communion is down played greatly, as compared to the ancient churches.

One has to be a Faithful Catholic in order to fully understand the Catholic Church’s belief in the Holy Eucharist. Sad to say to many Catholics do not even understand it. It is our responsibility to "know, Love, and Respect our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. There are sooo many ways to learn. It’s never to late to start. I would start by spending time with Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. God Bless, Memaw

There you go again, beating a dead horse. I am a practicing Catholic now. You don’t need to overreact. The story of me taking the host, but later offering it to my friend’s daughter was long before I was explained the Catholic faith. YET, I knew at the time that the Lord was compelling me to respect and not eat. Later, after becoming Catholic I shared the story, and was told that it was actually good that the Eucharist was put into the ground. So all was well in the end! Amen.

You seem to be suggesting that Jesus was suffering because of this event. I don’t believe so at all. We respect and honor His Eucharist for our own sake and those in the body. What happens to Him during times when we are ignorant and unaware, yet do what He is prompting us out of a genuine respect, is certainly not hurting and offending Him! He was leading me into a deeper understanding still. It is the greater things in our lives that really have more weight. Like the things I was doing in my life: sexual activity outside of marriage, drug use, drinking irresponsibly, using profanity, neglecting the Lord’s Day worship, etc.

What a Christian does out of ignorance is a time for growth, not condemnation. It’s how the individual is accepting the faith along the way that matters. To the Evangelical, they most certainly can be genuine and living in His grace! The Holy Spirit will lead these into the fullness of the life of the Church. He does not need us to pronounce judgment on what they are not aware of.

 

[Padres1969]

Padres, thank you so very much for this. I do have experience since the 2011 changes which I confess were not an easy transition for me. I was guilty of wrongly saying “also with you” probably longer than most. It just flowed better off my tongue But it appears you have more experience with the Roman Catholic Mass, however limited, than admittedly I do since last fall. I had no idea these additional changes were made.

I have been guilty yrs ago of not always returning to my seat or pew after Communion. Though I was never alone as the parishes I most often frequented were large ones with another Mass in some cases within 30 minutes with limited parking. And cars would be arriving at the same time others were exiting. But mostly I have returned to the pew and not left until the priest pronounced the Mass ended. Although I’ve also seen, I think, where the priest is to be the last to enter and the first to receive. I could be mistaken on that though. That was rarely if ever the case of any Masses I’ve been to though. I remember even a priest who stayed after, calling the little children forward and allowing them to pick a flower to give to their mothers on Mother’s Day. Most did not wait for him to depart. Maybe only the parents of the little ones.

But what happens now if someone does not return to the pew after receiving?

And I am understanding you correctly that shaking hands is no longer allowed? Or is it embracing that is not?

No holding hands upward during the Lord’s Prayer? Or are worshipers supposed to hold their hands upward?

Thanks again for the insight. If I were to attend a Roman Rite Mass again either this weekend or at another future date, I wouldn’t want to embarrass myself extending a hand if I was supposed to embrace or visa versa, etc.

Well my understanding is you do return to your pew now, just not to pray kneeling. Rather you’re supposed to stand and sing until everyone has received communion. That’s one of the changes. As for shaking hands during the peace, apparently embracing is now preferred. Though you’re mileage will probably really vary on this one. I know if someone tried to hug me I’d probably stop them and shake their hand… I’m not a hugger. And it’s hands upward during he Lord’s Prayer now according to what I read.

 

[rcwitness]

Well my understanding is you do return to your pew now, just not to pray kneeling. Rather you’re supposed to stand and sing until everyone has received communion. That’s one of the changes. As for shaking hands during the peace, apparently embracing is now preferred. Though you’re mileage will probably really vary on this one. I know if someone tried to hug me I’d probably stop them and shake their hand… I’m not a hugger. And it’s hands upward during he Lord’s Prayer now according to what I read.

where are you getting this information? Like I said, I was in Brasil for all of 2015, and if it was announced, I didn’t understand the language and my family did not share it with me. Neither did i see the changes. But also, I’ve not seen some of these changes in my parish. At least the “embracing” done and hand shaking phased out.

Are we talking about the Latin Rite?

 

[Padres1969]

where are you getting this information? Like I said, I was in Brasil for all of 2015, and if it was announced, I didn’t understand the language and my family did not share it with me. Neither did i see the changes. But also, I’ve not seen some of these changes in my parish. At least the “embracing” done and hand shaking phased out.

Are we talking about the Latin Rite?

It sounds like we’re talking about the OF of the Latin Rite yes. Here’s one link detailing the changes.

