Would YOU like to know the results of the removal of communion rails

[pnewton]

It means just because something happened after another, there is not necessarily any sort of causation correlation. Yes, is sound really bad, like a disease, in Latin.

Spending on science increases suicide by hanging, at least according to this graph.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

 

[graciew]

I get it now. Thanks!

 

[misstherese]

Communion in the hand is a red-herring. That practice was documented as early as the 3rd-4th Centuries in St. Cyril’s Catechism. Not at all sacrilegious, or irreverent.

I think it would be advantageous to read what Taylor Marshall says about this quote: http://taylormarshall.com/2011/01/did-church-fathers-practice-communion.html

St. Thomas Aquinas also says: “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

and the Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681) which forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

as St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) also says,
“The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.”

 

[pnewton]

I am glad none of that is applicable. Receiving communion in the hand is the way I find most reverence, but that’s just me.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I think it would be advantageous to read what Taylor Marshall says about this quote: http://taylormarshall.com/2011/01/did-church-fathers-practice-communion.html

St. Thomas Aquinas also says: “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

None of this applies today. The corporal is not consecrated…it does not even have to be blessed. Chalices have not been consecrated – they are blessed, even by the priest himself. The hands of a Deacon are not and were not consecrated – and yet he is an Ordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

The laity need to understand what is the Church’s teaching today…that is what guides liturgical norms and liturgical actions today

 

[Don_Ruggero]

There is good reason why the Popes have mandated the changes they have – from restoring afternoon and evening Masses to mitigating the fast. Because one must accommodate the broadest possible range of needs and schedules…not the preferences of the few who can keep fasts from midnight and have the luxury of attending then Masses in the early morning. Better to have Mass at all hours of the day and night.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Then they could attend Mass and not receive Communion.

Communion has become way too common place. In days past it wasn’t uncommon for people to only receive Communion a few times a year, now the pendulum swung the other way and you have laypeople Communing twice a day, every day, not to mention the fact that literally everyone in Church receives Communion when it’s time.

Sacrosanctum Concilium:

1. That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s body from the same sacrifice, is strongly commended.

There should be as many or more people at Confession as at Communion, not the other way around.

It is not the practice of the Occidental Church that one must confess before each Communion.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

That was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. Back when the Eucharistic fast began at midnight, Masses tended to be much earlier, which was especially helpful to people that worked. I can no longer attend Mass during the week because the earliest Mass is 9am. But back in the Pre-Vatican II days, 6:00AM Masses were commonplace. One Byzantine Church I would attend even had Confession starting 20 minutes before Mass @ 5:40am. This was a tiny church with only a dozen or less attendees, but still, there it is!

I know those 9am masses are very convenient to the Parish staff (who usually make up the congregation of the 9am Mass) but not helpful to people that work in the real world.

I know Catholics are now famous for getting up late, and that is their preference. But seniors like to start earlier, as well as workers, students, and many other people.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I think it would be advantageous to read what Taylor Marshall says about this quote: http://taylormarshall.com/2011/01/did-church-fathers-practice-communion.html

From his own article: "Let me just add that I am by no means a Patristic expert and I’m very open to being corrected. " Yet he doesn’t hesitate to doubt the Patristics that are inconvenient to his position and insist on those that are.

I am also no expert, but I will not doubt St. Cyril’s writings. One other thing; practices obviously differed from place to place, so depending on the place you will have different traditions (just as we see today.)

It also seems good to the Magisterium to allow Communion in the hand. Maybe that should count for something.

To add a spiritual dimension: I am reminded of how Jesus allowed the unwashed masses to touch his person, like the woman with the hemorrhage and many others that thronged Him. I also wonder how receiving on the tongue is any more reverent, when it is a pure external. Jesus Himself rebuked the Jews for their insistence on meaningless externals when it is what is in the heart that matters to Him.

 

[DarkLight]

That was the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. Back when the Eucharistic fast began at midnight, Masses tended to be much earlier, which was especially helpful to people that worked. I can no longer attend Mass during the week because the earliest Mass is 9am. But back in the Pre-Vatican II days, 6:00AM Masses were commonplace. One Byzantine Church I would attend even had Confession starting 20 minutes before Mass @ 5:40am. This was a tiny church with only a dozen or less attendees, but still, there it is!

Of course, it depends on what shift you work now too. I’ve had my share of time where I worked 2nd shift and might not even get home until midnight. I was grateful then for later Masses, because I got to get dinner and a normal night of sleep before attending. When I was in graduate school, I went to the 5pm Mass fairly often during the week, but early morning wouldn’t have worked with how late my classes ran.

Realistically, it’s hard to have one time work for everyone.

 

[misstherese]

It’s not meaningless when we get to show Jesus how much we honor and appreciate Him, by demonstrating our unworthiness to touch Him. It shows that by receiving on the tongue, we are careful not to drop a single crumb of Him because our God so humbly goes into a piece of bread, that even every tiny little piece that could possibly fall to the ground and get trampled on is Him. When we receive on the tongue, that cannot happen.

Receiving in the hands was born out of disobedience. It was granted as an indult, an exception to the rule.

