Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Most reverent Monseignor of Madison,
My congratulations with this wonderfull sermon! The Bishop's of the Netherlands wrote a letter to all priests at the occasion of Corpus Christy to emphasise the necessary renewal of reverence regarding the Holy Eucharisty, and about celebrating the holy Mass with reverence and according to the liturgical books and rubrics. This sermon is very helpfull and a sign of the worldwide movement of desire to achieve that, according to the exaple given by the Holy Father!
When the bishops of the Netherlands have begun to see the light, you know that Pope Benedict is really onto something. Congratulations Bishop Morlino. You are setting an excellent example for your brother bishops here in the US. Tom
As for the Netherlands, we need to keep in mind that there is a very difficult situation there. Around the time of Vatican II there was a great deal of illicit liturgical experimentation (e.g. alternative Eucharistic Prayers), some of which "forced" Rome to introduce changes it might have otherwise done slowly. This Dutch attitude of pushing the boundaries has continued to this day.
However, in the last 20 or so years, very conservative bishops have been appointed to Dutch dioceses, with the result that there is much division between ordinary Catholics and the bishops. It is a very difficult situation, because if the bishops are too strict, they could very easily introduce schism into the Church in the Netherlands.
The recent difficulties over the Dutch Dominicans writing to the parishes of their country and suggesting they might need to elect their own "Eucharistic Presidents" is surprising only in that they felt the need for the Eucharist to have somebody preside/celebrate! Their letter was in that respect surprising and very conservative!
Very many Dutch parishes don't have an obvious presidential role at Mass. The priest sits in civvies with everyone else, says the words of consecration with everyone else so the Mass is valid in that respect. The communications of the Dutch bishops must be seen in that context.
As for kneeling for the reception of Holy Communion, I fear that there is an oversimplified wish to return to all past practices.
Receiving Holy Communion during Mass on the eve of Vatican II was still a novelty of the 20th century (the celebrant excepted). For centuries, Holy Communion was received outside of Mass in a context more characterised by pious devotion than liturgical celebration(read the account of Blessed Imelda Lambertini and you'll see she and her community received Holy Communion AFTER Mass on Ascension Thursday) . The manner of receiving was quasi-private.
Theologians and liturgists are worried that the introduction of "Communion Services" on weekdays or Sundays may bring back the norm of receiving Holy Communion almost independently of the celebration of Mass.
Assisting at Low Mass was also a quasi-private affair until Vatican II, and the rubrics for standing, kneeling, etc. reflected that.
Unfortunately, many places only had Low Mass, and some of those still hold onto those Low Mass rubrics all of the time: kneeling for the introductory rites (including sung Kyrie and Gloria), sitting for the preface (even a sung one) and kneeling during the Sanctus (even a sung one), etc, etc. and all in the name of "the way it has "always" been".
There are certainly advantages to having people kneel to receive Holy Communion, such as having another layer of personal external devotion required of one to receive and the resultant consciousness of what is happening that this brings about. But could the end result be achieved by doing as the Eastern Catholics and Orthodox do? Receiving directly into the mouth while standing, with the priest assisted by some other ministers?
By standing, there is continuity with the previous parts of the Mass, there is continuity with the eating of the (first) Passover, the Communion procession is easier to maintain (notice that the Pope had just one kneeler rather than a long rail so people did indeed process), etc, etc.
Séan - nothing wrong with kneeling for most of the Mass; after all we are in the presence of Our Lord and I certainly do not have the presumption to stand in front of Him.
Sean
Congratulations on an EXCELLENT comment.
ditto shawn.
it was very informative.
Seán,
I am not sure I understand all of your arguments for receiving Holy Communion standing.
"By standing, there is continuity with the previous parts of the Mass."
Which parts of the Mass are you referring to? In Germany, e.g., it is absolutely standard that everyone kneels after the singing of the Agnus Dei until the tabernacle is closed again.
"there is continuity with the eating of the (first) Passover"
It is problematic to directly derive rules for the Christian liturgy from the cult of the Old Testament. We celebrate the New Pascha, for which the old was but a sign. I am not saying it is irrelevant - obviously it is not -, but we must be wary of "an oversimplified wish" to simply transfer everything.
"the Communion procession is easier to maintain"
This of course presupposes that such a procession is really that desirable, which is very debatable.
Gregor:
In the spirit of mutual appreciation of posts that has appeared in this combox I should very much like to congratulate you on your response to Sean's posting.
