G
graceandglory
Guest
Oh no, now we’re going to have the coat rack discussion!
- Status
C
chiibug
Guest
G
graceandglory
Guest
I’m glad someone mentioned ME. Yes, that is where this practice seems to have originated. While I have much respect for the ministry, they are not purveyors of theological truth, and just because ME does it doesn’t make it correct.
"All truth is God’s truth, insofar as it is true."
(much of what they do is true and good…just be discerning)
C
Cat
Guest
First a coat rack (it was built when the church was built–an ominous sign!)A Catholic Church with a dedicated place for overcoats? I don’t think I’ve ever seen such a thing.
Then a Life Teen Mass. :bigyikes:
Next we’ll have clowns and dancing, right? :dancing:
I’m telling you–when you see a coat rack in a Catholic Church, you know that liberalism has encroached! Better to sit in the pew and fry in your coat now than burn in hell later, right?
At least we don’t have coat hangers. We have those built in coat hangers like they have in hotels–you can’t hide them in your purse and walk out the church doors. So there’s hope.
C
Cat
Guest
I think that receiving Holy Communion as a couple, together, if the priest even allowed it (it’s not proper), could be dangerous to our souls.
Each of us is responsible for our OWN soul. The only time someone else speaks for us is at Baptism. But as we grow up, WE are responsible for our sins, our confessions, our devotions, our almsgiving, our fasts, and our obligations. No one can be a Christian for us.
That being said, I think that if one of the two spouses is having a rough time with their relationship with Christ (I’m phrasing that nicely–I should just come right out and say, a spouse is in a state of mortal sin)–well, receiving Holy Communion together might give that unworthy spouse a false sense of well-being. They could mistake the warm, cozy feeling they get from sharing the “Communion Experience” with their beloved spouse as a sign that the Lord has forgiven them (without the Sacrament of Reconciliation) and that they are good to go to heaven. Or they could think that the happy feelings are due to their relationship with Jesus, when in reality, their relationship with Jesus has been broken due to the sin, and they are just feeling warm fuzzies for their spouse, not Jesus.
For a married couple, yes, they have a joint relationship with Jesus, and are helping each other to get to heaven. But there is no guarantee that a spouse in unrepentant mortal sin gets a free ride to heaven on their spouse’s coat tails. We have to work out our own salvation.
Each of us is responsible for our OWN soul. The only time someone else speaks for us is at Baptism. But as we grow up, WE are responsible for our sins, our confessions, our devotions, our almsgiving, our fasts, and our obligations. No one can be a Christian for us.
That being said, I think that if one of the two spouses is having a rough time with their relationship with Christ (I’m phrasing that nicely–I should just come right out and say, a spouse is in a state of mortal sin)–well, receiving Holy Communion together might give that unworthy spouse a false sense of well-being. They could mistake the warm, cozy feeling they get from sharing the “Communion Experience” with their beloved spouse as a sign that the Lord has forgiven them (without the Sacrament of Reconciliation) and that they are good to go to heaven. Or they could think that the happy feelings are due to their relationship with Jesus, when in reality, their relationship with Jesus has been broken due to the sin, and they are just feeling warm fuzzies for their spouse, not Jesus.
For a married couple, yes, they have a joint relationship with Jesus, and are helping each other to get to heaven. But there is no guarantee that a spouse in unrepentant mortal sin gets a free ride to heaven on their spouse’s coat tails. We have to work out our own salvation.
L
Leopard
Guest
I fully agree with this, but I don’t see how it relates to the topic.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Am I to take it that you believe the ancient practice of kneeling side by side at the Communion rail is/was wrong? What document abolished that?
B
benedictgal
Guest
Kneeling side by side is an entirely different thing than what ME couples are doing. When we kneel side by side, we are not holding on to the Sacred Host and waiting for the other person to receive Our Lord so that we can communicate together. When we kneel side by side, reception of Holy Communion is separate and individual, just as it is when we stand one behind the other.
L
Leopard
Guest
What you describe is not what I have seen couples do at Masses during Marriage Encounter weekends. Both spouses receive the Eucharist individually (presuming both are receiving). The first does not wait for the second before consuming the Host. They just happen to be standing or kneeling side to side rather than front to back.
Many spouses choose to receive on the tongue. I have no idea how anyone could construe that the first spouse is waiting for the second. Perhaps they think that the spouses are swallowing together?
B
benedictgal
Guest
The ones that I have seen receive on the hand and one waits for the other and then they both consume.
ME weekends, while providing a lot of good for the couple, introduce strange practices that have no business in the liturgy. This side-by-side issue is one of them.
L
Leopard
Guest
Then that is an abuse and would be so even if the couples were lined up single file. The issue here is not the position.
P
Prague
Guest
Has anyone observed a married couple receiving the Cup together. Husband drinks, gives to the wife, wife receives, returns to husband, husband returns to minister??