Many theologians doubt the authenticity of those specific writings of St. Cyril. And practices did not differ as you so think. Researching a little more, you will find that many writings referred to communion on the tongue, not the hand. It is especially suspicious that this is the only supposed writing that refers to it.

 

[Hereiam]

I will abstain from devisive conversations that serve no spiritual purpose. and instead:

Rejoice in the Lord always! I way it again, rejoice.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

It’s not meaningless when we get to show Jesus how much we honor and appreciate Him, by demonstrating our unworthiness to touch Him

And because that is in your heart, you show respect and reverence. However, you can’t be all judgy on everyone else who receives in the hand, and presume they are irreverent or even less worthy than yourself! That would ruin your own good disposition.

Remind yourself that many who receive in the hand may be far more pleasing to Jesus than yourself, because of what is in their hearts.

I never look upon those who receive on the tongue, or who genuflect before receiving etc. as being attention whores. Instead I admire their good reverence. But there is room for everyone at the Lord’s table, not just those who think exactly like yourself.

 

[Crusader13]

I didn’t see anything wrong with the article and I think that for too long, we as Catholics have done a great disservice to the Church by choosing to remain silent about abuses or errors within the Church. There is almost no uniformity in how we as parishioners are to participate at mass. I believe that we have suffered from poor catechetical training and too many teachings have either been forgotten or changed so that they are now so ambiguous, they are left open to random interpretation.

I’m merely speaking from my own personal experiences and things that I have heard from priests and comments made by other members of the laity which only reinforces my belief that the Church has lost much of what once defined it as the One True Faith.

Just the other day I attended a Catholic funeral at a newly built parish and I was saddened to see that inside the church, there was almost nothing to indicate that it was even Catholic. What was more disturbing, was that for every 10 people who went up to receive Holy Communion, I’d say nearly all 10 received in the hand and of those 10 maybe 3 or 4 bowed before receiving and it was more of a slight head nod done when they were still 2 or even 3 people back from receiving the host.

This isn’t merely personal preference that we are talking about, but rather a lack of the proper understanding of how we are to approach our Blessed Lord during Mass. This may not be an issue at your parish, but I’ve been to others where this is a serious matter. It is encouraging though, when you see signs that people are starting to recognize the errors.

For example, at my parish they have brought out kneelers for the laity to use if they wish to kneel while receiving. It’s also great to see that the line for receiving from the priest is always longer than those who choose to receive from an ordinary eucharistic minister. This tells me that more and more people are starting to notice that something feels off, even if they can’t fully articulate what it is. That could be the reason more Traditional practices and teachings are once again being sought after, because the watered-down practices and teachings that have been pushed for the last 30 plus years have left many parishioners feeling unfulfilled.

 

[misstherese]

It is ironic that you say this, because you yourself have just judged me inaccurately. It is the relativism of this age that states that we not to judge others, but the Catholic Church does not state this. It is acceptable to be able to judge the situation before us, in order to help those in sin. It is not acceptable to judge the soul of the sinner. I do not judge others harshly for receiving in the hand; I believe they were perhaps given no other option. It is surprisingly common that many are not taught that communion on the tongue is even an option! I remember quite well at my own parish all of us going up to receive in the hand as if it was the only possible way. Not until a few years ago was I told of the tradition of centuries past.

 

[Maximilian75]

As pnewton said, just correlation vs. causation.

 

[Augustinian]

What was more disturbing, was that for every 10 people who went up to receive Holy Communion, I’d say nearly all 10 received in the hand

This, by itself, isn’t that disturbing at all.

People are naturally inclined to do what others are doing.

“When in Rome, do as the Romans”, was the way Ambrose of Milan phrased it.

 

[graciew]

Thank you. The graphs he shared really made it clear and easy for me. I finally got what it meant!

 

[exnihilo]

MY belief is that the CHIEF CULPRIT is the doing away of the Eucharistic Fast. Pre-Vatican II, it used to be from midnight on. This encouraged early Masses. I miss them. Now the earliest Mass at my Parish is 9am, everyday of the week.

Now there is virtually no fast.

I know someone who grew up Catholic and went to Catholic schools and didn’t even know there was a communion fast. She had no idea she shouldn’t eat immediately before Mass or for that matter that she should not eat for a time after receiving communion.

I agree the fast is important. I think a widespread general failure at basic catechesis is a serious problem.

 

[exnihilo]

While I tend to sympathize with many Catholic traditionalists their frequent use of the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy has grown tiresome. If it’s not the lack of communion rails that necessarily led to a perceived lack of reverence then it’s communion in the hand. If it’s not CITH then it’s the utilization of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. If it’s not the EMHCs then it’s the use of Gothic style chasubles rather than the Fiddlebacks. If not the chasubles then it’s the “girl altar boys”.

I don’t see this as a fallacy, or at least the particular one you mention. What I mean is we are talking about man’s piety in reaction to external things. It can’t be that something causes piety. It can be that it inspires piety. If the argument is that doing x will result in piety then I agree there is a problem. The problem is in thinking an external thing will necessarily cause piety. But it may certainly inspire it.

I think everyone agrees that external things will influence piety. This is the reason people argue for taking away alter rails, having plain churches, and using altar girls. So why should traditionalists be singled out for having an opinion when the opposite opinion is what inspired the changes that did occur and that many wish to keep?