Meemaw’s comment about bowing is what clued me into something being different. Growing up in the RCC there was no bowing involved with receiving the Eucharist. Then again there was no crossing taught to be done afterward either. Crossing did come back into vogue during the late 90’s/early 2000’s as I recall. But I still see people who don’t do that as well. I’m still fuzzy on when bowing, communal standing after communion, embracing, etc… were instituted however.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I have noticed that our Pastor at times refuses Communion to anyone who does not hold their hands properly or bow. He lays the Host back down and gives them a Blessing instead. I set right in front so I notice. He also talks quite often about the blessing of frequent Confession. God Bless, Memaw

Memaw, just to clarify, what do you mean by “does not hold their hands properly”? Unless the person reaches for the host, (which may indeed be what you witness) how they hold their hands has to do with whether they are right or lefthanded. And there is no way your priest would know that.

“If one is right handed the left hand should rest upon the right. The host will then be laid in the palm of the left hand and then taken by the right hand to the mouth. If one is left-handed this is reversed. It is not appropriate to reach out with the fingers and take the host from the person distributing.”

usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-eucharist/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm

But even if someone does reach out to Jesus, does that for certain mean they are not Catholic or not in the proper state to receive? Isn’t it possible they simply don’t know they are not to reach out? Is that alone grounds to deny someone Jesus?

 

[rcwitness]

It sounds like we’re talking about the OF of the Latin Rite yes. Here’s one link detailing the changes.

Meemaw’s comment about bowing is what clued me into something being different. Growing up in the RCC there was no bowing involved with receiving the Eucharist. Then again there was no crossing taught to be done afterward either. Crossing did come back into vogue during the late 90’s/early 2000’s as I recall. But I still see people who don’t do that as well. I’m still fuzzy on when bowing, communal standing after communion, embracing, etc… were instituted however.

Thanks. It sounds like these were practices being implimented in certain parishes, to see how they are received and if they have positive results.

It is an article from the media, suggesting these changes may be coming.

I don’t think the Church has demanded these changes, 3specially universally. Maybe it will happen, maybe not, right?

No one should be refused Communion for not being familiar with these, or even still practicing the former things.

 

[Padres1969]

Thanks. It sounds like these were practices being implimented in certain parishes, to see how they are received and if they have positive results.

It is an article from the media, suggesting these changes may be coming.

I don’t think the Church has demanded these changes, 3specially universally. Maybe it will happen, maybe not, right?

No one should be refused Communion for not being familiar with these, or even still practicing the former things.

You may be right that it’s a limited trial run in certain parishes or diocese. I’ve been reading further and I saw a mention of a similar change (the bowing as you approach for communion) being done back in 2002 in a particular diocese. And mention of it in 2010 from candidates for RCIA here on CA. Maybe changes like that and the others are being done on a trial basis in different places to see how they’re received?

I mean they’re comparatively small changes compared to the larger reworking of the mass instituted in 2011. But I agree that I can’t fathom why a priest would deny a good Catholic the Eucharist for failing to adhere perfectly to a change that appears to not even be universally mandated never mind practiced. I mean I understand the RCC’s position on closed communion, but that seems a tad excessive.

 

[rcwitness]

You may be right that it’s a limited trial run in certain parishes or diocese. I’ve been reading further and I saw a mention of a similar change (the bowing as you approach for communion) being done back in 2002 in a particular diocese. And mention of it in 2010 from candidates for RCIA here on CA. Maybe changes like that and the others are being done on a trial basis in different places to see how they’re received?

I mean they’re comparatively small changes compared to the larger reworking of the mass instituted in 2011. But I agree that I can’t fathom why a priest would deny a good Catholic the Eucharist for failing to adhere perfectly to a change that appears to not even be universally mandated never mind practiced. I mean I understand the RCC’s position on closed communion, but that seems a tad excessive.

Yes. And even when it is universally implimented, there is a period of adustment. People have habits. The only thing mentioned that seems like a serious disrespect, was leaving Mass directly after taking Communion. And even then, the individual should be instructed of the problem.

We can be too attached to customs on both sides. It’s wrong for the parishioner to have an attitude about a change, and wrong for the leadership to make it a source of denying Communion.

 

[Padres1969]

Yes. And even when it is universally implimented, there is a period of adustment. People have habits. The only thing mentioned that seems like a serious disrespect, was leaving Mass directly after taking Communion. And even then, the individual should be instructed of the problem.

We can be too attached to customs on both sides. It’s wrong for the parishioner to have an attitude about a change, and wrong for the leadership to make it a source of denying Communion.

Yeah on the issue of too attached to customs, if I were still Catholic I don’t know if I’d ever adjusted to not saying “and with our spirit”. I know when I go to Catholic mass I still hear “and also with you” from at least one person every time without fail.

