The recent correspondence in this newspaper on the subject of music in the liturgy and the on-going debate about the new translations in the English missal have been vigorous and occasionally perhaps even polarising. Even so, these discussions show that for many the Mass and its liturgy still matters a great deal.
This is how it should be. The Mass, Christ’s sacrifice and his real presence in it, is at the centre of our faith. It is right that people should have strong opinions on the liturgy, provided these are expressed with such charity and respect as to prevent the Eucharist becoming a battleground.
One may contrast the passion for the liturgy that has been evident on our letters pages and other forums with the casual attitudes some Catholics exhibit at Mass. There is merit in the complaint that too often reverence for the Eucharist and respect for God’s house are lacking.
It cannot be right that a sacristan has to pick up empty fast-food packages after a Mass, or that a priest has to collect used tissues from the benches, never mind that congregants discard consecrated hosts in the pew. There certainly is a lack of regard for the Eucharist when congregants present themselves for the reception of the Body of Christ while chewing gum, or treat the Mass itself as a social club rather than a time for prayer and worship.
While some instances of irreverence are readily observable, other gestures and signs are more difficult to measure.
Dress codes for Mass, for example, are subject to prevailing culture standards. In 1928 The Southern Cross could still object to women exposing their ankles in church; today this would seem absurd. It is entirely possible that a Catholic woman wearing a short dress has intense reverence for the Eucharist and that the woman in her Sunday best merely goes through the motions at Mass. Dress is no reliable indicator of reverence.
Reverence cannot be measured by external gestures. Indeed, it would seem sinful to pass judgment in the first place.
In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus warns us to “beware of practising your piety before others in order to be seen by them” (6:1). He is dismissive of those who are ostentatious in their exhibition of piety: “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others” (Mt 6:5).
Whatever external signs of reverence we demonstrate must above all be sincere. So it is salutary to bow before receiving Communion, but this should be because one seeks to show reverence for the present Christ in that manner. The gesture is meaningless if it is merely an automated response to an instruction. An ostentatious bow may be less reverent than no bow at all. God knows our hearts.
Of course, shows of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament can set an excellent example. More importantly, however, we must deepen our internal reverence for the Eucharist.
We do so alone in prayer and reflection, and in ensuring that we are in a state of grace as we receive Holy Communion. We do so in our parishes in on-going catechesis about the meaning of the Eucharist and proper preparation for it. And we do so in our families and communities by helping others understand the incredible gift of the sacrament, even and especially if we give witness by example, when we show our reverence not only towards the Eucharist but also to others.
As we prepare to present ourselves to receive the body and blood of Christ, we must remind ourselves of what we are about to receive, be conscious of the awesome reality of his presence, and act accordingly.
In the fourth paragraph, it is mentioned that congregants discard consecrated hosts in the pews. That is a terrible sacrilege: that word must be used without fear or hesitation, Catholics should know about these things. But then again, why don’t they know? Because they are not told by our Authorities who never would dare to offend the faithful. That’s Modernism in action. I know, it is very simplified here.
Then, one may ask, that problem of sacrilege could easily be solved: the priest should distribute the host on the tongue and the faithful should be kneeling out of respect,reverence,awe even. O.k. the communion time would be a little longer, but really, what is the big deal? It is sunday, the day of rest for families, the mass is very much part of that special day,and that it should last 10 minutes more would be of no consequence. I am of course here speaking of the PRIEST giving communion….only he has consecrated hands.
Nowadays, any devout , pious Catholic can give communion to the faithful, bring communion to the sick, etc. That is not right. That is also the product of modernism, an Error condemned by the Popes.
In passing, an appeal should be made to those faithful who enter the sanctuary: they should always kneel when passing in front of the tabernacle. They should be aware of WHO is in that tabernacle. In my humble view, a little bow of the head is insufficient. The same applies to those who enter their pews without genuflecting. A modern , liberated , 21st century mind would say: but why attach so much importance to details? I know, that is always what is replied when these “little” details are raised. However, think about them seriously. To our priests, please keep reminding the faithful about these good, traditional Catholic pratices. And finally, if you can, please give the Tridentine Mass to those who want it. You would be obeying the Pope and make many Catholics very happy. The Church is inevitably moving slowly back to Tradition for the benefit of all.
