New Vatican Instruction Concerning Eucharist

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 23, 2004

Answers

bump

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 23, 2004.

She seems to have some teeth! Excellent!

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), April 23, 2004.

There is enough material in the document for 100 new threads. It's very wide-ranging and sweeping.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 23, 2004.

I just skimmed through it. A couple of things jumped out at me. Why can't we just ban altar girls? And why can't we just ban communion in the hand. Here is what the instructions say about it:

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

This is too difficult for the priest to police. I have seen the host dropped on the floor about 3 feet away from the priest and the recipient just picked it right back up and walked away. There was nothing the priest could do. My children saw someone stick the Eucharist in their pocket. The priest was notified and sent someone after them. Thank God. This is the Body of Christ, not some wafer to be stuck into someone's hand, dropped on the floor, stuck into someone's pocket, left in the pew etc. No wonder few actually believe it is the Body, when it is treated so casually.

Funny story: I took my family to Lourdes this past fall. When you arrive there are all sorts of picture signs with lines through them indicating what was not allowed, ie. a picture of a pickpocketer with a circle around it and a line drawn through it means no pickpocketing. Well my nine year old daughter was very excited to see the sign indicating no begging allowed. She ran up to my wife and I, and her brothers and pointed to the picture, with a line through it, of a person with both hands extended. Look, she said, excitedly, this is a great place, there's no communion in the hand. O my gosh, we could not stop laughing.

Most of it seemed pretty good. But rules are nothing without enforcement. Hopefully abusers will be disciplined. We'll see

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004.

Brian, Reception of communion by hand is not new. In the 4th century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem gave instructed norms on reception by hand.

Historically,reception by hand has been more the norm.

God Bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 23, 2004.

I didn't say it was john. I am well aware it isn't new. So what. That doesn't make it right. It contributes to irreverance now, maybe it did back then as well.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 23, 2004.

Well, the Last Supper, was a meal, with real bread and wine, not these funny-looking little wafers. Why not at least use real bread?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), April 23, 2004.

You don't have to have a waffer. In fact, for years I went to mass where they had what actually looked and tasted like unlevened bread. The rules are "The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition."

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 23, 2004.

Here's a very good article on communion in the hand. http://www.cin.org/mateo/communion-hand.html

Communion in the hand is perfectly acceptable and in my opinion much more respectful than stick your tongue out to recieve it.

Have you see some of the postures (and tongues)?

Not at all dignified.

Cupping one's hands, with the top palm as a throne, with hands crossed to signify Christ's death on the cross and reception of the host as a sign of becoming or continuing to be a part of the Body of Christ is very reverant.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 24, 2004.

No john, I haven't seen any of the tongues. Have you? How? And how does one posture oneself when receiving communion on the tongue? I don't get that either. Let's compare postures shall we:

Tongue: One walks up and either kneeling or standing sticks out his tongue and the eucharist is placed on it.

Room for abuse: none as far as I can tell

Hand: One walks up and either kneeling or standing, holds up one's hands and the eucharist is placed in them.

Room for abuse: since the host was not placed on the tongue by the priest, it can be dropped, stepped on, taken back to the pew, taken out of church, placed in ones pocket...

How is the priest supposed to safeguard the BODY OF CHRIST when recipients walk off with it? It is too difficult. And BTW, some people hold up the left hand, some the right, some side by side. Nit picky? Maybe, but there are many who do not "(cup) one's hands, with the top palm as a throne, with hands crossed to signify Christ's death on the cross," as you say.

I am sure you are very reverent when you receive communion. There are some, no doubt, who receive on the tongue who are not as reverent as they should be. I am not a Pharisee looking to make judgements on individuals. But I would like to see the Body revered by all as it should be. How would you feel if the Body of Christ, our lord and savior, was dropped on the floor? I have seen this. I was shaken. If I could have, I would have thrown my body around it to protect it until the priest could properly pick it up.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 24, 2004.

let's try again

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 24, 2004.

the reasoning of taking communion on the tongue is not that it is more dignified a method of recieving the eucharist.

it is a matter of cleanliness. the priests hands are clean, washed from iniquity of sin. the idea is that as few people as possible handle the eucharist after it has been consecrated, especially those who do not act in personae Christi.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 24, 2004.

Brian Crane said: Why can't we just ban altar girls?

Since I am new to Catholicism, I am unaware about the reasoning behind having altar girls or not. I know what these people do, but why is there opposition to girls serving in this as well as boys? I would like to hear for or against.

Thanks and God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 24, 2004.

Emily,

In 1994, Pope John Paul II, allowed girls to be altar servers after nearly 2000 years of the priest being exclusively served by boys, or men, during mass. Altar service has traditionally been looked upon as a stage along the road to priesthood. Altar servers dress like priests. They were traditionally trained in latin. The spanish word for altar server is monaguillo which means little monk. The italian word is chierichetto which means little cleric. What do the italians call altar girls then? Donne chierichetto which means little female cleric. So then what do you think is the purpose of allowing altar girls? Well, I believe, they were being used illicitly for some time and rather than disciplining many priests and bishops, the Holy Father decided to avoid controversy and allow girls to serve as it is not explicitlyforbidden by canon law. This, to me, is clearly a foot in the door for female priesthood. There is no need otherwise. The priest represents Christ. Christ was male. That should be the end of the discussion in my opinion. Hope that helps Emily. :)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 24, 2004.

Brian, I have seen a few tongues. I am a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

The problems you site are very, very rare.

Bottom line -- reception in the hand is approved and will continue to be done.

The diocese in which I reside is as orthodox as they come. It is also one of the most diverse in the nation. Galveston / Houston.

It seems that you are upset by something. If you have seen gross liturgical abuses, I am sorry. I haven't.

Let's quit worrying about legalistic details and worry about spreading the Good News of the Gospel. Internal and External evangalization is what is needed, not arguing amoung ourselves.

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), April 25, 2004.

I think communion on the tongue should not be permitted at all, for a few reasons. The Church constantly strives to have the Mass reflect the manner in which the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist. At the banquet feast on Holy Thursday night, did Jesus place the bread into the mouths of the apostles or did he pass it to them hand-to-hand, or in a plate for them to pick it up from? Common sense and tradition tells me that Jesus handed out food that evening in the same manner we have been doing in the two thousand years since.

