Vatican call to formalise Communion ritual

[PA650]

Currently the Latin Mass is only said by those who have a love for the particular form of Mass. Obviously in such cases there would be far fewer abuses. If the Latin Mass was brought back for all Masses, I fail to see why priests who skip the Gloria and Creed now wouldn’t continue to skip them in latin.
As for changing of wording, most priests wouldn’t know enough latin to begin changing words around. However there would be plenty of mispronunciations and perhaps skipped words.

Indeed.

Very true, Father.

They were having a meal together and I do know the difference. What makes you think they were all on one side of the table?

His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger touched upon your question in his work on the liturgy, The Spirit of the Liturgy.

Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject: “The idea that a celebration facing the people must have been the primitive one, and that especially of the last supper, has no other foundation than a mistaken view of what a meal could be in antiquity, Christian or not. In no meal of the early Christian era, did the president of the banqueting assembly ever face the other participants. They were all sitting, or reclining, on the convex side of a C-shaped table, or of a table having approximately the shape of a horse shoe. The other side was always left empty for the service. Nowhere in Christian antiquity, could have arisen the idea of having to ‘face the people’ to preside at a meal. The communal character of a meal was emphasized just by the opposite disposition: the fact that all the participants were on the same side of the table” (pp. 53-54).

In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the “shape” of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term “meal.” True, the Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, that he commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into worship of God that is in harmony with* logos*. Thus it came to pass that the synagogue liturgy of the Word, renewed and deepened in a Christian way, merged with the remembrance of Christ’s death and Resurrection to become the “Eucharist”, and precisely thus was fidelity to the command “Do this” fulfilled. - Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pg. 78-79, The Spirit of the Liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

Yet the Vatican is doing no such thing. This thread was started with a link to an article about a private comment made by a cardinal. It was no way made as a policy of the Vatican but a personal opinion of this one cardinal…

More to the point, we do not even have that. We have a news article, written by an unnamed person. It appears in The Australian here:

theaustralian.com.au/news/vatican-call-to-formalise-communion-ritual/story-e6frg6n6-1226107759452

…without so much as a byline or reference. It begins with the rather revealing phrase,“In a statement that will infuriate modernist liturgical advocates…” I have found what I think is the original source here (again, no by-line).

catholicnewsagency.com/news/spanish-cardinal-recommends-that-catholics-receive-communion-on-the-tongue/

So what we have is not a “statement”, much less a call from the Vatican, but rather an alleged snipet of a conversation without the benefit of context. Indeed, we would be wise to take such things with a grain of salt. The Holy Catholic Church does not operate by leaks and inuendo. If the Church ever does change any of the norms, rest assured it will be put out through proper channels and leave adequate time for changes to be made. Until then, speculation is useless.

Following these articles, and this thread, has been an interesting exercise on how rumors grow and evolve, as those that read, see only what they want to see, change things up, and pass it on.

 

[CallistusPM]

Currently the Latin Mass is only said by those who have a love for the particular form of Mass. Obviously in such cases there would be far fewer abuses. If the Latin Mass was brought back for all Masses, I fail to see why priests who skip the Gloria and Creed now wouldn’t continue to skip them in latin.
As for changing of wording, most priests wouldn’t know enough latin to begin changing words around. However there would be plenty of mispronunciations and perhaps skipped words.

Indeed.

20Aug.: St. Bernard, AbCD

". . . . . most priests wouldn't know enough latin to . . . . . ."

Doesn’t this seem strange that the official language of the Church has always been and has remained Latin and yet, priests trained in seminaries since the Second Vatican Council . . . . .“wouldn’t know enough latin to begin changing words around?”

 

[onenow1]

[edited]
As we well know now, less importance has been given to the Holy Eucharist, quite a bit less in the last 46 years. This is the problem being partially addressed here.
Certainly kneeling again for Holy Communion would help, as would demanding silence and reverence when in God’s house, and re-educating all to the fact, as St. John Vianney would say,“Jesus is there!”

Bingo ! Welcome Even to CAF! How beautiful it was, as altar boys held the paten and we received Jesus ! IMHOI believe the Pope is trying to lead by example and bring back these sacred memories of proper reverence given to our King.

God Bless All.

 

[benedictgal]

They were having a meal together and I do know the difference. What makes you think they were all on one side of the table?