Heck as an Episcopalian I run into the same problem on the rare occasions I’m at a Rite I service, which uses the older “and with thy spirit” similar to the new Catholic translation, rather than my standard Episcopal Rite II which utilizes “and also with you.” They’re talking about possibly updating the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer starting in 2018. If they were to change it I’d be in trouble…

So bigger changes like communion posture and things like that can be hard to expect change from everyone on. I mean there was a time I could recite pretty much an entire OF Catholic mass from memory (both the priest’s and congregation’s parts). But that was the OF circa 1995, not the current OF.

 

[MT1926]

Thanks. It sounds like these were practices being implimented in certain parishes, to see how they are received and if they have positive results.

It is an article from the media, suggesting these changes may be coming.

I don’t think the Church has demanded these changes, 3specially universally. Maybe it will happen, maybe not, right?

No one should be refused Communion for not being familiar with these, or even still practicing the former things.

From what I understand changes like these are considered and implemented on the diocesan level by the Bishop. So some things aren’t “world wide” and seen in all parishes.

In our Parish we do hold hands for the Our Father, but it is not required. You are allowed to raise your hands also, but not required either. We do bow when going up for communion out of respect for our Lord. However, Father does not skip anyone that can’t or won’t. I always do the sign of the cross after communion but I understand that is also my personal choice.

I have even been to a Parish on vacation that only has communion by intinction. I actually preferred communion this way, wish our parish did it, but I was told only the Priest is allowed to do this and our Parish is way to large not to use Eucharistic ministers.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yeah on the issue of too attached to customs, if I were still Catholic I don’t know if I’d ever adjusted to not saying “and with our spirit”. I know when I go to Catholic mass I still hear “and also with you” from at least one person every time without fail.

Heck as an Episcopalian I run into the same problem on the rare occasions I’m at a Rite I service, which uses the older “and with thy spirit” similar to the new Catholic translation, rather than my standard Episcopal Rite II which utilizes “and also with you.” They’re talking about possibly updating the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer starting in 2018. If they were to change it I’d be in trouble…

So bigger changes like communion posture and things like that can be hard to expect change from everyone on. I mean there was a time I could recite pretty much an entire OF Catholic mass from memory (both the priest’s and congregation’s parts). But that was the OF circa 1995, not the current OF.

Padres, it appears you are not alone if you preferred the previous Roman translation. I did as well and then there is this poll.

huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/roman-missal-mass-survey_n_5114138.html

Just out of curiosity since you mentioned it, if the BCP is updated, how do you know the Rite II usage will not be the one retained?

 

[Sy_Noe]

From what I understand changes like these are considered and implemented on the diocesan level by the Bishop. So some things aren’t “world wide” and seen in all parishes.

In our Parish we do hold hands for the Our Father, but it is not required. You are allowed to raise your hands also, but not required either. We do bow when going up for communion out of respect for our Lord. However, Father does not skip anyone that can’t or won’t. I always do the sign of the cross after communion but I understand that is also my personal choice.

I have even been to a Parish on vacation that only has communion by intinction. I actually preferred communion this way, wish our parish did it, but I was told only the Priest is allowed to do this and our Parish is way to large not to use Eucharistic ministers.

I know the Catholic Church claims a Catholic can go anywhere in the world and be in familiar territory at a Mass. But what if someone on vacation attended your parish and was not accustomed to bowing? Memaw noted their pastor has refused Communion to anyone who does not hold their hands properly or does not bow. Would yours do the same to one who stopped by to fulfill their Mass obligation along their travels? Say a Ravens, Bengals or Browns fan perhaps

Edit: Well not a Browns fan. I just read the article Padres provided and it seems in the Cleveland diocese they now bow. So someone from there visiting your parish would already be doing this.

 

[Padres1969]

Padres, it appears you are not alone if you preferred the previous Roman translation. I did as well and then there is this poll.

huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/roman-missal-mass-survey_n_5114138.html

Just out of curiosity since you mentioned it, if the BCP is updated, how do you know the Rite II usage will not be the one retained?

I don’t. In fact I’d be surprised if the current Rite I and Rite II weren’t maintained as is or very close to it. As I understand it suggested proposals for change (remember we’re still VERY early in the process), would be more to do with the so called Rite III. Still not convinced the '79 BCP needs updating, but if it does get updated, I hope they don’t touch Rite I or II. I personally love them they way they are.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I don’t. In fact I’d be surprised if the current Rite I and Rite II weren’t maintained as is or very close to it. As I understand it suggested proposals for change (remember we’re still VERY early in the process), would be more to do with the so called Rite III. Still not convinced the '79 BCP needs updating, but if it does get updated, I hope they don’t touch Rite I or II. I personally love them they way they are.

Understood! Btw a holy Good Friday and a most Happy Easter with brightest blessings to you and yours! And to all believers who are here on CAF.