And what of the notion that communion on the tongue can spread communicable diseases? I have distributed communion before as an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist and in a few instances when placing the host on the tongue, saliva was transferred to my fingers. In one particular instance that I will never forget, I am sure that saliva from my fingers was passed from the tongue of one communicant to the tongue of the next communicant who also happened to want communion on the tongue. At the time, I couldn’t help from cringing at the thought the first communicant might be carrying a communicable disease. It might be interesting to know how many people were infected with the plague in the middle ages from attending Mass and receiving communion on the tongue?

I live in an area where the SARS virus reared its ugly head in North America. During the period the health authorities were trying to contain the virus, Church officials suspended the practice of shaking hands during the offering of the sign of peace at mass. This was done to minimize the transfer of any harmful germs. If communion on the tongue was mandatory, how many people at mass would go to communion if they found out, that even one person died from receiving HIV or SARS or some-such virus, at communion? I certainly wouldn’t, unless of course, I was the first person in the communion line of an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist.

In this day and age of highly infectious diseases, if communion on the tongue is permitted to continue, then I think it is incumbent upon the Church to require ministers of communion to wash their hands after each communicant is given the host. This of course, would drastically prolong Mass and create long lineups at communion and thus, discourage many from receiving communion.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 25, 2004.

Funny, but no one seems to have noticed that this "new" document says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW. There is not a single norm in it that is not already in the liturgical books or ritual instructions from Rome. I can only conclude that it will have no effect since currently the violation of the set norms is already common.

As to Ed's diatribe against communion on the tongue. His arguments are even more powerful for forbidding communion from the Precious Blood. Ed, have you read the document? If so, why are you still using incorrect and now clearly forbidden formula: "Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist"?

-- Joe (nospam@notmail.com), April 25, 2004.

Brian, I have seen a few tongues. I am a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion.

Why would people receive on the tongue from an EM? That is odd. Receiving on the tongue generally means that one doesn't want the host to touch anything unclean like one's hands. The priest's hands are rinsed and blessed with holy water. An EM's are not.

The problems you site are very, very rare.

Thanks be to God if they are. I just know I've seen the host (the Body) dropped, and attempted to be taken out of the church.

Bottom line -- reception in the hand is approved and will continue to be done.

Yeah, I know.

It seems that you are upset by something. If you have seen gross liturgical abuses, I am sorry. I haven't.

Why wouldn't I be upset at the things I've seen? Yes, I have seen gross liturgical abuses, and I've heard and read of gross liturgical abuses. Don't be sorry you haven't. Be thankful.

The Church constantly strives to have the Mass reflect the manner in which the early Christians celebrated the Eucharist

Not so sure I agree with that Ed. Were there EM's back then? Altar Girls? Communion of both species? I honestly don't know. If there were, I will stand corrected.

As to infection, this is laughable. As Joe points out, communion of the Precious Blood has been the norm for how long? Everyone sticking their "icky" lips and tongues all over the chalice. Sorry, that doesn't bother me either. (What does bother me is the chance that the Chalice will be dropped by someone and the Precious blood spilled all over the floor, but that's another argument) NOTHING will keep me away from communion (and receiving it on the tongue from the priest) except mortal sin; not SARS, not HIV, not the common cold. The Catholic Church has distributed communion for 2000 years, through plagues, through unsanitary conditions, through epidemics. Have Faith, Be Not Afraid!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 25, 2004.

Brian,

As for the Eucharist being taken out of the Church, is this always wrong? My aunt used to bring communion to my bedridden grandmother. Both of them are Catholic. Is this wrong for her to do so? My grandma is passed away now anyway, but if it wrong for the Eucharist to be brought by laypeople to those who cannot come to receive it? This seems merciful, not disrespectful. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and my statement goes against Church teaching. But I think there is more to consider in some situations.

As for altar girls, if canon law does not forbid it, I don't see a problem with it. It may appear to be hinting at future female priesthood, but it was my understanding that it is an unchanging, dogmatic teaching of the Church that only males can be priests. In which case, how can you have this fear? The gates of hell will not prevail, as Jesus promised.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.

Hi Emily,

While I personally would not have a problem with women as priests, the Church was not left with the authority to ordain them, so it will not happen.

I don't know what the final decision is going to be about alter girls. There was quite a long discussion about this toopic sometime back. Its somewhere in the archives. I hope it continues to be permitted, but many here feel differently.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), April 25, 2004.

Brian,

What if the altar girls are aspiring nuns?

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 25, 2004.

Emily,

No, your grandmother's situation is not at all what I'm talking about. What your aunt did is entire right and appropriate if a priest was not able to visit your grandmother himself. Plus, I don't think your aunt probably had it placed in a special container. What I'm talking about is people, receiving communion in their hand, and then instead of consuming it, just walking out of church with it. We saw this attempted one time at a life teen mass with many extraordinary ministers. The priest, as he was distributing communion was alerted to what was taking place, and the offender was chased after. Why would someone do this? Ignorance? Maybe. What about a satanist wanting to desecrate the host outside or perhaps in some ceremony? I have heard of this.

Re: altar girls. You are right about it being dogma for females to be banned from priesthood. But unchanging? I hope so. There are many who would like to change it. Altar girls had been banned up until very, very, recently by tradition if not canon law. Why was it allowed recently? I think because they were being used anyway in many places, despite the ban. This is called a slippery slope.

In which case, how can you have this fear? The gates of hell will not prevail, as Jesus promised.

But Jesus did not promise that our faith wouldn't be tested, nor that there wouldn't be sheeps in wolve's clothing. Be vigilant.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 25, 2004.

Emily,

There were far more nuns before altar girls than there are today. Look at you. You have some desire to be one yourself, yet it had nothing to do with you being an altar girl. In fact, where are the nuns today. You used to see them all the time when I was young, and you could identify them. How tragic. Learning how to serve mass does not prepare one to be an altar girl, it prepares one to become a priest.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 25, 2004.

I said: I don't think your aunt probably had it placed in a special container.

correction: strike the word "don't" Sorry! I'm in a hurry because I've gotta get ready for mass.

Have a great day everyone!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 25, 2004.

