Touching the Monstrance

[FrDavid96]

We’ll have to agree to disagree on some of these points. I’ll follow my bishop.

OK. I’ll follow the Catholic Church.

 

[Sunbreak]

I have never heard of such a practice. Usually in the churches I attend the monstrance is out of touching range and stays there. Only the priest or some designated person will touch it, except for one small adoration chapel I know of where it sits on a mini-altar and you are supposed to cover the monstrance if no one else is in the chapel when it’s time for you to leave.

 

[sjays]

To me, it smacks of superstition; as if some additional blessing or spiritual benefit could be derived from this action.

If this belief is held to, then simple adoration before the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction become something that is insufficient.

For me, this is where the danger lies, even if it is done with great piety.

 

[retire_early]

Interesting point, sjays.

I can see that happening.

Also, If everyone starts doing an optional behavior, pretty soon, the person who doesn’t do it is seen as doing something incorrectly.

 

[CB_Catholic]

I personally don’t think there is anything irreverent about it if done as a sincere act of adoration, but all of that touching tends to wear the gold plating off. We just had to have ours replated from repeated handling when it is put away, and it was very expensive. Now Father says that it has to be carried with a cloth when being put away in the sacristy.

 

[Miserissima]

My RC pastor has been doing this, and participants go up as families.

I just…can’t wrap my head around it. maybe it’s me.

 

[maryjk]

Interesting point, sjays.

I can see that happening.

Also, If everyone starts doing an optional behavior, pretty soon, the person who doesn’t do it is seen as doing something incorrectly.

I can’t believe how many times I have been questioned because I don’t so some optional behavior.

It is crazy.

 

[Psalitte]

I’ve seen this in Charismatic communities. It does make me a bit uncomfortable.

 

[otjm]

To me, it smacks of superstition; as if some additional blessing or spiritual benefit could be derived from this action.

If this belief is held to, then simple adoration before the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction become something that is insufficient.

For me, this is where the danger lies, even if it is done with great piety.

So I guess the woman who touched the hem of Christ’s garment was superstitious?

 

[otjm]

I’ve seen this in Charismatic communities. It does make me a bit uncomfortable.

Charismatic communities tend to make a number of people uncomfortable. The Popes, since the rise of Charismatic communities, have been positive about them, while cautioning about excesses.

 

[Miserissima]

So I guess the woman who touched the hem of Christ’s garment was superstitious?

I thought of this example, too (but not along the lines of superstition). There must to be a difference between the “crowd that pressed against Him” and the woman who meekly and humbly touched the hem of His garment, no?

The former were presumptuous, the latter was in suffering and petition.

I’m not saying that we can’t approach the Blessed Sacrament in Adoration without “perfect intent.” But I’ll be the publican sitting in the back, because I’m just not comfortable with it.

I’ve knelt before the Tabernacle in times of great crisis, but I didn’t traipse into the Sanctuary to touch the Tabernacle. I am no closer to Christ by kneeling three feet from Him versus three inches away. The only way to be truly close to Our Lord is to be worthy to receive Him into my body in the Eucharist.

I’ve heard that touching the monstrance is “powerful.” Well, it’s a hollow and sentimental devotion if one doesn’t feel the same emotions when actually receiving Communion.

I’m also concerned that this optional devotion smacks of clericalising the laity. My hands /mouth are only allowed to touch the Host to receive, not to self-administer.

There a difference between Father blessing me and I kiss his hand, to me kissing his hand, putting it on my head, and telling Him to bless me.

The symbolism of reaching out to hold Him by entering the Sanctuary and touching His throne (when even a priest covers his consecrated hands to hold the monstrance) doesn’t make any sense.

I’ll speculate that if this “optional gesture of devotion” gains steam and is then denied, participants will feel as if they have had something taken away from them that they shouldn’t have been doing in the first place.

 

[otjm]

I thought of this example, too (but not along the lines of superstition). There must to be a difference between the “crowd that pressed against Him” and the woman who meekly and humbly touched the hem of His garment, no?

According to the Gospel story, there was a difference; and Christ told her of her expression of faith. My comment was directed to someone who seems to believe that touching the monstrance is (possibly) rooted in superstition. I don’t buy that.

The former were presumptuous, the latter was in suffering and petition.

I’m not saying that we can’t approach the Blessed Sacrament in Adoration without “perfect intent.” But I’ll be the publican sitting in the back, because I’m just not comfortable with it.

I’ve knelt before the Tabernacle in times of great crisis, but I didn’t traipse into the Sanctuary to touch the Tabernacle. I am no closer to Christ by kneeling three feet from Him versus three inches away. The only way to be truly close to Our Lord is to be worthy to receive Him into my body in the Eucharist.

I think using the word “traipsing” can come across a bit judgmentally. The OP didn’t say where this was occurring; if I was to guess, it would be among a different culture which is more emotive than say, a northern European one (I am 3/4 Holland Dutch, so I can speak about those who are reserved). Perhaps Southern Europe, or Hispanic, or another culture which tends to be more outgoing, emotive, and outwardly demonstrative. Your reticence is neither the least bit offensive, nor unusual - like I said, I am Dutch.

I’ve heard that touching the monstrance is “powerful.” Well, it’s a hollow and sentimental devotion if one doesn’t feel the same emotions when actually receiving Communion.

I’m also concerned that this optional devotion smacks of clericalising the laity. My hands /mouth are only allowed to touch the Host to receive, not to self-administer.

There a difference between Father blessing me and I kiss his hand, to me kissing his hand, putting it on my head, and telling Him to bless me.

The symbolism of reaching out to hold Him by entering the Sanctuary and touching His throne (when even a priest covers his consecrated hands to hold the monstrance) doesn’t make any sense.

I’ll speculate that if this “optional gesture of devotion” gains steam and is then denied, participants will feel as if they have had something taken away from them that they shouldn’t have been doing in the first place.

I think you are overworking it. Most of us are fairly sheltered when it comes to cultural differences (and many who come across cultural differences are quick to judge others as “wrong”). If this were done (or rather, attempted) during a retreat of northern European extract people, I suspect it would go over like the proverbial lead balloon. I seriously doubt it is going to be widespread, and I seriously doubt that it is going to spreading rapidly and then be suppressed. There are cultures, where, for example, what is referred to as liturgical dance is acceptable according to the Church. That does not mean that it is acceptable in the US; but we are quick to condemn it as f that were a universal condemnation, and it is not. Nor do I suggest that we start it here.

As far as doing in the first place, I have had this argument elsewhere; and it goes along the lines of the philosophy of law. Suffice it to say that Rome does not necessarily take the position that “what is not permitted is prohibited”.

 

[andrewstx]

What is the difference between touching the Blessed Sacrament with our toungues and many touch the BS with their very hands and touching the holder for the BS and not even Jesus directly.

Why is it OK to touch the sacrament directly with our toungues, but not so good to touch it indirectly in it’s holder? Not that I would ever touch the Monstrance with the sacrament in it.

But I think you get my point.

 

[ProVobis]

…, but all of that touching tends to wear the gold plating off. We just had to have ours replated from repeated handling when it is put away, and it was very expensive. Now Father says that it has to be carried with a cloth when being put away in the sacristy.

Having been to many coin shows and exhibits, I can appreciate this post. They actually give lectures as to how coins are to be handled so as not to “rub” them to lower value.