Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

[Claire_from_DE]

That is not exactly correct. When the particles cannot be indentified as coming from the Eucharist, one has not more responsiblity for the issue.

If a Host cannot be consumed, it is put into water until it disintegrates, and then is poured down a sacrarium (which is a sink that goes directly to the ground). although the Host “dissolves”, on can still see particles.

Fragments that are visible and clearly of the Host need to be consumed. One does not have a duty to assume that fragments that are indistinguishable from whatever unidentifiable ditritus exists in the same area are part of the Host. As in, look at the air illuminated by a sunbeam, and you will often notice multiple small fragmanets of something floating in the air. The fact that they are floating in the air above the ciborium does not indicate that they are to be treated as fragments of the Host, in spite of the fact that it may be held up at that point.

Well, that isn’t what you originally said. Of course, any white specks you happen to notice in the church building cannot be assumed to come from the host and we have no responsibility to do so. Crumbs that obviously are from the host are to be consumed.

 

[Layman]

But it would make your socks run up and down to attend a Solemn High EF with 6 candlebearers, 2 or three acolytes, a thurifer, a totally unnecessary Master of Ceremonies, a sub deacon, a deacon and priest. So actually, you like a lot of people aup there, and you don’t find it distracting with a lot of people up there.

**Yes, I do like it and nope, I don’t find them distracting. They’re all vested and most of the time, facing away from me. And largely silent.

I also think it’s a lucky church that can rise to such, nowadays. And I know an old MC who would be quite put out to be described as totally unnecessary. Especially given what I hear is the current level of liturgical knowledge of the old rite amongst priests.**
…

You were taught as a child the rules which were in effect at the time. You appear to have been taught that they were rules that really were doctrinal rather than disciplinary; so was I. But at the very bottom of it all, that was not the full truth; it was the rule, but is twas not doctrinal. Holiness has nothing to do with it, and you know that. Homosexual priests who were sexually abusing teenage boys were touching the Host; don’t give me that bit about holiness. I know better.

** I don’t see your point here. Reverence is due the Host. It is holy. I assume COTT, kneeling was introduced as a sign of respect. To help generate the proper awe in those present and to honour Christ. Also a good idea to limit contamination from whatever we might have on our hands, 'though I don’t know what constitutes defilement or sacrilege under the old or new rules.

We are all sinful, to some degree. The priest is consecrated and has the Apostolic Sucession. If he’s a crook and we don’t know, we are not scandalised. If uneducated Catholics see their neighbours handling the Host, they can draw conclusions from that. They’ll never hear about the GIRM.
**

…

The change has nothing whatsoever to do with priests “doing it wrong”. It has to do with the shortage of priests. We have one priest in our parish who says 4 Masses from Saturday evening through Sunday evening and is in his 70’s. The EMHC’s are eminently justified in a parish with 1100 families.

**You have only one priest in your parish? With hundreds at each Mass? That is sad.

If they’d all line up, kneeling, at the altar rail, mouth open in turn, you could whip through them easily, if you were so disposed. Hardly back-breaking work, even for an elderly man.

I see EMHCs used when there’s barely 100 for communion. I’ve even heard of an occasion where a group of concelebrating priests all sat in the sanctuary waiting for the (non existent) EMHC to distribute communion.

The indult has become the norm.
**
…

Our method has not been abandoned. COTT is still the norm of the Church. People are free to receive either way where the indult is practiced; they obviously make the choice.

They can make the choice. However, if they are in a CITH church they may feel self-conscious about doing so. Or even, I have heard, be refused such.

…

But I am tired of the mantra
“not mandated by the Council” as if that had any essential meaning. It may have meaning as to the wisdom of the changes; but the Council did not intend to set specifics - which should be obvous to the untrained reader.

But 'in the spirit of Vatican II" or “contrary to the spirit of Vatican II” is commonly used to justify these changes, isn’t it? ‘Turn about is fair play’, as the saying goes.

…

Having been in a number of dioceses and a number of parishes, I have found the “novelties” to be very minimal if at all. I have been surprised, because of all the vehemence about novelties, at how infrequent they actually are - and I have read the GIRM a number of times so it is not like I have no idea what the rules are. As to language - extremely few spoke Latin prior to Vatican 2; parroting a phrase is not “speaking Latin”. I have attended Mass in Spanish aned Vietnamese, and given the amount of Latin I studied, I could understand (minimally) more of the Spanish. But I always knew exactly where I was in the Mass in both languages.

**My experience is the reverse. I’ve been to a variety of churches/parishes/dioceses in the UK and Ireland. Having stopped going to Mass in the early 80’s and the returning a few years ago, the changes are stark.

On the verncular issue, one Church near me does Masses in Spanish. Having dropped into one, I wasn’t sure what was going on. And I speak a little Spanish.