In the 30 + years that I received the Eucharist kneeling at the altar rail while a priest placed the Host upon my tongue, not once did the priests' fingers touch my tongue..not one single time. There was no problem whatsoever with a single priest giving the sacrament to a few hundred people in this manner..nobody felt "rushed"...as this is the high point of the Mass..!!! What are we seeking here? If we are after historical accuracy, then lets bring in couches and all recline in the fashion of ancient times, and have servants to wash our hands and feet before we partake of the Eucharist..that would take a lot of time, but hey, it would be more accurate, eh? Or, if we are seeking to imitate the later church, we can all gather in each others' homes or caves and receive the Eucharist standing up if that would be better? Both of these statements are ridiculous and were meant to be. SARS.Plague.AIDS.? All irrelevant, IMHO..we are speaking about the BODY and BLOOD of Jesus Christ..the REAL BODY and BLOOD of Jesus Christ. What else is more precious to us? To hold in our hands and in our mouths the BODY and BLOOD of our LORD?? All other considerations are of no consequence.And so, our thoughts when receiving HIM should be on HIM and HIM alone..does a dying man really care about the health of the man handing him the glass of life-giving water? There are Saints who gave their lives rather than have the Host profaned..there were priests who risked their lives carrying the Consecrated Host to people in Eastern Europe. Surely, those of us blessed to receive the Eucharist need not argue with one another over tongues and hands? It is not the manner of receiving Christ which is important, it is the attitude of the receiver.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.

Joe, I realise the designated title is “extraordinary minister of Holy Communion”, however, old habits die hard. I will try to do better in the future.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 25, 2004.

Lesley, you stated, “In the 30 + years that I received the Eucharist kneeling at the altar rail while a priest placed the Host upon my tongue, not once did the priests' fingers touch my tongue..not one single time.” That’s an incredible statistic that truly warrants entry in the Guiness Book of World Records. Perhaps the reason you had such incident-free success in receiving the Eucharist was that you were stationary in the kneeling position. With all the jostling today involved with long lineups at communion and what with everyone constantly moving up to the point of receiving the host, incidents are more common. I once had a communicant pushed into me by someone behind her, as I was reaching out to give her the host. All I can tell you is, things happen. Watch the communion line for a few Sundays while you are in line to receive the Eucharist and you will be amazed at what you see.

The faith demonstrated here in this thread is truly admirable. Unfortunately many individuals do not have the blind, unfaltering faith that some of the participants in this forum have. Not everyone, when faced with the possibility of death in receiving the Eucharist at Mass is prepared to die. Maybe one needs to experience wearing masks and washing hands upon entering public buildings, or hear of someone they know passing on at a young age from a communicable disease passed along innocently, before they realize the gravity of not taking proper precautions. I was surprised by the reaction of many individuals during the SARS scare here and can only imagine what sort of panic will set in if a communicant loses his life due to his efforts to receive Holy Communion. If this should happen, I fear there will be far more communicants who give second thought to reception of Holy Communion than has been exhibited here in the forum. It really has nothing to do with the amount of faith a person has, but rather, has everything to do with the amount of common sense a person has.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 25, 2004.

Ed..without meaning to sound dramatic, if a person is not prepared to die, they have a much larger problem that worrying about the contaminated hands of whomever is giving out the Eucharist.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.

Lesley, who among us is prepared to die? If you are I envy you. As great as the promise of salvation is and as beautiful as heaven will be, I still would like a bit more time here on earth to enjoy that which my God has given me.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 25, 2004.

Longing for death and being prepared to die are two very different things. Despite being in a wheelchair much of the time and in severe pain all of the time,I am one of the happiest people I know..LOL..I love life and LIVE every moment that I am given. I sure don't long for death, not by any means. Yet I am certainly prepared for it, yes. The threat of an earthly death wouldn't keep me from the Eucharist..why should it? Why should anything of THIS earth keep me from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? By allowing fear to keep us from the Eucharist, we would be saying that there is something more powerful than Jesus..!!!! Or that this life, on this earth means more to us than receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.Whoa..Now I will go for drama Ed..if there were one priest to say mass and he was a leper, and he was the ONLY person qualified to distribute the Host; tongue, hands, it would make zero difference to me because it certainly made no difference to Christ.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 25, 2004.

Lesley,

That is beautiful. I could not have said it any better. We are kindred spirits!

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 25, 2004.

Back to altar girls. Emily and I were discussing it earlier.

Emily replied to me: As for altar girls, if canon law does not forbid it, I don't see a problem with it. It may appear to be hinting at future female priesthood, but it was my understanding that it is an unchanging, dogmatic teaching of the Church that only males can be priests. In which case, how can you have this fear?

Read a post today from the "married priests" thread from Karyn, an 18 year old altar girl, that provides a case in point of my objection to altar girls: As I prepare to start my freshman year at college, I tell myself 'if only I could've been a boy, I could do what I truly want to do with my life.' Look at the controversy over girl altar servers. For a long time, boys were the only youth allowed to become an altar server. Just recently, about a year ago, I was serving a wedding and, as the ceremony ended, I made my way down the aisle only to be greeted by an old man who said to me, 'I didn't know they allowed women on the altar now.' It was unheard of in his time. He grew up knowing that only boys could become altar servers. Society has never been willing to accept change. However, I ask you, if you had been brought up with women priests, would you be saying the same thing you are now, only about men becoming priests? I just want you all to know that I plan on minoring in theology/religious studies in college. Maybe, in the future, it will come in handy when preists are so rare, the church will have no choice but to either allow them to marry, or allow women to be ordained.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 26, 2004.

Brian,

Thanks for sharing - that is telling. Is there a role of young women to participate in the mass if not by being an altar girl? What if they wish to serve somehow? I guess my main problem with it is, how can the young women who are eager to serve do something in the Church?

As for the nuns, you said: In fact, where are the nuns today. You used to see them all the time when I was young, and you could identify them. How tragic.

Brian, you still can identify them. David@excite told me about how in the US there are 2 different organizations of orders for nuns - LCWR and CMSWR. The LCWR is very liberal, but dying out because less women are joining. The CMSWR only started recently and it doesn't have as many member orders, but they are growing by 35%.

David told me about it on this thread: Please Pray For my Family. The conservative CMSWR orders remain faithful to the Church's teachings, including wearing habits. I checked out their website and did a little internet research on them, and they seem like an excellent group. If you know of any young women who are considering the sisterhood, tell them to check this group out: www.cmswr.org. They are solid in their beliefs, remaining faithful to the Catholic Church's teachings, unlike many in the LCWR. I am so grateful that David showed me about this organization, and I may well join one of their orders one day. I am even looking into volunteering for one this summer.

