Spouses receiving Eucharist together

[RichT]

ByzCath:

Well I can only answer for myself but I would look at it this way. One is the teaching of the Church spelt out in the rubrics which tell us what we should be doing and we should not add to that.

The other is the opinion of the Holy Father which we are free to disagree with.

It is one thing to disagree, but another to completely contradict the Holy Father. I agree with Robertaf. There have been many posts where some have been downright hateful in their disagreement on a certain topic. They have gone to the extreme and have even said things like, this way is better than your way. To ridicule someone based on opinion is wrong, however, to correct based on fact is a different story.

 

[Tedster]

RichT:

So, do you approach the person youyself and attempt to correct the problem? I feel strongly that job belongs to the people in charge at my parish.

No. I would go through the proper channels first. Liturgist, Pastor, etc. and have them try to correct the problem.

Again Tedster, I am not pointing fingers at you in general. I am simply stating that this forum has a feel about it. Quite often it feels like being attacked. I have read many posts in the few days I have been posting here and have seen some pretty harsh personal attacks on people that have started from discussions about a certain practice, or a certain thought, etc…

I am sorry you have seen that. Most of what I have experienced is not attacking, but discussion. I actually think this forum is better than most I have seen. People here seem to easily set aside differences and act like Brothers & Sisters in Christ.

I will say, I have appreciated the discussion between you and I a great deal. It has not gone to the negative as many of the discussions I have been invloved in.
God Bless…

Likewise, my brother!

“May the Lord bless you and keep you. May the Lord make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious to you. May the Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.” – Numbers 6:24-26

 

[Lance]

At our parish we bow before receiving the Eucharist, our pastor asked that families all stand together. Even with large families I have not seen a problem. We do receive the Blood individually, we usually have 2 Blood ministers for ever Eucharist minister.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

Tedster:

No. I would go through the proper channels first. Liturgist, Pastor, etc. and have them try to correct the problem.

Have you learned nothing here? Never ask a liturgist! He/she will choreograph the Mass around this event!

tongue firmly planted in cheek - one of my best friends is a liturgist and I love him anyway

 

[Tedster]

Detroit Sue:

Have you learned nothing here? Never ask a liturgist! He/she will choreograph the Mass around this event!

tongue firmly planted in cheek - one of my best friends is a liturgist and I love him anyway

I am rebuked. I humbily ask for forgiveness!!!:banghead:

 

[robertaf]

Greetings Church

I have to agree with Rich. I, too, have felt I was being attacked.
In fact, I felt that way here as well as in the Charismatic threads.

I love discussing my Faith. In fact, I have spent about a dozen years in either chats (not in recent years) and in discussion groups like this one. I just wasn’t prepared for the feeling I got here.

I have been a Catholic, as I mentioned for 50 years and actually well educated in my faith. I can’t think when I felt more on the defensive, having to point out that I do have far better than average religious education and background.

Now that you have explained that it was not your intent to attack, I do feel better. I think there may be a gentler way to discuss these things without it appearing so hostile.

Being and old redheaded Irish broad, I tend to rise up when I should be calming down, you see.

 

[newsjag]

Isn’t amazing how we are all (for the most part) a member of the Catholic faith and yet our masses are so different. While I do disagree with a lot of what I have heard about the receiving, I must commend you for going to mass together. To many families do not share this wonderful experience together. Thank you for sharing with us. Please pray for the families that do not shar what we all know.

 

[Catholic_Eagle]

2 Blood ministers… Is this a Catholic Church? The

 

[scaxter]

Aren’t we all receiving the Eucharist together? Isn’t that what “communion” means? Communion first of all with the Lord, but also with each other. Don’t forget, we are a “family, the family of God.” Once we have all received we are united in that Eucharist.

I have seen couples do that [receive side by side] and at first it looks like such a loving thing, but for some reason it bothers me. I’m not quite sure why. It seems like they are saying look at us, we’re more special than the next couple or person receiving. It is a distraction and I’m not sure they fully understand the union that is going on whether they are standing side by side or not.