Courage Catholics, better times are coming. Oremus pro invicem.
Thanks PR for that insightful comment.
As a person who is just about to be confirmed, I find much validity in what you have written. I asked my priest on his views on the manner in which a person should receive communion and indeed from whom. I was of the same view that we should really only receive communion from a priest who has “consecrated hands” and then only on the tongue, and the book written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider “Dominus Est – It is the Lord” further supported this view. The reply from the priest was as follows with regards to the washing of hands:
“We must distinguish very carefully the ritual that is observed – by the main concelebrant only – at the Preparation of the Gifts – from a mere “cleansing ritual”. The washing of the hands, is not based on the action of Pilate, but rather on the words of Ps 50(51). It originated, as did many parts of the mass, now seemingly only ritual actions, from the need to wash his hands after physically arranging the bread and wine and incensing them. In the early church, this no doubt could have been a fairly messy and complex affair.
The fact that concelebrating priests (or bishops), and deacons – who are equally ORDINARY ministers of the eucharist – do not also observe this ritual – suggests it is a merely ritual / symbolic action. Again, common sense tells us that if a priest feels his hands might be dirty, for some or other reason, he could wash them before distributing communion. This is also common place in many churches where extra ordinary ministers might also do the same after coming up at the Lamb of God. During Swine Flu time, I know that before distributing communion, all priests and laity would wash their hands with the disinfectant. It seemed over the top, but there was a common sense to it.”
On the functions of Extra Ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion he had this to say:
“The norms of Vatican II need to be carefully studied in so far as the practice of Extra Ordinary Ministers of the Holy Communion is concerned. I believe that their title suggests that they are only required where there is a need! It is a ministry and is not a right – there is hardly a need for a minister to distribute 5, 10 or even 15 hosts. Sadly in many parishes the need is to ensure that we don’t seem to be discriminating against the laity or being closed to the spirit of Vatican II – or simply because a priest is too afraid to let people know what the Church actually provides for. I cannot answer your question “Shouldn’t priests/deacons be the only people to administer the Divine Sacrament?” The Church has given us a framework, we should not be creating our own. Many EOMHD do tremendous work taking communion to those who are sick or housebound. This to me seems a much more significant part of their ministry, rather than at Sunday or Weekday Eucharist.”
As to what my decision on the matter is I am still undecided. But I am more inclined to follow what my priest has advised in this ending comment:
“The latter example does not answer your question, but reminds us that if we follow what was intended by Vatican II – not our own or popular interpretation of it – if we actually read the liturgical books – we can create without the need for all sorts of outside effects – a very simple, but very profound celebration of liturgy.”
John
The ultimate preparation for the reception of Holy Communion is to be in a state of grace. I would point out that particularly at requiem masses , I have never or very, very seldom heard a priest make a short announcement before the mass reminding the assembly that only Catholics, and Catholics in a state of grace, are to receive Holy Communion. In S.A. there are inevitably ,at most funerals, people of the protestant faith who are family or friends to the deceased who very innocently may well join others in the queue to show their respect to the family or for whatever reason. I know, somebody with a wide open mind, well into the 21st century, with liberal opinions would object to this treatment in public. Well, if the priest did not warn the assembly, he would fail in his duty and would send the message that in his church, the dignity of people is always respected and that after all, if a protestant receives Holy Communion in a Catholic Church, well, that is no big deal. We are all brothers and all support ecumenism and friendship . That is just not right and possible.
The Catholic Church must be firm on that point. Finally, the ladies should be encouraged to be modestly dressed at all times. Particularly in church. They have such a huge responsiblity. I appeal to them : in church you should not be a cause of distraction or worse. Do it for God.
Left unchecked PRM’s imagination runs wild. for e.g. [snip] The ultimate preparation for the reception of Holy Communion is to be in a state of grace.