God bless,

-- Emily (jesusfollower7@yahoo.com), April 26, 2004.

i have always thought that the lack of wearing habbits and priestly garments has contributed significantly to the falling numbers of vocations. wearing the habbit or the priestly garments is a sign of respect and pride in the position held. if people do not see others wearing these accoutraments, they begin to think that there arent very many and that those are are members don't have enough pride in their work to show it.

that would be like if the US military dressed in civilian clothes... it would remove the sense of pride in the work that the military does AS A TEAM.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), April 26, 2004.

Copied from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLPEDIA:

VESTMENTS Development Four main periods may be distinguished in the development of the Christian priestly dress. The first embraces the era before Constantine. In that period the priestly dress did not yet differ from the secular costume in form and ornament. The dress of daily life was worn at the offices of the Church. In times of peace and under normal conditions better garments were probably used, and these were especially reserved for the celebration of the Sacred Mysteries. It would undoubtedly have scandalized the faithful if they had seen the dusty, dirty, or worn garments. The opinion which St. Jerome expresses--"The Divine religion has one dress in the service of sacred things, another in ordinary intercourse and life"-- is certainly true also for the pre-Constantinian period, which it is hardly permitted to regard as a period of liturgical barbarism. It is even possible, though not demonstrated, that, as early as the close of the pre-Constantinian period, liturgical insignia came into use among the bishops and deacons, as the orarion, or stole, and the omophorion or pallium.

Iwant to emphasyze this passage:

The first embraces the era before Constantine. In that period the priestly dress did not yet differ from the secular costume in form and ornament.

When trying to find the basis for our present day way of doing things correctly we Christians look to the Primitive Church. In fact we take pride on our historical tradition. Why is it then that we insist in having special garments for the Liturgical ceremonies or for the priestly daily dress?

Yes, I know you will answer that the Church herself made changes on that discipline and that we must accept them. Yes, of course. But at the same time I find nothing wrong in wanting to go back to some of the simpler ways of doing things in the Primitive Church. If a priest lives a holy and dedicated life the way he dresses will add nothing to his priestly ministry. In the liturgical ceremonies would it not be sufficient to have a stole with the color corresponding with the liturgical time over a clean and simple suit? Wouldn't it be a better sign of what Vatican II called a poor Church for the poor people? If we really live our MYSTERY OF FAITH what need for all that paraphernalia?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), April 27, 2004.

Enrique,

My antennae is starting to go up when someone says something emulates "the primitive church" or "the early christian church." To me this translates as: "we can cast away things that have been practiced for nearly two millenia or evolved during that time or we can allow things that have not been allowed for nearly two millenia because 'we Christians look to the primitive church'." I am starting to think this is just modernist sophistry.

You say: In the liturgical ceremonies would it not be sufficient to have a stole with the color corresponding with the liturgical time over a clean and simple suit? Or how about a nice sport coat. Why a suit? Why not grimy sack cloths or whatever St. Paul was sporting around in? Wouldn't that be more resembling of the early church? No thanks.

You also say: If we really live our MYSTERY OF FAITH what need for all that paraphernalia?

So a roman collar is paraphernalia? Ummmm no! Read an excerpt from EWTN regarding roman collars: "2) By wearing clerical clothing and not possessing excess clothes, the priest demonstrates adherence to the Lord's example of material poverty. The priest does not choose his clothes-the Church has, thanks to her accumulated wisdom over the past two millennia. Humble acceptance of the Church's desire that the priest wear the Roman collar illustrates a healthy submission to authority and conformity to the will of Christ as expressed through his Church." But wait there's more.

And now you can read (in my best Paul Harvey voice)the...rest of the story: here

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 27, 2004.

GT asked, "Well, the Last Supper, was a meal, with real bread and wine, not these funny-looking little wafers. Why not at least use real bread?"

I recently heard a good explanation of that. The current form was purposely developed to reduce the chance of having crumbs fall to the ground (which are also the Body of Christ), to facilitate quick delivery in long communion lines, and to maintain it's form when dipped in the wine. Lots of requirements were taken into consideration.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@span.com), April 27, 2004.

i have always thought that the lack of wearing habbits and priestly garments has contributed significantly to the falling numbers of vocations.

This seems to be an ongoing trend. Many Deacons are being DENIED their right to wear a clerical collar and in some diocese, they are not given the title Rev.

-- James (Jams@asdf.com), April 28, 2004.

Dear Brian

This church is not now, nor will it ever be, a cafeteria. You can't pick and choose what you wish to accept or not accept. Our liturgy includes these things which you are upset with. It's not your place to judge the worthyness of our liturgy, it's your place to accept it.

You seem to think it is your place to instruct the Bishops of the church, when I think the opposite is more likely to be true. It is you who should become humble and submissive and accepting of what they have given you. It is they who have been given the "keys" to our faith and it is them who should be listened to.

When you focus upon these percieved instances of abuse as you see them you are becoming lost in trivial matters and are missing the point of what our church is teaching in matters of faith. The church calls each of us to live out our faith in the liturgy and calls for unity of action. When you take us down the paths you take us on, you are breaking down the unity of our assembly and that's more hurtfull to our liturgy than anything you are preaching to us about. It doesn't mean anything that you think you are right and justified in your indignity. The church will always set our example and all the Brians of the world should follow. That's simply put, how it is. Be a good Catholic, Brian and come worship with us.

If you think it's in your best interest to out-pious the rest of us Catholics here, you are treading on dangerous ground. The most beautiful beatitude reads "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God. Remember that sentiment, next time you wish to get up on your soapbox and preach to the rest of us "lessor Catholics" about your lessons in "superpiety." Jesus did not walk that path when he walked among us, we shouldn't either. Spend a little more time giving the church her just respect and I think you might find that you are going to become an even better follower of Christ than you already are. I'm sure your fellow parishioners will appreciate you more too.

To Jesus, through Mary

Peace be with you

-- Leon (pookieboy@jmj.com), April 28, 2004.

This church is not now, nor will it ever be, a cafeteria. You can't pick and choose what you wish to accept or not accept. Our liturgy includes these things which you are upset with. It's not your place to judge the worthyness of our liturgy, it's your place to accept it.

***I am not Brian, but had to laugh at this statement. Are you really so blind that you can not see how our Catholic faith has become a cafeteria? Is John Kerry not an example enough for you? How many more John Kerrys do we have out there? Pick, and choose what you like or don't like, and still be a good Catholic, AND receive Holy Communion. Have you been so lucky at your parish (and no I'm not jealous just happy for you) that you have NEVER witnessed abuse?