[Just for clarity's sake: the whole of this comment is an article by Fr Manuppella in Homiletics and Pastoral Review - Gregor]
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
"What is desperately needed today is not another bishops' letter, not verba, but deeds and not words."
By Rev. Anthony J. Manuppella
In the year 422 A.D. Pope St. Celestine enunciated an axiom in sacred theology. Legem credendi statuit lex orandi. From the Latin, translated literally it means, the rule of prayer determines the rule of faith. In other words, the way we pray, shows what we believe.
It is because this axiom is so true that Holy Mother the Church takes great care in making sure the liturgy, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is carried out with the greatest care. Consequently, the priest is suppose to follow certain rubrics during the Mass, such as genuflecting at certain times, folding his hands, or hands outstretched, enunciating clearly the words of the Mass, especially the Holy Words of the consecration, etc. Why? The reason is to show that the Mass is not like going to McDonalds for a Big Mac, to show, to point out that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is something very special. The Mass transcends time and space because we are being made present to the Redeeming and Salvific act of Christ's Redemption;the Sacrifice of Calvary. The Mass is the sacred Eucharistic Sacrifice. The Mass is the Sacrificial Banquet!
Unfortunately, over the past 30 years we have seen an excessive emphasis on the meal or banquet aspect of the Mass to the detriment of the sacrificial aspect. And so how many of us have witnessed liturgical aberrations in Masses we've attended where the priest might dress up as a clown so the children can better relate to him and the Holy Meal or the Halloween Masses where the priest is dressed up in a Halloween costume, or the Masses where Father is acting more like Jay Leno on the Tonight Show rather than acting in persona Christi at the altar? I could go on and on.
If people come to Mass and see their priest dressed as a clown, in a Halloween costume or telling constant jokes during the Mass, what are they to think about the Mass? There is consequently a lessening of the understanding of what the Mass is and so the faith of the people is weakened. Remember the axiom lex orandi, lex credendi how we pray, shows what we believe?
But there is an even more insidious effect on the faith of the people in the Eucharist stemming from the changes enacted by the American Bishops conference which tolerated illicit liturgical abuses such as communion-in-the-hand, female altar servers, and then proceeded to legislate them into law!
Recently the American Bishops issued a pastoral letter defining Catholic teaching concerning the Real and True Presence of Jesus in the Most Blessed Sacrament, responding to ignorance and or unbelief in the Real Presence.
Over the past thirty years or so we have witnessed going from gold chalices to hold the Precious Blood of Christ to glasses and pottery cups; from the gold ciborium that holds the consecrated Hosts to bread baskets and dishes; from kneeling to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion a gesture no one could mistake for anything but an act of faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, to standing to receive Holy Communion; from being fed the Holy Eucharist on one's tongue a definite and definitive action showing plainly that this is no ordinary food but the Bread of Angels, to receiving Holy Communion in one's hands you would take food off a table or a snack of potato chips; from receiving Holy Communion from the hands of the priest ordained to feed and nourish his family, to being handed the Eucharist from Joe the butcher; from down the street and from Sue my neighbor with whom I was just gossiping over the telephone yesterday; from the Blessed Sacrament being reserved on the altar in the center of our churches to the tabernacle being placed on a pedestal as if it were just another religious statue.
Why are the bishops surprised and shocked that so many American Catholics do not know and believe the teaching of Christ regarding the Most Blessed Sacrament? Why do the American bishops act so puzzled and alarmed that recent polls show over 50% of American Catholics are ignorant of or do not believe the Church's teaching that the Eucharist is the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and not just a symbol of Jesus? When it is they who have presided over, authorized and promoted so many of these changes pertaining to the manner of reception of Holy Communion and the reservation of the Eucharist in our Catholic Churches.
What is so desperately needed today is not a pastoral letter, not a verba but facta. The old Latin axiom rings so true; facta non verba. Deeds not words.
Our people in the pews need to see the immediate restoration of all those sacred gestures and actions which say, Yes, we believe the Holy Eucharist we receive is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. What we need today is to make the ORANDI correspond with the CREDENDI! We need to make what and how we pray around the Holy Eucharist correspond to what we believe about the Eucharist.
The American bishops need to reassemble the apparatus that for years has safeguarded the mysterious and clear truth of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The American bishops don't need so much to publish a pastoral letter but they need to reaffirm by DEEDS the doctrine of the Real Presence, by reinstating all the gestures and actions which say by deeds, This is the Real and True Body and Blood of Christ I am receiving in Holy Communion.