You know the GIRM. So you know the form of the Mass. I doubt many ordinary Catholics know what the GIRM is. I’m only learning now** what the Collect, Offertory and Secret are. After 13 years in a Catholic school.

…

Who said that the changes to the Mass were because of abuses? They were due to the separation between priest and congregation, which had been growing wider over the centuries. Most particularly in a Low Mass, the congregation was essentially irrelevant to the saying of the Mass.

Well, in a way, they are, aren’t they? The Mass can be said without them.

My comments in bold, above.

 

[otjm]

My comments in bold, above.

Your comments don’t come through, but I ahve a few responses for anyone who wishes to follow.

I was an MC. Your friiend thinks he is necessary? Your friend thinks quite a bit of himself, and it would appear, not much of those at the altar. As well.

So if everyone would just line up at the altar rail, stick their tongues out, and “HE COULD WHIP THROUGH IT”???

You have been playing the “my way is holier than your way” card all along. WHIP THROUGH IT? Is that the way you treat Jesus? Is that your conception of a holy, reverent way to receive Communion? Or are you so out of things to say, so far backed into a corner that this response is the best you could come up with?

WHIP THROUGH IT?

Is that really what you want to say?

I would say that I was appalled; but I think instead we have actually seen your true colors. I am no longer convinced that this is a theological issue with you; I think it is a purely emotional issue. You just use your arguements as a cover for the fact that it is emotions and not much else.

If uneducated neighbors see Catholics receiving in the hand, how are they going to be scandalized - by your words they are uneducated. They would not know the difference. And if they asked why some received on the tongue and others in the hand, the explanation is pretty much what has been given here.

It is only your judgemental opinion that people cannot or do not receive reverently in the hand.

And as to violations of a norm - violations of a norm do not impact the validity of the norm.

 

[Layman]

“Whip through it” is a figure of speech. Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words. How about: “Do it quickly”, if he was so disposed?

My MC friend is not “totally unnecessary”. He isn’t essential, either. I’d say he’s just very handy, 'though, as he knows the rubrics. I assume his role is partly to touch things when the priest cannot, during the rite(?). And I meant “put out” in a humourous way. He’s not actually a prima donna. It’s a funny thought.

As your priest is elderly, and has large congregations, you imply distributing Communion is hard for him, so he needs the EMHCs. Distributing to a single-file queue looks slower to me than to a row kneeling at altar rails.

I didn’t say people would be scandalised by CITH. They can’t be, if that’s only what they know. If uneducated Catholics see people receving in the hand, like in a queue for ordinary food, what conclusions are they going to draw vs. if they were instead to receive kneeling, on the tongue? I contend that this diminishes respect for what’s being offered. The connotations are wrong.

I had a thought as a consequence of our argument: If TLMs become more widespread and more Catholics see how they’re done, how will CITH be justified? I don’t mean according to the indult but as an improvement on the old practice?

 

[I_Believe]

Not everything that the Church does was introduced from Rome. Validity is not determined by the source of the action; it is determined by whether or not Rome allows or permits it (or, as in these circumstances, grants an indult).

About face ? Vatican 2 provided only the directions that there were to be changes made, and outlined a few things they wanted to see (not mandated). It is pretty hard to say that Vatican 2 set anything of a clear direction to the changes let alone mandate specifically what changes they wanted; thus it becomes impossible to say that the direction was an “about face”.

I’m being specific here. I’m talking about changes in the rubrics of the Mass being applied even before Rome knows about it. That’s not the way it works with the Liturgy is it ? The rubrics are “this”, but we want to do “that” instead. Kind of a “let’s skip all the careful consideration by churchmen qualified to determine if these changes in key rubrics of the Highest Prayer of the Church are proper, and just do it”.

Well, an unapproved and profound practice, really a liturgical abuse inserted into the Liturgy by those with no authority to do so without approval, is presented in a very belated manner to Rome for approval. The worlds Bishops voted no when asked. The indult was granted anyway.

I didn’t say VII was an about face. But many feel that there has been to much liberty taken in the reforms. The fruits of these can appear as an about face of what once was.

 

[otjm]

I’m being specific here. I’m talking about changes in the rubrics of the Mass being applied even before Rome knows about it. That’s not the way it works with the Liturgy is it ? The rubrics are “this”, but we want to do “that” instead. Kind of a “let’s skip all the careful consideration by churchmen qualified to determine if these changes in key rubrics of the Highest Prayer of the Church are proper, and just do it”.

Well, an unapproved and profound practice, really a liturgical abuse inserted into the Liturgy by those with no authority to do so without approval, is presented in a very belated manner to Rome for approval. The worlds Bishops voted no when asked. The indult was granted anyway.

I didn’t say VII was an about face. But many feel that there has been to much liberty taken in the reforms. The fruits of these can appear as an about face of what once was.