You seem to think it is your place to instruct the Bishops of the church, when I think the opposite is more likely to be true. It is you who should become humble and submissive and accepting of what they have given you. It is they who have been given the "keys" to our faith and it is them who should be listened to.

***LOL Where are you coming from? All that I have read do you honestly think the Holy Spirit is instructing the Bishops, and where did Brian state he was "instructing" them? We must follow a Bishop who tells us it is OK to have abortions or lead a homosexual lifestyle? Not all of them have the "keys" sorry to tell you. We as Catholics must know our faith in order to not be lead astray. Many sheep are in wolves clothing so as Catholics we must be prepared for all of it.

When you focus upon these percieved instances of abuse as you see them you are becoming lost in trivial matters and are missing the point of what our church is teaching in matters of faith.

******What is so trivial about children being abused? About lost souls? People leaving the faith because of abuse therefore losing their souls? Many being misdirected in CONFESSION (about abortions, homosexuality, marriage, masturbation..the list goes on, and on)? I have not read anything trivial with what Brian has written. Instead I find what he has to say very educational, and nonjudgmental. Where did he rub you wrong to make you JUDGE HIM they way YOU have?

The church calls each of us to live out our faith in the liturgy and calls for unity of action.

***Please explain this. I always hear UNITY. If we know there is someone living in sin do we let them know or "pretend" it is all perfect? What does unity of action really mean?

When you take us down the paths you take us on, you are breaking down the unity of our assembly and that's more hurtfull to our liturgy than anything you are preaching to us about.

***This is YOUR opinion, but not mine. I have been lurking for over two months, and have not found anything of what you are saying to be true. Instead I find you to be PREACHING about "nothing" that will save us.

It doesn't mean anything that you think you are right and justified in your indignity.

***Nor does it for you.

The church will always set our example and all the Brians of the world should follow.

***Should follow as long it is the true teachings of the Catholic faith.

That's simply put, how it is. Be a good Catholic, Brian and come worship with us.

***Would have to guess by all that he has written that he is a good Catholic, and does worship with you. Where or where please share, do you think he worships? You are judging him, and thinking you know him so please share what you think, and all you know.

If you think it's in your best interest to out-pious the rest of us Catholics here, you are treading on dangerous ground.

***ROTFLOL What does this mean? Please fill me in. My little brain does not understand. Where do you JUDGE Brian to be, and what do you mean DANGEROUS ground? This sounds a little exciting, and scary all rolled into one. ;o)

Remember that sentiment, next time you wish to get up on your soapbox and preach to the rest of us "lessor Catholics" about your lessons in "superpiety." Jesus did not walk that path when he walked among us, we shouldn't either.

***Lessor Catholics? I am lost Leon. How did Brian make himself out to be "superior"? How did you feel "less/lessor"? He must have stated something that rubbed you the wrong way so please share this with me someone who is new to this forum, and someone who greatly respects Brian.

Spend a little more time giving the church her just respect and I think you might find that you are going to become an even better follower of Christ than you already are. I'm sure your fellow parishioners will appreciate you more too.

****Wow such ANGER coming from a "good" Catholic, or what do you want to call yourself? Where did Brian show disrespect? Do you know what or how his fellow parishioners feel about him to even make such a blanket statement? How do you know if they don't already appreciate him? How do you know if he is not well known in his community, and well liked? Who are YOU to even state what you have?

The most beautiful beatitude reads "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

***My guess he already knows this so why not apply it to yourself.

PSALM 1 True Happiness

Happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked Nor walks in the way of the sinners, nor sits in the company of the insolent, But delights in the law of the Lord and meditates on his law day and night. He is like a tree planted near running water, That yields its fruit in due season, and whose leaves never fade. Not so the wicked, not so: they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore in judgment the wicked shall not stand, nor shall sinners, in the assembly of the just. For the Lord watches over the way of the just, but the way of the wicked vanishes.

God Bless,

Jalapeno52000

-- jalapeno52000 (rainbowlight1@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

My rainbowlight addy wasn't typed in correctly so I will use my other addy for this forum, jalapeno52000@hotmail.com Sorry for any inconveniences.

-- jalapeno52000 (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

With ALL respect Leon, one of the largest issues in the church today is that in THIS country, there is indeed a "cafeteria" mentality..just browse the forum and read the lay press. My husband and I have done a great bit of travelling over the past few years. It amazes me how different each geographic area of the USA is even in the presentation of the mass..the liturgy, etc. why else would the Vatican be issuing these instructions? We are "ONE Holy and Apostolic Church...". Seriously, one wouldn't know that in recent years. It used to be that ALL submitted to the Papal authority, and the Bishops were in accord with one another, and individual priests submitted to their bishops. Now we read things such as the priests in Arizona who may or may not follow their bishop's direction..if they feel like it, or if they agree with it, or if it suits them, or IF IF IF, etc. we have Catholics who use artificial birth control and openly say it's OK, and their own priest's agree. We have Bishops who refuse communion to people who wish to receive kneeling but will give the Eucharist to visiting protestants in the "spirit of ecumenicism", and a Paulist Center in my hometown which embraces the concept of homosexual unions. I applaud the Vatican for ANY instruction which will get the church in America back to being "ONE Holy and Apostolic Church" and it begins with ALL of those supposedly small things with which people closely identify as being key to their church. And so the Vatican is saying that NO, the priest cannot choose to wear just anything he wants during mass..he MUST wear certain vestments..and NO..a priest cannot refuse a communicant the Eucharist because the communicant wishes to either stand or kneel..and the HOST must be kept HERE and not THERE, etc..we needn't return to the days of antiquity, nor to 1965 either. Yet, we DO need to support the efforts of the Vatican to bring true unity of the church to the USA..because we do not have that here. Not as it used to be.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

This church is not now, nor will it ever be, a cafeteria. You can't pick and choose what you wish to accept or not accept. Our liturgy includes these things which you are upset with. It's not your place to judge the worthyness of our liturgy, it's your place to accept it.

***I am not Brian, but had to laugh at this statement. Are you really so blind that you can not see how our Catholic faith has become a cafeteria? Is John Kerry not an example enough for you? How many more John Kerrys do we have out there? Pick, and choose what you like or don't like, and still be a good Catholic, AND receive Holy Communion. Have you been so lucky at your parish (and no I'm not jealous just happy for you) that you have NEVER witnessed abuse?