I have to admit though, on the other hand, that on the wedding day, we [all who are married] all received side by side with our spouses. So maybe they just want to do it in remembrance of their committment to each other.

It really shouldn’t be an issue that takes high priority when there are so many more important issues to consider going on in the Church and world.

 

[Fidelis]

You know, this would be a moot discussion if everyone simply received Communion on their tongue and not in the hand.

(Now ducking for cover from the brick-bats and rotten fruit sure to be thrown his way!!)

 

[Fidelis]

From the GIRM:

Movements and Posture

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

 

[scaxter]

Fidelis:

From the GIRM:

Movements and Posture

1. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered. Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

Thank you, Fidelis, for making us aware of this GIRM. Even with the newest norms of the Church I still see so much disunity. I just don’t understand what is so hard about following the new norms that were meant to bring more reverence and unity to the Mass. People are not making the profound bow that the Bishops have said to do before receiving the Eucharist, many churches are still standing during the Consecration and/or after the Lamb of God, some churches stand while others still sit during the prayer right after the offertory [May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands. . .], and one of the things I really dislike is at one church the priest invites the congregation to add their own petitions outloud to those from the Church.

So anyway, getting back to the original thread here about couples standing side by side receiving the Eucharist. . .this seems to be in the category of “private inclination or arbitrary choice.” It would probably be better if they didn’t do it.

You’re previous comment didn’t really fit this thread though. You said this discussion wouldn’t be happening if everyone received on the tongue instead of in the hand. It is very possible that the married couples receiving side by side *are *receiving on the tongue. I don’t understand what you were getting at by that post, particularly on this topic. That sounds like a new thread of it’s own, which I am sure would make for a “hot” topic. It would have made more sense if you would’ve given a “plug” for receiving at the communion rail, because then *all *couples would be receiving side-by-side.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

RichT:

It is one thing to disagree, but another to completely contradict the Holy Father. I agree with Robertaf. There have been many posts where some have been downright hateful in their disagreement on a certain topic. They have gone to the extreme and have even said things like, this way is better than your way. To ridicule someone based on opinion is wrong, however, to correct based on fact is a different story.

I have not contradicted the Holy Father in anyway.

Nor have I been hateful. I have also not seen any replies in this thread that were hateful. If you have issues with other “certain topics” take it up there, don’t attempt to bring it up here and paint us with that brush.

I have not ridiculed anyone. I have stated my opinion and it has been shown that this action is not in the rubrics and one should not add things to them.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

ByzCath:

I have not contradicted the Holy Father in anyway.

Nor have I been hateful. I have also not seen any replies in this thread that were hateful. If you have issues with other “certain topics” take it up there, don’t attempt to bring it up here and paint us with that brush.

I have not ridiculed anyone. I have stated my opinion and it has been shown that this action is not in the rubrics and one should not add things to them.

Actually, I think you have been very charitable. This is where the problem started with Vat II. If it isn’t *condemned, *but also not prescribed in the rubrics, there is far too much room for private interpretation. I see Robertaf has been charismatic since the 1960s. First, noone knew which way was up in the aftermath of the Council, and secondly, (surely you will agree without argument) that the charismatic movement was comfortable to you as a convert from a protesant faith. As far as being corrected with fact, I believe Fidelis has covered that aspect quite well.

One thing we will all agree with here, is we love our faith. But you must have the law, or you will have chaos. With regard to “hateful” comments, I see them coming primarily from the people who defend this irregular practice. God knows, I took a baseball bat in the head, and received and apology only after sending a PM to the person who was battering me. I wish Bishop Burke or Bruskewicz were here to answer this question once and for all.

 

[RichT]

ByzCath:

I have not contradicted the Holy Father in anyway.

Nor have I been hateful. I have also not seen any replies in this thread that were hateful. If you have issues with other “certain topics” take it up there, don’t attempt to bring it up here and paint us with that brush.

I have not ridiculed anyone. I have stated my opinion and it has been shown that this action is not in the rubrics and one should not add things to them.