I would suspect that a whole lot of people in the pews have no idea how we ever got to CITH.

Cor those that do, they are aware that it came from the bottom up.

I have made no suggestion that “from the bottom up” is an approved practice, nor that it should be followed, or encouraged, or applauded.

I have heard that the bishops were polled; by what means I do not know, nor, if the poll was actually taken, how many responded. I have heard that the majority of bishops polled voted against it; I ahve heard that the majority of bishops of the world were against it. For all I know, it is another urban legend. But for the sake of arguement, lets all agree that the majority of bihops who responded were against it.

Then why did Rome approve of it? No one held a gun to Paul 6th’s head. No one (that I know of) threatened a mass exodus if he didn’t grant it.

Rome approved f it. I suspect that any historian of liturgy could find other examples of changes that occured from the bottom up; I hardly would guess that in 2000 years this was unique. Again, I don’t suggest that it was proper; but the very bottom line is, so what? Rome approved it. It is a little bi t like saying “that child’s parents were not married so that child is illegitimate.” So what? the child is alive and a member of society; get over the birth issue; that was then, this is now. It seems that all that is being accomplished is saying that the rule is a b#$%#^d; and that does not make it any less a rule that the Church has implemented.

I am well aware of its history. The question I keep asking is, fine; we all know the history; what is gained by constantly bringing it up, unless somehow bringing up the history will make the rule illegitimate? It doesn’t; it has the same full force and effect that any other indult has.

 

[simple_soul]

I would suspect that a whole lot of people in the pews have no idea how we ever got to CITH.

Cor those that do, they are aware that it came from the bottom up.

I have made no suggestion that “from the bottom up” is an approved practice, nor that it should be followed, or encouraged, or applauded.

I have heard that the bishops were polled; by what means I do not know, nor, if the poll was actually taken, how many responded. I have heard that the majority of bishops polled voted against it; I ahve heard that the majority of bishops of the world were against it. For all I know, it is another urban legend. But for the sake of arguement, lets all agree that the majority of bihops who responded were against it.

Then why did Rome approve of it? No one held a gun to Paul 6th’s head. No one (that I know of) threatened a mass exodus if he didn’t grant it.

Rome approved f it. I suspect that any historian of liturgy could find other examples of changes that occured from the bottom up; I hardly would guess that in 2000 years this was unique. Again, I don’t suggest that it was proper; but the very bottom line is, so what? Rome approved it. It is a little bi t like saying “that child’s parents were not married so that child is illegitimate.” So what? the child is alive and a member of society; get over the birth issue; that was then, this is now. It seems that all that is being accomplished is saying that the rule is a b#$%#^d; and that does not make it any less a rule that the Church has implemented.

I am well aware of its history. The question I keep asking is, fine; we all know the history; what is gained by constantly bringing it up, unless somehow bringing up the history will make the rule illegitimate? It doesn’t; it has the same full force and effect that any other indult has.

Thank you for making this point so well. I do wish people would stop condemning the practice of CITH and try to understand why Paul the 6th allowed it. Does anyone know the facts of why he allowed CITH? If they do please enlighten me. I could use the info.

 

[otjm]

Thank you for making this point so well. I do wish people would stop condemning the practice of CITH and try to understand why Paul the 6th allowed it. Does anyone know the facts of why he allowed CITH? If they do please enlighten me. I could use the info.

It would appear there is nothing in writing from him, which is partially why we have so much conjecture over the issue.

A goodly portion of the rest of it is that people learned one way, which was practiced for centuries, and often (as noted in the thread) they were taught specifically that it was a horrible abuse to touch the Eucharist, and they cannot get past that point. It does not matter to them that in the early Church the rules were different; it has for them become a doctrinal matter as opposed to a disciplinary one.

 

[Frosty]

Thank you for making this point so well. I do wish people would stop condemning the practice of CITH and try to understand why Paul the 6th allowed it. Does anyone know the facts of why he allowed CITH? If they do please enlighten me. I could use the info.

While the following links do not give the “facts” ( or PaulVI’s reaons ) they might be of some help to you.
It’s interesting that according to the second link, permission to use CITH was not granted to the U.S until 1977. Even in my country, Canada, where permission was sought for and received years earlier, in the two dioceses where I lived during the 1970’s, the practice was almost non-existent. It was still a contentious issue with some bishops when JP II made his first visit here in 1984. It has been my experience that priests and EMHC’s never blink an eye when someone wishes to receive on the tongue and kneeling and there are a good many who do just so.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

 

[FAB]

The discussion over to recieve by tounge or in the hand I believe has a great deal to do with how the individual sees Jesus as his savior and the relationship one might have with Him.
My view and relation is one of a very approchable friend. On of which when He was incarnet on earth, the people came and touched him and He them. As such with this view, I am very comfortanble with recieving the Eucharist in the hand with proper reverence.