********* The source of the liturgy is the magiserium of the church and in the united states if is also given to us by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. Individual Bishops also have authority in their individual dioceses. Our liturgy is sacred, given to the Church, the magisterium, by God. If you have witnessed abuses, it is not the liturgies fault, but those who exercise it. "In the hand or in the mouth" is not an abuse, it is how we take communion. One way or the other, neither is an abuse of the liturgy, both are accepted. It is only an abuse, when we debate one or another, when the liturgy accepts both. You can't be a "good Catholic" and stand down here in the rank and file and criticise the norms of our liturgy. It's simply not our place to judge our church. If we want to walk that isle, there are plenty of Protestant churches that will accept us in that state.

You seem to think it is your place to instruct the Bishops of the church, when I think the opposite is more likely to be true. It is you who should become humble and submissive and accepting of what they have given you. It is they who have been given the "keys" to our faith and it is them who should be listened to.

***LOL Where are you coming from? All that I have read do you honestly think the Holy Spirit is instructing the Bishops, and where did Brian state he was "instructing" them? We must follow a Bishop who tells us it is OK to have abortions or lead a homosexual lifestyle? Not all of them have the "keys" sorry to tell you. We as Catholics must know our faith in order to not be lead astray. Many sheep are in wolves clothing so as Catholics we must be prepared for all of it.

********* Do you honestly believe that the Spirit is not "instructing" our church. That is the most basic tenant of our faith. It could not be otherwise or we would have no church. They all, "collectively" have the keys to our faith. The abuses you list are exagerated, if they truely exist at all.

When you focus upon these percieved instances of abuse as you see them you are becoming lost in trivial matters and are missing the point of what our church is teaching in matters of faith.

******What is so trivial about children being abused? About lost souls? People leaving the faith because of abuse therefore losing their souls? Many being misdirected in CONFESSION (about abortions, homosexuality, marriage, masturbation..the list goes on, and on)? I have not read anything trivial with what Brian has written. Instead I find what he has to say very educational, and nonjudgmental. Where did he rub you wrong to make you JUDGE HIM they way YOU have?

****** Where did all of this nonsense come in, you debate the way my ex-wife did. The discussion is on "in the hand or in the mouth" Brian criticised the norms of our liturgy. That is how I can criticize him. He is outside the norms, . . . as my daughter would say . . . "Duh!"

The church calls each of us to live out our faith in the liturgy and calls for unity of action.

***Please explain this. I always hear UNITY. If we know there is someone living in sin do we let them know or "pretend" it is all perfect? What does unity of action really mean?

***** Unity of action when it pertains to liturgy, means that we act as one assembly with one Center, which is Christ. We do not do our own thing. When we are asked to stand, we all stand together, when we kneel we all kneel together. When we take communion, we do it how it is prescribed. We don't add extra reverences or subtract expected gestures, to do so would be to draw attention to ourselves and away from the unity which we are called to express.

When you take us down the paths you take us on, you are breaking down the unity of our assembly and that's more hurtfull to our liturgy than anything you are preaching to us about.

***This is YOUR opinion, but not mine. I have been lurking for over two months, and have not found anything of what you are saying to be true. Instead I find you to be PREACHING about "nothing" that will save us.

***** The key phrase here is that it is your opinion. Individual opinions carry very little weight in our church. We are called to conform to the one true faith. When we fall outside what is prescribed in the catechism of our faith. It is probably we who need to change rather than our church. That is the "saving" grace you should aspire to.

It doesn't mean anything that you think you are right and justified in your indignity.

***Nor does it for you.

**** I am simply enforcing what I have been given by my church. to not defend her would be an injustice on my part. That's simply the way I have been taught. If I am in error in matters of liturgy of the church, then it will be me who will change, not the liturgy.

The church will always set our example and all the Brians of the world should follow.

***Should follow as long it is the true teachings of the Catholic faith.

***** As I have pointed out repeatedly, Brian is outside the true teachings of our faith. It is OK to take communion in the hand, no matter what "the Brian's of the world" try to tell us.

That's simply put, how it is. Be a good Catholic, Brian and come worship with us.

***Would have to guess by all that he has written that he is a good Catholic, and does worship with you. Where or where please share, do you think he worships? You are judging him, and thinking you know him so please share what you think, and all you know.

****** When he tries to make the case that communion in the hand is somehow wrong. He is not being a good Catholic. He is outside the norms of our liturgy and outside the norms of our faith.

If you think it's in your best interest to out-pious the rest of us Catholics here, you are treading on dangerous ground.

***ROTFLOL What does this mean? Please fill me in. My little brain does not understand. Where do you JUDGE Brian to be, and what do you mean DANGEROUS ground? This sounds a little exciting, and scary all rolled into one. ;o)

***** When Brian tries to make the case that by having the "Body of Christ" placed on his outstretched tongue that he is more pious than his neighbor who accepts it in his hand, he is outside the norms of our liturgy and is making rules on his own behalf. He is disrupting the accepted norms of how we celebrate our liturgy and is breaking the unity of our assembly . . . needlessly. In that he is taking us on dangerous ground and judging him against our liturgical documents, he is interpreting them in a stricter sence than they have been written. In that sence, he is trying to out-pious the rest of the church.

Remember that sentiment, next time you wish to get up on your soapbox and preach to the rest of us "lessor Catholics" about your lessons in "superpiety." Jesus did not walk that path when he walked among us, we shouldn't either.

***Lessor Catholics? I am lost Leon. How did Brian make himself out to be "superior"? How did you feel "less/lessor"? He must have stated something that rubbed you the wrong way so please share this with me someone who is new to this forum, and someone who greatly respects Brian.

****** when Brian tries to tighten the norms to his liking, he is trying to be "superior" or more pious than his neighbors, who accept the norms as they have been given to us.

Spend a little more time giving the church her just respect and I think you might find that you are going to become an even better follower of Christ than you already are. I'm sure your fellow parishioners will appreciate you more too.

****Wow such ANGER coming from a "good" Catholic, or what do you want to call yourself? Where did Brian show disrespect? Do you know what or how his fellow parishioners feel about him to even make such a blanket statement? How do you know if they don't already appreciate him? How do you know if he is not well known in his community, and well liked? Who are YOU to even state what you have?

***** There is no anger coming from my side. All I am doing is pointing out Brian's desrespect or abuse of the norms of our church. The issue is one that is in black and white. No grey areas here. The norms are spelled out for all of us to read. What Brain is suggesting is outside those norms and it needs to be pointed out.