• See, I kneel to receive my God!”
• See, I receive my Lord ON MY TONGUE for he is no ordinary food but God himself.
• See, I look as I enter my parish church and I can find my Lord on the altar in the center in the tabernacle he is the focus of my life. He is really Christ my Savior and Lord in the tabernacle.
We've all heard the old expression, A picture is worth a thousand words.There is really no substitute for the Eucharistic piety expressed by our bodies, infused into our souls, known with the power of our minds, when one's whole being bows in adoration to the Most Blessed Sacrament.
So, we ask the question what can be done to repair so much damage caused by the dismantling of traditional Eucharistic piety? The American bishops need to reevaluate all that they have legislated in the past 30 years.
1. Instead of proposing that standing should be the recognized posture for receiving Holy Communion in the United States, the American bishops should be saying we need to reaffirm the Catholic teaching of the Real Presence Kneeling for Holy Communion will now be the norm.
2. FACTA abolishing the option of receiving Communion in the hand which has become in practicality the only option since we have a generation or two of children who were never even told there was any other option of receiving Holy Communion but in the hand.
3. FACTA The ordained Priest or deacons are the only ministers of Holy Communion unless in case of emergency.
All of the changes can be accomplished smoothly by a year long catechesis from the pulpit, Catholic newspapers and publications on the reasons necessitating these changes coupled with preaching from the pulpit what the true doctrine of the Church regarding the Eucharist is, thereby combining the FACTA with the Verba.
You see the Pastoral Letter of the American bishops is the Verba, we eagerly await the FACTA.
You see, the Pastoral Letter of the American bishops is the Credendi, we eagerly await the ORANDI.
Bottom Line: We probably wouldn't need a Pastoral Letter restating Catholic doctrine on the Real Presence if we were still kneeling for Holy Communion, receiving the Eucharist humbly on our tongues from the hands of the priest!
Reverend Anthony J. Manuppella is currently pastor of St. Peter's Church, Merchantville, New Jersey. Ordained in 1976 from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Philadelphia, this is his fourth article in Homiletics and Pastoral Review
"If people come to Mass and see their priest dressed as a clown, in a Halloween costume or telling constant jokes during the Mass, what are they to think about the Mass?"
Honestly from the above what have most people here experienced? The latter example for sure, the former, at least myself, never. I dare say most Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo do not encounter clown or halloween Masses - these are extreme examples. Most of us are hurt by more run of the mill liturgical abuses, attitudes of laxity and irreverence of varying degrees - and alot of unfortunate silliness. What good does it do to constantly cite and drone about the more extreme, and I dare say rare, incidents - and bring them for serious discussion to this and other forums? I bother to mention this because it seems to be a trend I notice in lots of blogs.
Mr. Hunter,
I agree with much of what you say. It would be prudent and would lead to greater reverence for the Eucharist.
Unfortunately, in many places extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are needed. I agree that they should only be used when there are not sufficient priests and deacons to administer, but there are many places that don't have enough sacred ordinary ministers to distribute.
Patrick - yes good point, but even when the extraordinary minister is needed, the priest must really use good discretion in order to not abuse this exception. It is not necessary to offer the Precious Blood to the faithful from Sunday to Sunday - so that eliminates 2-4 extraordinay ministers just for that purpose. A typical normal sized parish would need only one extraordinary minister for a normal Sunday Mass, larger parishes are another issue and they need to use restraint and discretion also. The danger comes when the laity feel entitled to what should be a very controlled exception to serve a legitimate pastoral need., or when it's made out to be just another parish "club" to become a member of. Once at a suburban parish I visted, I read in the bulletin that "those who feel called to become a Eucharistic minister…please call the rectory office to apply" (honestly who can say that they've never encountered this or something similar at some point in the last 40 years) I almost shouted NO NO NO! It shouldn't even BE announced in the bulletin - the pastor should consider and evaluate individuals based on a true need. My pastor would use first seminarians on assignment to the parish (there were no priest-associates), or else one of the two Dominican sisters assigned to our parish as their apostolate (they'd wear full habit, and their handling and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament was exemplary). Otherwise he'd have two or three laymen who he had fully trained for the purpose.. And that's IT! If there was nobody available, Mass would take 5 minutes longer for him alone to communicate us all with the Sacred Host - 5-10 extra minutes..big deal. My point is that the use of extraordinary ministers should be very controlled if it can't be rare - I believe that is what the Holy See envisioned in order for this exception to not be as abused as it has been.