From reading the entries on this site over the years I also see another view. Of Jesus as God in which the proper way of worship is a certain amount of distance, perhaps less approachable, and a great deal of revernce. Recieving by the tongue maintains that level of reverence.

The discussion perhaps should be less of one of how the Euchaist was given in the past and turn toward one of our personal relationship with Jesus and with that theology.

If we look at the theolgy in light that we are the body of Christ, that we become what we recieve, then being able to accept the eucharist in the hand falls in line with that thought.I would guess that part of the reasoning to allow the practice falls along the line of allowing Jesus to be approachable, to take down barriors of that understanding in the same way altar rails were removed.

I know some have a difficult time with this, but Jesus the son of God came to dwell among us.

Peace,
FAB

 

[simple_soul]

The discussion over to recieve by tounge or in the hand I believe has a great deal to do with how the individual sees Jesus as his savior and the relationship one might have with Him.
My view and relation is one of a very approchable friend. On of which when He was incarnet on earth, the people came and touched him and He them. As such with this view, I am very comfortanble with recieving the Eucharist in the hand with proper reverence.

From reading the entries on this site over the years I also see another view. Of Jesus as God in which the proper way of worship is a certain amount of distance, perhaps less approachable, and a great deal of revernce. Recieving by the tongue maintains that level of reverence.

The discussion perhaps should be less of one of how the Euchaist was given in the past and turn toward one of our personal relationship with Jesus and with that theology.

If we look at the theolgy in light that we are the body of Christ, that we become what we recieve, then being able to accept the eucharist in the hand falls in line with that thought.I would guess that part of the reasoning to allow the practice falls along the line of allowing Jesus to be approachable, to take down barriors of that understanding in the same way altar rails were removed.

I know some have a difficult time with this, but Jesus the son of God came to dwell among us.

Peace,
FAB

thank you for this insite. I was sure there was a possitive reason for CITH but could not put it into words. I think what you have said here is a good start.

 

[simple_soul]

While the following links do not give the “facts” ( or PaulVI’s reaons ) they might be of some help to you.
It’s interesting that according to the second link, permission to use CITH was not granted to the U.S until 1977. Even in my country, Canada, where permission was sought for and received years earlier, in the two dioceses where I lived during the 1970’s, the practice was almost non-existent. It was still a contentious issue with some bishops when JP II made his first visit here in 1984. It has been my experience that priests and EMHC’s never blink an eye when someone wishes to receive on the tongue and kneeling and there are a good many who do just so.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

thank you for these links. They were very helpful.

 

[I_Believe]

I would suspect that a whole lot of people in the pews have no idea how we ever got to CITH.

Cor those that do, they are aware that it came from the bottom up.

I have made no suggestion that “from the bottom up” is an approved practice, nor that it should be followed, or encouraged, or applauded.

I have heard that the bishops were polled; by what means I do not know, nor, if the poll was actually taken, how many responded. I have heard that the majority of bishops polled voted against it; I ahve heard that the majority of bishops of the world were against it. For all I know, it is another urban legend. But for the sake of arguement, lets all agree that the majority of bihops who responded were against it.

Then why did Rome approve of it? No one held a gun to Paul 6th’s head. No one (that I know of) threatened a mass exodus if he didn’t grant it.

Rome approved f it. I suspect that any historian of liturgy could find other examples of changes that occured from the bottom up; I hardly would guess that in 2000 years this was unique. Again, I don’t suggest that it was proper; but the very bottom line is, so what? Rome approved it. It is a little bi t like saying “that child’s parents were not married so that child is illegitimate.” So what? the child is alive and a member of society; get over the birth issue; that was then, this is now. It seems that all that is being accomplished is saying that the rule is a b#$%#^d; and that does not make it any less a rule that the Church has implemented.

I am well aware of its history. The question I keep asking is, fine; we all know the history; what is gained by constantly bringing it up, unless somehow bringing up the history will make the rule illegitimate? It doesn’t; it has the same full force and effect that any other indult has.

One of the things Trent dealt with was the differences in the Liturgy. One village priest did it one way, another may have rubrics in his version the first does not have. The Mass was codified for a reason.

We’ve reverted back to where we were before Trent. Even parish to parish in the same city today, you will see omissions or additions (some liturgical abuses). Each priest tweaks the Mass his way. Usually it’s simply rubrics that is tinkered with.

Once the Gregorian Rite was codified, we didn’t have this issue. We were worshiping in a Catholic manner, in the true sense of the word. Now we can’t say that.

Folks like to say a complete return to the Gregorian Rite per the 1962 missal, is to take a step backwards. Well, now that the dust has settled after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, we see that we have slipped further back, to an earlier time. Before the codified Mass.