The most beautiful beatitude reads "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of God.

***My guess he already knows this so why not apply it to yourself.

***** if there is anything that I've said here that is not right or outside the accepted norms of our liturgical practices, then I would expect the same treatment that I have heaped upon Brian. But if I follow what the church, gives me, then I am in no way trying to draw attention to myself.

PSALM 1 True Happiness

Happy the man who follows not the counsel of the wicked Nor walks in the way of the sinners, nor sits in the company of the insolent, But delights in the law of the Lord and meditates on his law day and night. He is like a tree planted near running water, That yields its fruit in due season, and whose leaves never fade. Not so the wicked, not so: they are like chaff which the wind drives away. Therefore in judgment the wicked shall not stand, nor shall sinners, in the assembly of the just. For the Lord watches over the way of the just, but the way of the wicked vanishes.

****** Nice sentiment.

Peace be with you To Jesus, through Mary

-- Leon (pookieboy@jmj.com), April 29, 2004.

Leslie, I agree with you completely. I guess what I am pointing out is that there are conservitive "Cafeteria" catholics, just as there are "liberals" Both are equally outside the norms of our faith. I am warry of both, equally.

-- Leon (pookieboy@jmj.com), April 29, 2004.

The source of the liturgy is the magiserium of the church and in the united states if is also given to us by the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops. Individual Bishops also have authority in their individual dioceses. Our liturgy is sacred, given to the Church, the magisterium, by God. If you have witnessed abuses, it is not the liturgies fault, but those who exercise it.

***I am well aware of that.

Receiving in the hand did noIt is only an abuse, when we debate one or another, when the liturgy accepts both. You can't be a "good Catholic" and stand down here in the rank and file and criticise the norms of our liturgy.

***Receiving in the hand became acceptable after years of abuse.

Do you honestly believe that the Spirit is not "instructing" our church. That is the most basic tenant of our faith. It could not be otherwise or we would have no church. They all, "collectively" have the keys to our faith. The abuses you list are exagerated, if they truely exist at all.

***Yes I believe the Holy Spirit is directing our churches, but there are abuses going on, and many souls being lost. It is our duty as Catholics to know our faith. I am not exaggerating a thing, and it amazes me that you can truly be so blind to it all. I won't share what was told to my 9yo son in confession a little over two years ago. It was my "awakening" and after this happened I learned more about our faith. I went from priest to priest, and I would say it averaged 1 out of 4 priest directed correctly in confession, but not sure why I am sharing this being the topic is on receiving in the mouth or hand. So no need to go here or share abuses that I have personally witnessed.

Where did all of this nonsense come in, you debate the way my ex- wife did. The discussion is on "in the hand or in the mouth" Brian criticised the norms of our liturgy. That is how I can criticize him. He is outside the norms, . . . as my daughter would say . . . "Duh!"

***Excccccccccuuuuuuuuuuse me! Now I'm being compared to your ex- wife? LOL With one abuse come others is why I stated what I did. DUH! ;o) Brian is not outside of the norms to state what he has nor am I to believe what I do. :o)

Unity of action when it pertains to liturgy, means that we act as one assembly with one Center, which is Christ. We do not do our own thing. When we are asked to stand, we all stand together, when we kneel we all kneel together.

*** Where did Brian state that he does not do this? I must have missed something.

When we take communion, we do it how it is prescribed. We don't add extra reverences or subtract expected gestures, to do so would be to draw attention to ourselves and away from the unity which we are called to express.

****A new change came about in the year 2000 and instituted in the U.S. in 2002. People must now give a bow before receiving to show respect because most didn't or knew they had to. In this GIRM it was also stated you can kneel, and can not be refused communion. So, if a person wants to show extra reverence how is that hurting someone else? Aren't we trying to be one with God, and showing reverence to Him?

When you take us down the paths you take us on, you are breaking down the unity of our assembly and that's more hurtfull to our liturgy than anything you are preaching to us about.

***Your opinion Leon.

When Brian tries to make the case that by having the "Body of Christ" placed on his outstretched tongue that he is more pious than his neighbor who accepts it in his hand, he is outside the norms of our liturgy and is making rules on his own behalf. He is disrupting the accepted norms of how we celebrate our liturgy and is breaking the unity of our assembly . . . needlessly. In that he is taking us on dangerous ground and judging him against our liturgical documents, he is interpreting them in a stricter sence than they have been written. In that sence, he is trying to out-pious the rest of the church.

***I happen to agree with Brian, and again it does not state that we can not receive while on our knees or on our tongue. Instead it the GIRM states we can not be denied.

when Brian tries to tighten the norms to his liking, he is trying to be "superior" or more pious than his neighbors, who accept the norms as they have been given to us.

***Funny how you take it to "superior" if you choose to be this way. You are judging him again. Only God can know his heart or if he feels superior. Speaking for myself I receive this way and do not feel superior in the least. I am not even thinking about how others are taking it nor am I watching, but on my knees either singing or praying.

All I am doing is pointing out Brian's desrespect or abuse of the norms of our church. The issue is one that is in black and white. No grey areas here. The norms are spelled out for all of us to read. What Brain is suggesting is outside those norms and it needs to be pointed out.

***He has not shown disrespect or abuse. What he is stating is not outside the norms either, and I will point this out to you.

if there is anything that I've said here that is not right or outside the accepted norms of our liturgical practices, then I would expect the same treatment that I have heaped upon Brian. But if I follow what the church, gives me, then I am in no way trying to draw attention to myself.

***We can receive on the tongue, and on our knees. We can not be denied this. One goes to worship God not pay attention what others are doing.

God Bless,

jalapeno

-- jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), April 29, 2004.

Leon,

You accuse me of: "not being humble and submissive," wanting to instruct the Bishops, "breaking down the unity of our assembly," "treading on dangerous ground," getting on my "soapbox," preaching lessons in "superpiety," and not respecting the church.

I accuse you of: slander and misrepresentation. You also say that I'm being indignant, yet you seem to be indignant toward me.

You say: Our liturgy includes these things which you are upset with. It's not your place to judge the worthyness of our liturgy, it's your place to accept it.