F
FrDavid96
Guest
2 people standing side-by-side to receive Communion is not an issue in-and-of-itself. There might be any number of reasons why this might happen. A few people “lined up” side by side, along the lines of how it’s done in the Extraordinary Form would not be a problem. I can also see it in a small chapel, or at a daily Mass attended by only a few people, etc. etc. etc.
What makes this an issue is when a married couple is receiving Communion in a way which varries from the way that everyone else in the Church is receiving. If everyone came up 2 at a time, regardless of who is standing next to who, and received as an individual, it would not be a problem. When people have the mentality that a married couple should receive Communion in a way that is distinctly different from everyone else, that is an issue.
Obvious exceptions would be at the wedding Mass itself, or even at a Mass celebrating their anniversary. I would not only allow it at a 50th anniversary, but I would encourage it, as a way of looking back to the wedding day itself. But at a “normal” Mass, or as a regular practice, it’s something to be discouraged not because it’s wrong it itself, but because it’s wrong for the couple to be “different” from everyone else. Is their marriage-relationship different from everyone else? Yes. But that’s not a matter to be expressed in liturgical actions.
P
Prague
Guest
FRDavid What do you think about my post just before yours? Have you ever heard of this situation? Thank you
B
benedictgal
Guest
This is not licit. Please note what Redemptionis Sacramentum has to say:
Section 159 clearly indicates that what the couple is doing is wrong.
L
Leopard
Guest
I have highlighted certain points in Father’s post that are relevant to the point I have been trying to express regarding Marriage Encounter masses I have attended.
The physical layout of the Marriage Encounter Masses I have attended is generally more like a small chapel setting than a typical church setting. Often the masses aren’t held in a permanent chapel, but in a room set up to serve as a chapel during the weekend. Generally there isn’t a fixed arrangement of pews as in most churches. Chairs are usually just set up as may best fit the space. Sometimes there isn’t a center aisle such as people usually use to approach to receive Communion. the number of people attending Mass is usually far fewer than attend Sunday Masses in most churches.
Married couples receiving side by side are not receiving in a way that varries from the way that everyone else at that Mass is receiving. Each spouse receives Communion individually, assuming both are receiving. Non-Catholic spouses are informed that they should not receive Communion, but are invited to make a Spiritual Communion if they wish to.
At Marriage Encounter Masses, couples who wanted to receive single file would be the ones behaving distinctly differently. This is not to say that if any couple wanted to receive in single file that this would be considered wrong in any way, but I’ve just never seen any couple insist on doing so.
Marriage Encounter weekends are not necessarily held on a couple’s anniversary, but they are occasions when all the couples attending are invited to reflect deeply on their marriages.
Absolutely correct.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I think that this is realy an issue of just “how” it’s done. If we’re talking about nothing more than the fact that couples happen to be standing together at the same moment when each receives as an individual then it would not be a problem. But something in your post brought up a little more. Since only some of the people at the Mass are both a couple and are receiving, then that means that some are doing it as a couple, others as individuals (strictly speaking). I do think that is wrong because it’s treating people differently at the time of communion based on their marital status; “couples” do it one way, “singles” do it another. (I don’t mean that in the typical way we make the distinction, but in the sense of if only one person is receiving instead of 2).
What concerns me here is that the marriage encounter people (whoever they might be) have crossed a certain line and are telling married couples to behave in a specific way at Mass, and the things they are teaching are not in conformity with the norms of the Church. I can imagine scenarios where it’s not a problem for people to be standing side-by-side HOWEVER when this becomes a matter of saying “this is how married people receive Communion” then it’s a problem. The GIRM makes no distinction for different people receiving in different ways depending on their state of life (not among the congregation). In fact, the liturgical laws of the Church say that we should not make such distinctions. Everyone should be treated the same in so far as this is possible.
My other concern is that many married couples bring these practices back with them to Sunday Mass. They think to themselves (or say aloud) “this is what we were told to do at M.E.” and they behave the same way at a “regular” Sunday Mass. This causes confusion, disharmony in the Mass, and very often it’s a disruption to the other people who are receiving because it breaks the expected pattern (in other words people bump into each other).
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Yes, I’ve heard of it. As Benedictgal has posted, it is very very clearly forbidden. No question about it.
There is a specific prohibition against married couples administering the Eucharist to each other. When I locate it, I’ll post it if no one posts it first.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Here’s a better answer than the previous.
The norms for distributing Communion in the US ( with the recognitio of the Holy See) state:
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml
44. The chalice may never be left on the altar or another place to be picked up by the communicant for self-communication (except in the case of concelebrating bishops or priests), nor may the chalice be passed from one communicant to another. There shall always be a minister of the chalice.
Since what you have described would indeed come under the category of “the chalice be passed from one communicant to another” it’s unequivocably forbidden.
P
Prague
Guest
I knew this was not correct, but just wondered if anyone had seen this done before. I don’t think this couple was from our parish as I had not seen them before, and I noticed our priest had quite an upset look when he noticed this.
Thanks for the information appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.
Thanks for the information appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.
- Status