This is undeniable. And it’s an about face. We’ve lost the stability and unity we enjoyed under the Tridentine Church’s watchful eye.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/catholic

Can we say the Tridentine Church was truly Catholic in the true sense of the word ?

Can we say that today ? When optional rubrics exist ? When 2 forms of the Liturgy are prayed, sometimes in the same parish ?

I don’t think anyone is damned to Hell for saying whatever the Church allows is fine. But when we come to these forums and see what all the fuss is about, doesn’t it become a no - brainer to see why we should receive in the manner deemed the norm ? Why cling so dearly to a indult for a rubric so liberally introduced ? And one with no superior qualities over the norm, which honors Scripture and expresses humility and adoration in such a deliberate fashion. Compared to the norm, CITH has no saving grace. (not speaking of Divine Grace of course).

 

[Layman]

I’ve been thinking lately about what another poster said in a different thread:

“Would you do a polka at the foot of the Cross of Calvary?” **

The Mass is a re-enactment of that sacrifice, isn’t it? It has elements of the propritiatory sacrifices in the Jewish temple, as well as of the Last Supper, too. If so, then the priest facing the congregation, EMHCs up there, maybe a band too, are incongruous, at best.

Laypeople distributing Communion up there and changing from COTT to CITH make it look more like a convivial get-together. Add a few kids pictures and folksy hymns and that atmosphere is strengthened. Nothing wrong with fellowship, but not, I think, at a solemn sacrificial rite by a consecrated priest, where we invite the Christ The King to draw nearer to us sinners.

Put in the crowd-facing, audience-participation elements and it’s not suprprising to me that people behave casually at Mass; the symbolism is increasingly of a … school auditorium on prizegiving day, or suchlike.

If you want people to take it seriously, especially in these days of bad or no catechesis, you have to clue them in. Learn by doing.

• Restore the divide between the sanctuary and the rest of us; it’s sacred ground, isn’t it? * Only let vested men up there; serious business afoot, here, and it’s exclusive.
• Let those men in turn, as in the TLM, face away from the congregation; you can’t see their figures, street clothes or their faces; less distraction.
• Sing the old hymns in Latin; much less easy for the Devil to bowdlerise in your mind and you are joining in, spiritually, with your forefathers who sang the same ones.

I’m trying to remember the 70’s, to guess how CITH and the like got going. I think there was a sense of liberation, getting rid of stuffy old rules, revolution, sticking one up to authority, more emphasis on conviviality, Charismatic meetings got going and the wider world going mad on sex and drug fixations; dope, contraception and dodgy rock music.

If CITH got going in Holland, I’m not suprised. Anyone ever walked the canals in Amsterdam? ‘A great experiment in social progress’ or ‘Bablyon revisited’ depending on your leanings.

** (There is such a thing as a polka mass, would you believe).

 

[ncjohn]

If you want people to take it seriously, especially in these days of bad or no catechesis, you have to clue them in.

I think this is the one thing that all of us agree on. Beyond that, it all gets into personal preference and one’s belief that one’s own personal preference presents some kind of objective reality. That one’s own preference is the only way–or one right way–of attaining reverence and piety. The history of the Church–along with the great variety of practices across the spectrum of the whole Catholic Church–makes it very, very clear that that just isn’t the case.

You harp constantly on the idea of anyone other than vested clergy being in the sanctuary, as if that has anything whatsoever to do with anyone’s piety or devotion. The Church had no sanctuary in the beginning. In fact it didn’t even have buildings, just someone’s dinner table. Do you really believe that those people, many of whom became saints and martyrs, had any less devotion or piety than those present at an EF Mass today? The sanctuary was an artificial construct that didn’t occur for centuries into the Church. Quite frankly, it was the entire overemphasis on clericalism and separation that brought about the need for reform of the liturgy in Vatican II. The person in the pew as “observer” while the priest did their work for their salvation.

And your disdain for having one of your neighbors distributing communion is nothing short of laughable. It reminds me greatly of the way Jesus was unable to perform miracles in his own town because “is this not Jesus? Don’t we know his mother and father” Of course we couldn’t possibly personally know people who might be holy enough to minister to us!

Having served at many a TLM in the pre-Vatican II days, I witnessed a great many priests “whipping through it” when it came time for communion. In fact they “whipped through it” on a great many other things also, and reverence was the furthest thing from reality in those Masses. On the contrary, I have never encountered an EMHC who was not in awe of what they were doing and did not do so with the greatest respect and reverence. Is it really your belief that a reverent EMHC presents a greater obstacle to reverence than a lackadaisical priest just “whipping through it”?