In many instances, there may not be enough priests or deacons to administer communion only because there are many people receiving communion who ought not - rarely does one see anyone in attendance at Mass these days fail to receive communion. I suspect that if only those in a proper moral and spiritual state presented themselves for communion, there would be little need for extraordinary ministers in most churches.
Sean:
You raise some interesting points.
The issue of receiving communion during Mass as opposed to right after Mass can be overdone. The distinction is not that great since the place for communion during Mass is almost at the end of Mass anyway and there are only a few prayers after this point. Of course, I do believe the most appropriate place for communion is where it is customary now, right after the priest's communion since that way the Post-Communion Prayer makes sense.
When you say that assisting at Low Mass was a quasi-private affair, I am not quite sure what you mean. You mention rubrics for standing, kneeling, etc. but it is important to keep in mind that there are no rubrics for the laity hearing Mass. Of course, there are strong customs and generally accepted conventions as to what is appropriate, but these are not the same as rubrics for the priest and ministers. The general principle is that those outside the "choir" follow the posture of the choir.
I don't see what the disadvantage is of kneeling for communion.
Your comment does remind me of an important issue and I'm sure you would agree. Too many people are attached to some particular custom they remember or that they practice now during Mass and like to think that is the way things are supposed to be and everything else is wrong. If one looks at books of ceremonies such as Fortescue in addition to anecdotal reports, there is considerable flexibility in the old rite. Fortescue contains a great deal of "can" "should", "where it is the customs" "or", etc. We all need to remember such things and appreciate the value of not over-prescribing the actions during worship.
At almost every Novus Ordo Mass that I assisted at, when EM'S were permitted, before I stopped going to the NO Mass, there would be at the most on Sundays between 50-100 people and inevitably 4 or 5 EM's would jump up at Communion and rush the altar.
So there would be two EM's distributing the Body of our Lord and two with His Blood.
Many times the priest would just stay seated in his presidents chair.
I have been to weekday Mass's where there are between 10-20 people assisting, and the same thing, 4 EM's rush the altar.
This is not a state of necessity.
I now assist at the Gregorian or TLM, and there are about 150-200 people there.
The one priest gives out the Blessed Sacrament to all, on their knees and it is fine.
No mad rush. There is plenty of time for private adoration after reception.
God bless.
Here's something else. If an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is commissioned, said person should be properly dressed. I don't appreciate being given Holy Communion by someone dressed like a tart. And the men aren't off the hook here...fellas, leave the sweats at home, and I don't want to see your knees, either.
I get that it's abused sometimes. But in larger parishes it's necessary to have EMHC's to assist with Communion.
My parish has about 1900 families (and we are lower, mid-sized parish). We have 3 Masses on Sunday. We have 1 priest and 1 deacon who is sick. The Sunday Masses have 500-900 people at each Mass. Communion is only distributed under one species. If the priest did this himself, it would take him 50 to 90 minutes just to distribute Communion. That's way too long.
It seems that one person can give Communion to about 150 people in a reasonable amount of time. I wish the Vatican or the bishops would publish a guideline like that. They could send out a grid to parishes:
0-149 = priest only
150-299 = priest plus 1 other
300-449 = priest plus 2 other
450-599 = priest plus 3 other
...and so forth.
NOTE: "other" must be selected in this order (top priority to lowest priority): priest, deacon, instituted lector, instituted acolyte, seminarian, religious brother, religious sister, layperson
I think a guideline from the local bishop would really help a lot.
My two cents
Patrick, I think that a layman (by which I mean a male layperson) would trump a religious sister. A layman is a priest at least potentially, which I think would give him some advantage over a rel. sister, who is a priest neither actually nor potentially.
I really don't get why people think receiving Holy Communion kneeling takes so much more time. Clearly if one is required to kneel on the hard floor with people waiting directly behind to advance up to the priest it does indeed take some additional time (but until we're allowed to use the rail some of us are going to continue to do that), but Communion at the rail is very efficient if done correctly.
Suppressing the reception from the cup or reserving to the conditions actually laid out in Sacrosantum Conciliorum would help much as well.
We wouldn't need so many EM's if the norm of EVERYONE recieving communion in a parish were done away with.
In so many parishes recieving communion has an assembly line feel, the ushers dismiss you row by row and people just go up for communion unthinkingly. I have been to large suburban parishes where confession was offered maybe a half hour on Sat. mornings and poorly attendend and yet every single person would take communion on Sunday!