Here is what none other than Pope Benedict XVI wrote in his book, “The Spirit of the Liturgy”:

Misunderstanding of meal symbolism

This is, of course, a misunderstanding of the significance of the Roman basilica and of the positioning of its altar, and the representation of the Last Supper is also, to say the least, inaccurate. Consider, for example, what Louis Bouyer has to say on the subject:

The idea that celebration versus populum was the original form, indeed the way the Last Supper itself was celebrated, rests purely and simply on a mistaken idea of what a banquet, Christian or even non-Christian, was like in antiquity. In the earliest days of Christianity the head of table never took his place facing the other participants. Everyone sat or lay on the convex side of an S-shaped or horseshoe-shaped table. Nowhere in Christian antiquity could anyone have come up with the idea that the man presiding at the meal had to take his place versus populum. The communal character of a meal was emphasized by precisely the opposite arrangement, namely, by the fact that everyone at the meal found himself on the same side of the table (54f).

In any case, there is a further point that we must add to this discussion of the ‘shape’ of meals: the Eucharist that Christians celebrate really cannot adequately be described by the term ‘meal’. True, Our Lord established the new reality of Christian worship within the framework of a Jewish (Passover) meal, but it was precisely this new reality, not the meal as such, which He commanded us to repeat. Very soon the new reality was separated from its ancient context and found its proper and suitable form, a form already predetermined by the fact that the Eucharist refers back to the Cross and thus to the transformation of Temple sacrifice into the reasonable worship of God.

Not from the meal alone

Thus it came to pass that the synagogue Liturgy of the Word, renewed and deepened in a Christian way, merged with the remembrance of Christ’s Death and Resurrection to become the ‘Eucharist’, and precisely thus was fidelity to the command “Do this” fulfilled. This new complete form of worship could not be derived simply from the meal, but had to be defined through the interconnection of temple and synagogue, Word and Sacrament, cosmos and history. It expresses itself in the very form that we discovered in the liturgical structure of the early Churches in the world of Semitic Christianity. It also, of course, remained fundamental for Rome.

Once again let me quote Bouyer:

Never and nowhere before (that is, before the sixteenth century) is there any indication of the slightest importance being attached, or even attention given, to the question of whether the priest should celebrate with the people behind him or in front of him. Professor Cyril Vogel has proved that, “if anything was stressed, it was that the priest should recite the Eucharistic Prayer, like all other prayers, turned towards the East Even when the orientation of the church allowed the priest to pray facing the people, we must not forget that it was not just the priest who turned to the East, but the whole congregation with him” (p. 56).

I would suggest reading his book so that you can get a sense of the reform of the reform that the Holy Father is trying to accomplish. Almost everything that you see in the Papal Masses that he celebrates is an extension of his book.

 

[Rina_Badal]

If you would love to then do it! I receive on my knees and I’m the only one in my Parrish that does! But many come up to me and thank me or say how wonderful it is that I show such respect for the Eucharist.

God bless.
Peace, Rina

 

[onenow1]

God bless.
Peace, Rina

Welcome Rina and thanks for your signature.> “… In the world you will have trouble, but take courage, I have conquered the world.” John 16:33

God Bless

 

[Jim_Roberts]

Not true. Cannon Law and the Vatican, Bishops Conferences are the only ones to change or alter Any Liturgy. And the Novus Ordo is based on Vatican Research on the Earliest Mass of the First Centuries, in Local Vernacular. The USCCB with Vatican agreement authorized the minor attitude and wording changes pending. See the USCCB rules on Liturgy and worship. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I do not know if you are of te fact that the CC is or willo be using a new missal, In it the words have been changed, grammare is not the same. SO be preparedp–this should dtsrt in Advent.

JESUS I TRUST IN YOU

jr

 

[ElToro]

I believe in the next 5 years there will be no need for an indult to receive communion in hand anywhere in the world. I believe both communion in hand and communion on tongue will be the normative ways to receive holy communion.

Doing this would end a huge amount of argumentation – time that should be focused on catechesis and prayer.

Please check the article on: cathnewsusa.com/2011/08/vatican-call-to-formalise-communion-ritual/ Antonio Cardinal Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, encourages Catholics to recieve the Communion while kneeling! He finds it an important sign of adoration that needs to be recovered, and adds, ‘It is to simply know that we are before God himself and that he came to us and that we are undeserving.’ His Eminence also points out that a Catholic receiving the Communion while standing should genuflect or bow profoundly. Interesting! I often feel it is not enough to just approach and receive the Communion reverently. I used to genuflect but lately, and for the silly excuse of not to attract attention, I bow and make a sign of the Cross before stepping to receive the Holy Communion then go back to my seat and kneel. I would love to kneel and worship, it is the real presence of the Almighty God, the Saviour!! Peace, Rina