In the end, what is it you’re REALLY looking for? Increased reverence or destruction of the OF despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Catholics prefer it? Reverence is not in any way confined to the EF despite your personal preference and belief. Nor is it the result of the EF, or the OF for that matter.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion that the things you mention–all legitimately approved disciplines of the Church–are not the best prudential judgment, and perhaps some of them aren’t. But PLEASE get over yourself in the idea that that creates some kind of objective truth and that there aren’t significant numbers of very reverent and devoted people who prefer the OF. Yes, we can improve reverence and catechesis, and that is slowly happening, but it doesn’t require a mandated return to the EF for that to happen. In fact, the EF before Vatican II had just as many oblivious people as any Mass you will find now. Maybe even more since there were no demands put on them to be in the least aware of what was going on.

I don’t begrudge anyone their preference for the EF and am glad it is becoming ever more available for those who want it. But, how about if we just work together to help bring people to a greater understanding so that the reverence will occur in both forms? If we do that the true abuses will be greatly reduced or eliminated on their own. Of course that assumes that your real desire isn’t just that everyone do things your way.

Peace,

 

[simple_soul]

I think this is the one thing that all of us agree on. Beyond that, it all gets into personal preference and one’s belief that one’s own personal preference presents some kind of objective reality. That one’s own preference is the only way–or one right way–of attaining reverence and piety. The history of the Church–along with the great variety of practices across the spectrum of the whole Catholic Church–makes it very, very clear that that just isn’t the case.

You harp constantly on the idea of anyone other than vested clergy being in the sanctuary, as if that has anything whatsoever to do with anyone’s piety or devotion. The Church had no sanctuary in the beginning. In fact it didn’t even have buildings, just someone’s dinner table. Do you really believe that those people, many of whom became saints and martyrs, had any less devotion or piety than those present at an EF Mass today? The sanctuary was an artificial construct that didn’t occur for centuries into the Church. Quite frankly, it was the entire overemphasis on clericalism and separation that brought about the need for reform of the liturgy in Vatican II. The person in the pew as “observer” while the priest did their work for their salvation.

And your disdain for having one of your neighbors distributing communion is nothing short of laughable. It reminds me greatly of the way Jesus was unable to perform miracles in his own town because “is this not Jesus? Don’t we know his mother and father” Of course we couldn’t possibly personally know people who might be holy enough to minister to us!

Having served at many a TLM in the pre-Vatican II days, I witnessed a great many priests “whipping through it” when it came time for communion. In fact they “whipped through it” on a great many other things also, and reverence was the furthest thing from reality in those Masses. On the contrary, I have never encountered an EMHC who was not in awe of what they were doing and did not do so with the greatest respect and reverence. Is it really your belief that a reverent EMHC presents a greater obstacle to reverence than a lackadaisical priest just “whipping through it”?

In the end, what is it you’re REALLY looking for? Increased reverence or destruction of the OF despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Catholics prefer it? Reverence is not in any way confined to the EF despite your personal preference and belief. Nor is it the result of the EF, or the OF for that matter.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion that the things you mention–all legitimately approved disciplines of the Church–are not the best prudential judgment, and perhaps some of them aren’t. But PLEASE get over yourself in the idea that that creates some kind of objective truth and that there aren’t significant numbers of very reverent and devoted people who prefer the OF. Yes, we can improve reverence and catechesis, and that is slowly happening, but it doesn’t require a mandated return to the EF for that to happen. In fact, the EF before Vatican II had just as many oblivious people as any Mass you will find now. Maybe even more since there were no demands put on them to be in the least aware of what was going on.

I don’t begrudge anyone their preference for the EF and am glad it is becoming ever more available for those who want it. But, how about if we just work together to help bring people to a greater understanding so that the reverence will occur in both forms? If we do that the true abuses will be greatly reduced or eliminated on their own. Of course that assumes that your real desire isn’t just that everyone do things your way.

Peace,

Thank you John for putting into words what my quick temper does not let me.

Peace be with you also.

 

[otjm]

One of the things Trent dealt with was the differences in the Liturgy. One village priest did it one way, another may have rubrics in his version the first does not have. The Mass was codified for a reason.

I would suspect there may have been serveral reasons, at least; not just one. However, many people make the assumption that once it was codified, it was to remain that way forever. We can both agree that the changes which resulted in the OF were far more than anticipated by Vatican 2, and that they were not organically made. But the bishops of the world - Lefabvre included - intended to make changes to that codified Mass.

We’ve reverted back to where we were before Trent. Even parish to parish in the same city today, you will see omissions or additions (some liturgical abuses). Each priest tweaks the Mass his way. Usually it’s simply rubrics that is tinkered with.