I shudder to think how many people are reciving without having even complied with the min. fasting requirments, or have been going for communion in a state of mortal sin for years and years.
Contrast this to the situation in Poland (where they actually do have enough priests per parish that EM's are unheard of. Anyway, in PL, confession is much eaiser to get to and much better attendeded, but less than half the people at the Mass usually go up for communion and this is out of a sense of reverence.
"less than half the people at the Mass usually go up for communion and this is out of a sense of reverence."
Dan, I think there's a problem with that argument though. Ideally, everyone should be receiving Holy Communion every week. Those who are in a state of grace and have fasted would show greater reverence by receiving than by not. While there are abuses with many people receiving when they shouldn't, the solution wouldn't be for people not to receive when they should.
Eucharistic ministers were the biggest con job I'e ever seen. The fatest way to distribute communion is by having everyone kneel and receive on the tongue. It's far more efficient and goes more quickly because there is only one way to receive communion. As it is now, some people go up, bow, and receive either on the tongue or in the hand, some don't bow and take it on the tongue or hand, and then many keep the EM guessing while they seem to be making up their mind as to how they are going to receive the Lord that Sunday. EM's were just another way to get more non-clergy on the altar to emphasize that it's a "peoples Mass" not the Lord's Mass. I'm usually more tolerant than this, but on this issue my mind is closed like a trap. Yah, and then there's that pesky concept of lex credendi lex orandi. Sorry, friends. Tom
Tom,
Whether or not they were started as an abuse or not (I have no idea), they are most definitely needed now in many parishes. Rather than work to ban them, we should instead work to see that they are used correctly, as sadly in many places they are over-used.
Congratulations to His Excellency, Bishop Morlino, and his diocese!
That's a great and clever idea to put kneelers down if a Communion rail is not in the church. It is also common to use the front row pews with kneelers in this way.
Let us not discount the continuity of tradition handed down as a defense for certain practices. Kneeling and receiving Holy Communion on the tongue has been a long held tradition in the Roman Rite.
Remember, also, we should not change tradition in order to be more "practical" or because it is not written in sacred scripture, even that is unscriptural.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." ~ 2 Thessalonians 2:15
But false and bad traditions which are contrary to the use of the earliest church should be discarded. Kneeling and receiving on the tongue are certainly among those traditions which can certainly claim to be Roman but no honest scholar can claim that they are "according to the whole." They are a holdover from a time when the laity received communion only at Easter and Christmas, if that, and a return to them is a rejection of the faith and practice of the fathers and the universally received councils.
so, mr. poteet, carried to its logical solution, your faulty assertion would imply that we should worship in graveyards wearing roman street clothes? Time hallows traditions elevating them way beyond their original intent. To do away with them because of their original meaning ignores any sense of continuity and is a disservice to those of previous generations who worshipped with those very same traditions. As our pope has said, what was concidered sacred in the past cannot now be considered wrong or unnecessary or somehoiw contrary to the faith..
The abuse of antiquarianism I see, Mr Poteet.
Communion should be approched reverently. If you have to wait a little longer while communicants kneel to receive the Blessed sacrament, then take the extra time afforded you to thank God for his sacramental presence.
Are we really in that big of a hurry to beat the Baptists and Methodists to Dennys before the Sunday rush?
Eucharistic ministers are supposed to used in extraordianry circumstances, not in an effort to move the congregation through comunion as if on an assembly line.
One change that should be made, however, is that the priest should inform people fo the necessity to approcah the Blessed Sacrament worthily. If you haven't been to confession within the month, you're probably not approaching the sacrament in a worth manner.
While that may reduce the number of people lining up for Communinon, at least initially, it will remind them of what in fact they are participating in, an at the same time increase the practice of seeking absolution.
Tobias,
While the "ideal" is that everyone receive communion every Sunday, the reality is that there is no way every Catholic is properly disposed to receive every Sunday--but he should be at Mass anyway. As Pope Benedict has said, the Church has to have an interior openness to those whose relationships to the Lord are in varying places.
David -- yes, I know that. But you said that many Poles do not receive "out of reverence." Well, they are being reverent given their current disposition -- not being in a state worthy to receive the Sacrement, they refrain. But that's not really much to be praised, except in contrast with today's impiety. For they would be even more reverent if they were properly disposed to receive the Sacrament. In that case, they should receive.
Oh, you didn't write that quotation from above, someone else did.
Commenting by HaloScan