ByzCath, You have taken my post out of context. It was not pointed at you or any one person. It was a general comment about the overall feel of this forum. I quoted you because it appeared that your statement about disagreeing with the Holy Father in my opinion was the same as contradicting him. Probably not a good choice of words. For that I apologize. The rest of the post was obviously not pointed at you considering I didn’t use “you” language. I was simply commenting on the overall atmosphere of this forum. This particular thread is the one I am mostly involved with right now, so this is where I am going to vent a little. Have you even considered that due to the diplomatic discussion going on, that this might be a good place for me to express how I feel about something? I guess I should preface each reply with a disclaimer that this reply is not intended to offend or hurt in anyway. Please don’t take it so personal. Of course all names have been changed to protect the innocent.

Good day…

 

[RichT]

Detroit Sue:

As far as being corrected with fact, I believe Fidelis has covered that aspect quite well.

Unfortunately is isn’t that easy. The GIRM is written is such way that interpretation will vary from person to person. In regards to postures and gestures, section 42 talks about these issues in regards to when the community should stand, sit, kneel, make the sign of the cross, etc…

None of us can just assume it contradicts what is being discussed here. I have already agreed with most of the disagreements regarding spouses serving each other, or priest breaking hosts, and adding their own words. In my case, simply choosing to wait for my wife to receive whether standing two feet to the side ot four feet to the side in my opinion is not a problem. Unfortunately, when people see something that looks different they make assumptions that someone is adding something that shouldn’t be added. I don’t feel that what my wife and I do need an explanation to those who might be behind us in the communion line. Besides, as ByzCath has so graciously pointed out, if what we were doing was considered wrong, we certainly have the right to disagree.

Section 42 is not precise in it’s language and can be left open for much interpretation. In fact, most of us have already experienced mass confusion with the GIRM as the local clergy have scrambled to figure out what it all means.

I believe that whether the GIRM is followed to a “T” or not, each parish will still continue to have it’s own personality. There are already places in the GIRM that allow for one option or the other. There are many other areas that should also allow for those options, which can be done without upsetting the beauty of the liturgy. Not every parish will be exactly alike, nor should they be.

As far as gestures are concerned, am I to assume by reading the GIRM that holding my hands up while worshiping God is wrong? Or, since the entire parish is doing it, is it right since it shows unity? You see my friends, there is not an exact answer, but only differences in how the GIRM has been interpreted. And based on what we feel is right or wrong, or comfortable or not comfortable we make choices to believe one thing or another. Just don’t get angry if I choose to interpret or believe differently than you do.

With Love I Bid You a Good Day.

 

[Tedster]

RichT:

Unfortunately is isn’t that easy. The GIRM is written is such way that interpretation will vary from person to person…

I believe that whether the GIRM is followed to a “T” or not, each parish will still continue to have it’s own personality…

Not every parish will be exactly alike, nor should they be…

You see my friends, there is not an exact answer, but only differences in how the GIRM has been interpreted…

Aaah RichT, this is where you and I must disagree. These statements quoted above show that you believe in the “interpretation” of the GIRM. Although there are places of “choices”, I believe that there is no room for “interpretation”.

Like I had posted earlier, quoting what the founder of this forum has so elequently explained:

From Karl Keating:
“Rubrics are prescriptive. They tell you what you are to do, not what you are not to do. If something is not listed in the rubrics, then you should not do it.”

I don’t think this statement means that we are left free to “interpret” anything. I think it says to do what the rubics prescibe, nothing more.

As far as the comment on the parishes all “being alike, nor should they be…”, that is what Redemptionis Sacramentum is trying to accomplish (with the exception of the “choices” that can be made, i.e. music, Eucharistic prayer choice, etc.), so that we all will have the same Holy Mass. That is MY opinion.

 

[robertaf]

Good Morning Church

Lots of hard feelings here, over receiving Communion.

I had no idea my comment to Detroit Sue caused such awful pain. I feel deep remorse for that. I have been recovering from losing part of my lung to cancer this past March and continually asked to describe my pain level. A baseball bat to the head tells me how seriously my words hurt. Once again, I can only ask for your forgiveness.