Whether you like the minor differences which are allowed, Rome has seen fit to provide alternatives at certain points. That does not necessarily put us back in the position we were in prior to Trent. As to changes made outside the GIRM and the Missal, I have no truck with that at all; and the source of that is not either the GIRM nor the Missal; it is a combination of, in come circumstances, extremely poor training of the priest (those ordained post Vatican 2) and an issue of disobedience for those trained before.

Once the Gregorian Rite was codified, we didn’t have this issue. We were worshiping in a Catholic manner, in the true sense of the word. Now we can’t say that.

1. Catholic means universal, not identical; and 2) that is a slap at the other 20+ rites of the Eastern Church, as well as the rites continuing since Trent in the latin or Western Church.

Folks like to say a complete return to the Gregorian Rite per the 1962 missal, is to take a step backwards. Well, now that the dust has settled after the introduction of the Novus Ordo Missae, we see that we have slipped further back, to an earlier time. Before the codified Mass.

Just as an observer, and reading much of what has been said at a level somewhat higher than these boards - that is, from Rome - I would suspect over time that we might end up with one form of the rite that will look, in some sapects like the EF, and in some aspects like the OF. I would not expect it in my lifetime (20 to 30 years if I am lucky and God willing).

Maybe you are wandering around out there; but the Church I see has unity - which does not mean that it is identical. You obviously have had little or no experience with the Eastern rites; I have only had the privilege of attending a Maronite rite and Byzantine (Ruthinian, I believe) rite. One only has to experience those to understand that unity does not mean identical, and it never has in 2000 years.

Can we say the Tridentine Church was truly Catholic in the true sense of the word ?

It was not the definition of Catholic, but it was truly Catholic. The definition was wider, which is what you fail to understand. I can understand how you would think that the Catholic Church is defined by the Roman rite; most Roman Catholics and a tremendous number of non-Catholics think the same thing; and that was pretty much the result of what I was taught until I entered seminary. In 1964 I found out that what I had been taught, with its attending assumptions that it was pretty much the sum of it all, was nowhere near the sum of it all. It was quote an eye-opening experience.

Did the good nuns in grade school, and the good priests in high school lie to me? No. But there was a tremendous amount they never even mentioned, and I was left with the impression that what I saw was what it was.

Can we say that today ? When optional rubrics exist ? When 2 forms of the Liturgy are prayed, sometimes in the same parish ?

We can say that we are truly members of the universal Church, and that our presumption that there was only one format with no options was a matter of gross misunderstanding of what the word Catholic meant - that we were under the presumption that Ctholic meant “identical in all aspects”.

No, I would say it is a no brainer that not every last thing is absolutely identical, and that we are beggining to see more of the riches of the Church of 2000 years (not 2000 years ago, but of all the 2000 years). And before you fire a salvo back about the OF not contributing anything, one of the best contributions, one wanted by the bishops of Vatican 2 and that we actually got was increased readings of Scripture.

Why cling so dearly to a indult for a rubric so liberally introduced ? And one with no superior qualities over the norm, which honors Scripture and expresses humility and adoration in such a deliberate fashion. Compared to the norm, CITH has no saving grace. (not speaking of Divine Grace of course).

Well, that is your personal opinion. Interestingly, there are a number of people far more trained in theology than you and I combined who see it differently. Perhaps the reverse is also worth asking - why cling to a norm when an indult is so available, and so many people receive reverently using it? And why do you presume that one is superior to the other?

As I have said ad nauseum, in my parish the great majority receives in the hand and no one is even blinked at if they prefer on the tongue; we also have an active RCIA program, an active Catholics Returning Home program, have built the first grade school in 40 years,
continue to have an active social program for the poor (which a number of people felt would die if we built the school - interestingly people truly are generous and will step up when asked) and have had 24 Hour Perpetual Adoration for the last approximately 15 years. Oh, did I say most people recieve in the hand? Did I mention that?

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Layman]

The Church had no sanctuary in the beginning. In fact it didn’t even have buildings, just someone’s dinner table. Do you really believe that those people, many of whom became saints and martyrs, had any less devotion or piety than those present at an EF Mass today? The sanctuary was an artificial construct that didn’t occur for centuries into the Church. Quite frankly, it was the entire overemphasis on clericalism and separation that brought about the need for reform of the liturgy in Vatican II. The person in the pew as “observer” while the priest did their work for their salvation.

…

And your disdain for having one of your neighbors distributing communion is nothing short of laughable. It reminds me greatly of the way Jesus was unable to perform miracles in his own town because “is this not Jesus? Don’t we know his mother and father” Of course we couldn’t possibly personally know people who might be holy enough to minister to us!

…

Having served at many a TLM in the pre-Vatican II days, I witnessed a great many priests “whipping through it” when it came time for communion. In fact they “whipped through it” on a great many other things also, and reverence was the furthest thing from reality in those Masses. On the contrary, I have never encountered an EMHC who was not in awe of what they were doing and did not do so with the greatest respect and reverence. Is it really your belief that a reverent EMHC presents a greater obstacle to reverence than a lackadaisical priest just “whipping through it”?