He seems to be saying that he is quite sure that being in ‘a state of grace’ is the solution to sacrilege’ – but the Holy Roman Church teaches that “grace is a gift of God”.
Does he presume to judge the person or persons by the ‘action’?
I again appeal to ladies: in church you should never be a cause of distraction or worse. We could add , outside of church as well. Be modestly dressed at all times. Particularly during this month of May, our Mother’s month. Oremus pro invicem.
If the people really and truly believed that Jesus/God is present on the alter and in the tabernacle, the God who made us and to whom we will one day have to answer, they would crawl to communion on their knees.
I believe that the children should be taught Catholicism and not only the Bible during catechism. How many young people know the “4 pillars of the Church” or the “6 Precepts of the Church” etc, etc. This was taught with the old penny catechism.
For some considerable time now, discipline and conformity in the one, universal, catholic Church has been decilining, in this country at least; many examples of which are already mentioned in the original article, and I will not belabour the point here.
It appears to me that those who should be the custodians of reverance and the pertaining the ‘code of practice’, themselves do not know what the code is, or possibly, grant themselves licence due to congretational pressure, or possibly simple indifference, at the expense of respect and reverance for the Euchatist, the sacrements and sacrementals. In a familly, is it the parents who should educate their children in the ways of religion, and in fact, the ways of life, or is it the other way round, the children teaching their parents new tricks? Just so in religion, it is the Priests and religious who are the custodians of the code of practice, and not the layiety who dictate whims and fancies.
No communicant should be permitted by the minister of the Eucharist, to leave the alter with comsuming the host.
If the ‘code of practice’ is not gently yet determinedly enforced in the home, and more importantly, in the first instance from the pulpit, the problem is only going to get completely out of control.
Towards the middle of last year, an elderly lady who had been a faithful and devout catholic all her life, and I might add, always dipped into her meagre resources on the never ending demands made on the faithful, although she lived in an area where there is an abundance of priests, including her parish priest of eight years and who was retired at that time, all living within a radius of ten Km of her home, was unable to get a priest to administer to her in her hour of death. Her parish priest was away overseas at the time, and every other priest who was approached to attend her, excused himself and said in effect, that it was not his responsibility to do so.
With this attitude from the very custodians of the code, what can you expect from the conregation?
Extra Ordinary ministers of communion are very necessary when large numbers attend masses & particularly those who take communion to the sick & shut ins…also those who visit the sick in hospitals..i.e. those who work with chaplains…when there is a wedding or a funeral, I am pleased when a priest invites those in the congregation who are not Catholics, to come up with their arms folded across their chests (i.e.crossed)and receive a special blessing…this way they feel a part of the community and pay their respects to the family , especially when there is a funeral..
Extra-ordinary ministers of communion ; they probably mean well but I shudder to see unconsacrated hands touching the Host…
1) Going back to 1962, how was communion distributed in Catholic Churches?
2) How was communion given to bed-ridden Catholics ?
3) How long did the distribution of Communion take at the High Mass on Sunday?
4) How long did the distribution of communion take during a low mass during the week?
The answers are : 1) by the priests only ; 2) by the priests only: 3) If I remember well, that would have taken approximately between between 10 and 12 minutes in your average parish ; 4) 3 or 4 minutes at the most.
So it was done by priests only, by consecrated hands, and each communicant had a plate under his/her chin to make sure that any small particle of the host would be collected.
The question is : what is 10 or 12 minutes(or more ,depending on the size of the church) of your time which you give to God anyway? What is the big rush? What are you doing this sunday that you have to rush? Sunday is the Day of the Lord anyway, there should be no work done on that day, and should also be the day of Families, of get-togethers, of physical rest, etc.
So, that’s one thing that the Church needs to put right : to start telling and explaining to the faithful that only consacrated hands can touch the Host.
Then the Church should start telling the faithful that kneeling to receive communion is preferable to standing, and that communion on the tongue is how it should be distributed.
All this applies to those who REALLY believe in the Real Presence, transsubstantiation, and the Sacrifice of the Mass , of Calvary, to those who believe that the priest is another Christ at the altar.