In fact, I had grown to dearly love the pre-Vatican II Church. I had nothing but contempt for the Protestant teaching I had left, mostly because I had been taught such a degree of anti-Catholicism that was all lies. I still know that one day I will have to stand before Jesus and answer for insulting His Mother. I loved Holy Mother Church just as it was. I was sick about the changes. I would have left but I had no place to go. The Holy Eucharist was here, along with the other Sacraments. I was drawn, kicking and screaming into the Charismatic Renewal. I was drawn, originally the same way into Holy Mother Church and only later learned to love her so much. No, my Protestant upbringing only allowed me to view the charismatic renewal with fear and contempt. The Holy Spirit turned me around.

I admit I didn’t apologize until I knew I had committed such an offence against you. I hadn’t reread my post and all I can say is I allowed my temper to flare. The comment that I aimed at you was “I will not allow someone who finds joy in nitpicking to spoil this lovely time when together we receive Jesus in the Most Holy of Sacraments” . I truly do not believe you take any joy in this. I, once again, I am deeply sorry.

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_14.gif

 

[RichT]

Tedster:

Aaah RichT, this is where you and I must disagree. These statements quoted above show that you believe in the “interpretation” of the GIRM. Although there are places of “choices”, I believe that there is no room for “interpretation”.

I was beginning to wonder where everyone went!

I spent several minutes reading the GIRM yesterday. It is definately written in such a language that there is vagueness in some areas. I am just saying that there does not appear to be a factual answer to our dilemma here. I gave the example of holding my hands up while worshiping. Yes the cat’s out of the bag. I attend a Charismatic Catholic church. The vast majority of our parishoner’s hold their hands up during worship. If I read the GIRM correctly it says that gestures and postures should be done to maintain a certain unity in the community. Well, it would appear to me that if the vast majority are holding their hands up, then they are doing so in unity with each other. In regards to couples receiving together they also do so in unity with their community. They do so with many couples around the world who have been to a marriage encounter where this is highly encouraged. In the case of my parish, my wife and I also do it in unity the majority of married couples in our parish community. Each parish has it’s own personality. I for example enjoy my parish very much, where as you may not. These differences are not being done to intentionally go against the GIRM, but are still done because they don’t appear to be against the rules and they don’t disrupt the liturgy. The only thing they seem to be disrupting are those whose opinions are against it. As far as my parish is concerned, we are probably mildly charismatic. We follow the GIRM to the best of our capabilities. Our Bishop is rather conservative and has no problems with anything our parish is currently doing. Parts of the GIRM are pretty cut and dry, and other parts are not. These seem more like a case of opinion than fact. And yes, there is room for interpretation just by the way the GIRM is written. Before moving to my current residence, I attended a different parish in a different state. When all the changes came down, it took several weeks for us to get the distribution of communion right. There were many calls into the bishop with questions regarding the interpretation.

By the way Tedster, where are you from?

 

[Tedster]

RichT:

If I read the GIRM correctly it says that gestures and postures should be done to maintain a certain unity in the community. Well, it would appear to me that if the vast majority are holding their hands up, then they are doing so in unity with each other.

Does that mean that if I convince enough people in my parish that it is right and good to (as Karl Keating puts it) “sing aloud the lyrics of ‘The Music Man’ during the Consecration” that it’s OK? No, because the practice in effect is prohibited because there is no positive provision for it.

The only thing they seem to be disrupting are those whose opinions are against it.

Well I would doubt that they would disrupt those that are in favor of it! (Tongue in Cheek)

Parts of the GIRM are pretty cut and dry, and other parts are not. These seem more like a case of opinion than fact. And yes, there is room for interpretation just by the way the GIRM is written.

I don’t agree with this. The GIRM is clear on what it ***ALLOWS. ***I don’t believe it is hard to read it when one takes this standpoint. I can come up with many examples of what it doesn’t say I can’t do, that doesn’t mean I can do them. (WOW… is that confusing or is this debate stalled?):whacky:

By the way Tedster, where are you from?

Brighton, Colorado (suburb of Denver)