…

In the end, what is it you’re REALLY looking for? Increased reverence or destruction of the OF despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Catholics prefer it? Reverence is not in any way confined to the EF despite your personal preference and belief. Nor is it the result of the EF, or the OF for that matter.

Sure, things were different a thousand years ago. That’s no excuse for dumping what we had up to 40 years ago. Or shoe-horning in something trendy seen on holiday. I think the Pope or some other church notable called it a “return to a liturgical year zero”. It’s a mistake.

You get this idea in cheap ‘New Age’ paperbacks: ‘What’s ancient is automatically to be preferred, and the further back the better’. I think there’s an element of puritanism and iconoclasm in it, too:

I want priests who will say the Mass well and I want the novelties gone. The two are not incompatible. Priests doing the TLM does not mean we’ll be back to fast Masses everywhere. I think many nowadays would be glad of any kind of local TLM, fast or otherwise. To borrow an argument from O.F/N.O fans: “It’s still a valid Mass”. However, room for idiosyncratic additions is severly limited; you can can attend in peace.

I don’t care how reverent or sincere the EMHCs are. They are not consecrated. I think they are part of of a weird trend to democratise the Mass. I’ve seen a priest, in the few N.O.'s I’ve gone to in recent years, sit down and let them distribute it entirely. In a small congregation. Their presence up there in their street clothes is one more thing reminding us of This World, instead of The Next.

They also impinge on the role of the priest. **And why does he have to be careful purifying his hands and the vessels, when EMHCs can hand out the Hosts into the hands of other laymen? It’s a contradiction.
**
Next step: ‘Communion Services In The Absence Of A Priest’, with the strongest personalities in the parish council to the fore.

If the O.F. were restricted tomorow, and a bishop’s permission needed to say it in public, would it go undergound, with people travelling 50 miles to attend one? Would there be Novus Ordo societies forming in every country to preserve it?

 

[ncjohn]

Sure, things were different a thousand years ago. That’s no excuse for dumping what we had up to 40 years ago. Or shoe-horning in something trendy seen on holiday. I think the Pope or some other church notable called it a “return to a liturgical year zero”. It’s a mistake.

And again you continue to show your lack of knowledge of history and the fact that these practices were the norm for centuries, and still ARE within some segments of the Eastern Catholic churches (which are every bit as “Catholic” as we are). It has nothing to do with going backwards or “shoehorning” anything. It has to do with the Church’s prudential judgment of whether it is an acceptable practice.

I want priests who will say the Mass well and I want the novelties gone. The two are not incompatible. Priests doing the TLM does not mean we’ll be back to fast Masses everywhere. I think many nowadays would be glad of any kind of local TLM, fast or otherwise. To borrow an argument from O.F/N.O fans: “It’s still a valid Mass”. However, room for idiosyncratic additions is severly limited; you can can attend in peace.

I wish this really was all you wanted. Your continued spewing of your distaste for any legitimately-recognized practice of the Church that doesn’t meet your taste however speaks volumes to your simply wanting the OF crushed.

I don’t care how reverent or sincere the EMHCs are. They are not consecrated. I think they are part of of a weird trend to democratise the Mass. I’ve seen a priest, in the few N.O.'s I’ve gone to in recent years, sit down and let them distribute it entirely. In a small congregation. Their presence up there in their street clothes is one more thing reminding us of This World, instead of The Next.

In your humble opinion.

They also impinge on the role of the priest.

In your humble opinion

If the O.F. were restricted tomorow, and a bishop’s permission needed to say it in public, would it go undergound, with people travelling 50 miles to attend one? Would there be Novus Ordo societies forming in every country to preserve it?

You bet there would be. And far more vocal than the very small EF crowd since they form the overwhelming majority.

I truly wish you peace in your search. It’s a shame you can’t allow for the possibility that others can be as reverent and pious as you while worshipping at a different Mass. There’s an old saying though: “Be careful when you complain about your church; if it was perfect you wouldn’t be allowed in.”

Peace,

 

[Layman]

The norm for centuries. And then dropped for centuries. And then added in again by … some priests in Holland off their own bat, as far as I can gather. And which rites, exactly, is CITH part of, in the East? And why should we in the Roman Rite adopt their method, anyway? I don’t see how it’s an improvement.

I’m not calling for the O.F. to be crushed. It would be nice to see it said as Pope Paul VI envisaged: with Latin, Gregorian chant and the priest ad-orientem.

I think, if it continues at the current rate of development, it will implode under the weight of the increasing number and variety of contradictions inserted into it. Or rather the congregations that favour such experimentation will.

Yes, these are my opinions. Argue against them.