I do accept it Leon; show me where I said I didn't. I accept our liturgy, but that doesn't mean it's hunky dory. Consider the following quotes:

“I am convinced that the crisis in the church that we are experiencing today is to a large extent due to the disintegration of the liturgy, which at times has even come to be conceived of etsi Deus non daretur...Then the community is celebrating only itself, an activity that is utterly fruitless...This is why we need a new Liturgical Movement, which will call to life the real heritage of the Second Vatican Council (ibid.)..."too much about the new rite had been dreamed up at the desks of experts and forced on the church."

"(he)hoped for a new generation of bishops who would restore Latin to the liturgy and curb the “wild excesses” of the post- conciliar era."

I became a partisan of the liturgical movement at the beginning of the Council...I saw in the elaboration of the Constitution on the Liturgy, which incorporated all the essential discoveries of the liturgical movement, a magnificent start for the Church assembly, and I counselled Card. Frings accordingly. I could not foresee that the negative aspects of the liturgical movement would reappear more vigorous than ever, leading straight to the self-destruction of the liturgy.

Are you going to accuse the author of these quotes as "treading on dangerous ground," "not respecting the church," and "breaking down the unity of the assembly?"

Who is this author? None other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. -------------------------------------------------------------------

When You say:Spend a little more time giving the church her just respect and I think you might find that you are going to become an even better follower of Christ than you already are. I'm sure your fellow parishioners will appreciate you more too.

I will dismiss the condescension of your statement, and tell you that I strive to do that. (Hopefully my fellow parishioners will appreciate my efforts)

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 29, 2004.

Brian

If and when Cardinal Ratzinger gets his way and the norms for our Liturgy are changed to reflect his views about our Liturgy, then I will accept them as my own. As it stands now, the instruction for our liturgy is as it is and it should be adhered to. It's not up to us to promote the changes we want before they are in place.

-- Leon (pookieboy@jmj.com), April 30, 2004.

Jalapeno

In your last post you made reference to the fact that your personal preference for recieving communion would be to drop to your knees and recieve the Body of Christ on your tongue. You stated that according to the revised GIRM, this practice was not banned. I am reading into your response that not everyone around you is making the same reverence as they recieve the host.

In our parish, it is the Priest who sets the norms for our reception of the Eucharist, norms which have been laid down in our diocese by our Bishop. Norms which follow the revised GIRM. In their interpretation of the GIRM, it is not a practice which they encourage. Their reasoning is that it would not add to the unity of the assembly.

Our encouraged practice is to offer a head bow to the host several places before the head of the line, recieve the host either on the tongue or in the hand, make the proper response, "Amen," consume the host in the presence of the minister and then move to the side and make the sign of the cross to the altar if you so desire.

Your practice of kneeling would not be encouraged in that it would disrupt the flow of the sacrament. The only time it would be looked upon with favor would be if all in the assembly held to the same practice.

In a neighboring parish, which some of my family attend they have one parishioner who insists upon the same practice as you prescribe and they are constantly complaining about tripping over her as she unexpectedly drops to her knees. They don't appreciate her practice and feel as though it is self serving.

Our priest would make the case that you have just come from the assembly in a kneeling posture and you have already shown such reverence. The proper posture for accepting the host is to "stand in reverence"

To Jesus, through Mary Peace be with you

Leon

-- Leon (pookieboy@jmj.com), April 30, 2004.

Leon,

You say In a neighboring parish, which some of my family attend they have one parishioner who insists upon the same practice as you prescribe and they are constantly complaining about tripping over her as she unexpectedly drops to her knees. They don't appreciate her practice and feel as though it is self serving...The only time it would be looked upon with favor would be if all in the assembly held to the same practice.

Since Redemptionis Sacramentum explicitly allows her to receive communion on her knees--what's their problem? And how does someone constantly do something unexpectedly. This sounds like Leon does not "look with favor" on an aspect of the liturgy. You shouldn't worry about someone being self-serving, Leon, because as you say the instruction for our liturgy is as it is and it should be adhered to.

BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, Jalapeno is my dear wife, who took it upon herself to answer your distortions a few days ago because I was asleep.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), April 30, 2004.

Leon wrote

***Really? My priest hasn't said anything, and I did ask him if it mattered, and he said, "However I want to be before God is betweeen God, and myself." :o)

***This is funny, and a little sad. Sad that your family pays so much attention to this parishioner, and take the time to judge. Maybe if they know this is what she will do they should be ready for her instead of "tripping" up all the time. LOL

What I have seen in many parishes here in my state, and other states is that Bishops, and priest are ignoring enforcing the new GIRM. IF one is NOT KNEELING they must either BOW or GENUFLECT prior to receiving. Why is this so hard for many to enforce? How can they ignore wanting to teach everyone to show reverence to God? How can they not make this important? Receiving the Eucharist is the most sacred part of our Catholic faith. If they don't care enough to teach everyone this where else will can they fail you? If you go to different parishes, and see they are not bowing or genuflecting will you follow suit just to make it "flow" and "fit in" or will you obey the official NORM given to us?

God Bless,

Jalapeno

-- Jalapeno (jalapeno52000@hotmail.com), April 30, 2004.

italics off

-- (helping@hand.com), April 30, 2004.

Friends..It is so sad to read these things. One HAS to wonder why people would be so hung up on them to begin with? Dear Leon, would it not be an act of simple charity to acknowledge that this ONE lady in the parish has a NEED to receive the Eucharist while kneeling and to accept that and move along? I have this mental image of this one poor soul having a choice to make; does she please God, or does she please the people around her who seem to be impatient to "move the line along"? Since it is the Vatican which says EITHER is acceptable, then what is the big deal in making it possible for this one lady to receive as she feels most comfortable? Here perhaps is a better example..if Mother Teresa were still with us and she came to your church for Mass..what would be the response among the people attending if SHE were to kneel to receive the Eucharist? Would there be gasps of impatience, or audible "tsk tsks"? Would the priest withold communion from her until she was in a standing position? Would there be anyone there who would accuse Mother Teresa of wanting to call attention to herself? Or how about the Pope himself?

Can you imagine anyone explaining to John Paul II that it is inconvenient to everyone else to allow him to receive while kneeling if he chose to do so? To me, the solution to these things is so incredibly simple among people of true faith and love for one another. Since either standing or kneeling is allowed,and yes of course one does not wish to stumble over another person,then as an act of charity the priest should discuss this matter with the lady and give her the Eucharist either first or last.

And if there were others who wished to receive kneeling rather than standing..so what? Is there a timetable which must be followed for the distribution of the Holy Eucharist? What is more important????

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 01, 2004.