Posted on 07/05/2004 11:42:07 AM PDT by Polycarp IV
Other than the Latin Rite, are there any other catholic rites that allow communion in the hand?
I don't really know, NYer. I know very little about the other rites in the Catholic Church.
Goodness, at least make a point of it to attend a mass.
If you're interested, the '62 missal has a side by side "translation", although it's not really considered a translation. Also there are re-print books that interpret and analyze the various elements and give background.
It's quite the fascinating study regardless. Some parts of the Tridentine go back to Pope St. Gregory the Great (600 AD) some even before that.
BEST, I'm 53. I don't have enough life left to spend time studying a Mass I will not be attending, on a regular basis.
And, I don't want to debate you on the Tridentine Mass. It's a perfectly fine Mass, for those who want to attend it. It should be made widely available, for those who want to attend it. Like in the Eastern Rites, there are many different ways to worship the Good Lord in our Church.
The only objection I have to those on your side is the constant derision of the Novus Ordo, Vatican II, and those who choose to worship at the Novus Ordo.
Some can't seem to do anything but post articles that do nothing but trash the Post-Vatican II Church.
Not to argue with the premise of the article or your argument, but the disrespect of the Eucharist by the laity seems to stem from the disrespect shown by the clergy. I've seen priests cross a church without genuflecting when passing the Tabernacle. It's been put in closets. There's no Adoration in many places. None of that encourages respect for Eucharist. Communion in the hand doesn't help, but I don't think that reversing it is going to completely clean up the problem.
As you know I'm with you on this.
BEST, I'm 53. I don't have enough life left to spend time studying a Mass I will not be attending, on a regular basis.
This is a big load of nonsense, you sound like you're 93 or something. First of all 53 is young and with the way medicine advances, you may have only lived half your life.
It's not like getting your PhD you know. The missal can be gotten through in an hour. The book I have from Neumann Press is only 50 pages with pics.
Also being that the Tridentine will most likely be making a comeback, a respectable deacon who served them as a child and is familiar with the liturgy may be needed.
I'll have to learn how to put on an amice and tie a cincture properly, and teach a couple of our laymen the ropes so they can act as straw subdeacons.
I agree.
I'll take that a step further and say that simply bringing back the tridentine and demanding more orthodoxy in the NO-masses - while helpful - will not solve our problems. Catechism, eucharistic focus, our schools, seminaries etc. are all a mess.
This is why they need to bring the society back in as is and why the Society won't come back unless they are left for the most part as is.
We don't have these problems, they don't exist.
Just by hanging around here you're probably light years ahead of your compatriots and colleagues regarding the old rite.
A suggestion from the Protestant experience.
Purge the seminaries (or abandon them and start new ones) and make them places that turn out men that will be the examples, teachers and mentors for the spiritual values and theological principles you want to pervade the church a decade or two later.
Second, reform the colleges to reflect the above values to produce a laity that can provide a second layer of leadership and example.
Parishes led by these type of committed and educated Catholics will explode while the parishes offering clown masses and Wiccan trappings will dry up.
A true awakening may get Rome's attention.
PS- I come from a non-episcopal form of Protestantism so we don't have the problem of rogue bishops and higher. No suggestions on that one.
Well maybe one suggestion... elevate me to the papacy.... I will kick tush.
Excellent--and I mean this literally. You know, I have no problem with clarity on both sides of the fence--yours and mine. I respect this honesty.
"We are going back to our roots, no?"
No.
And there is this also: the further we recede from the original Last Supper, the more need we have to uphold the reverence due to the Real Presence.
You should just convert already, we need people like you.
Yes we are. The early Church allowed the faithful to take the Eucharist home for consumption during the week.
Now, the faithful are too slimy to even be trusted to touch the host before consuming it.
***The early Church allowed the faithful to take the Eucharist home for consumption during the week. ***
Really? I'd appreciate the references for my own study. What were the guidelines for home consumption / storage until use?
Always learn new stuff on FR Religion Forum.
Thanks, guys. How about my appointing Gerry Matatics to oversee evaluation of seminary instructors and professors for retention? I'm sure he could put together a team that could get the job done.
The General Instructions never once mentions the Real Presence or Transubstantiation; it refers to the Sacred Species as "host" or "bread." The only time it refers to the Body of Christ is in reference to Communion, never in reference to the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. In fact, nothing is allowed to deflect attention from the congregation itself.For example, the General Instructions states "In the breaking of one bread the unity of the faithful is signified, and in Communion they receive the Body and Blood of the Lord as the apostles once did from the hands of Christ himself."
There is no mention of the breaking of the bread as an immolation. In the traditional Mass there is an Offertory in which the spotless Host is identified as the potential sacrificial Victim offered to the Father. This has been eliminated in the New Mass which refers only to the bread as become the "bread of life" and the wine becoming our "spiritual drink." Nothing about a Sacrifice to the Father. In addition, the Mass itself is called a "Eucharistic celebration" or a "Eucharistic feast." It is never called the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass."
The rubrics themselves reflect this reduction or elimination of the respect due to the Real Presence as sacrificial victim, with corresponding heightened emphasis on Christ's Virtual Presence in the Word and in the Congregation. The focus is on the congregation, not on Christ's actual presence. Genuflections have been reduced, the sign of the cross no longer is made before Communion, Communion is now in the hands, kneeling to receive has been proscribed in many places, and ordained priests no longer exclusively distribute hosts. In fact, if anything is clear it is that the Real Presence is only acknowledged insofar as the Lord is a gift to the congregation, not as an object of worship, nor in its sacrificial aspect.
Self-styled 'traditionalists' are almost superstitious in their notions about what does and does not constitute reverence and what is and is not sacrilegious. They even go as far as to circulate misleading pamphlets claiming that communion in the hand was not an apostolic custom. This is probably because many groups favouring communion in the hand circulate misleading pamphlets claiming that it was universal in the early church to receive by hand. In short both the 'traditionalist' (who argues communion on the tongue) and the liberal (who argues for communion by hand) are both wrong in trying to retroject their views as some kind of "uniform norm" in the first millennium as in neither case was this so. Since the 'traditionalist' generally has their heart in the right place (being muddled in the mind), they need to focus instead on where the problem really lies: poor catechizing from predominantly 1960-1990. (Though the problems with catechesis started some time before 1960.) Unless of course the 'traditionalist' wishes to denigrate the early Fathers, councils, and Our Lord Himself for contributing to a "lessening of reverence" for the Holy Eucharist. To quote the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1913 on the matter:
In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, "Ad uxor.", II, v; Cyprian, "De lapsis", xxvi) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), while the deacons were accustomed to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who did not attend Divine service (cf. Justin, Apol., I, n. 67), as well as to the martyrs, the incarcerated, and the infirm (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliv). The deacons were also obliged to transfer the particles that remained to specially prepared repositories called Pastophoria (cf. Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii). [1]
So according to the late second- early third century Church writer Tertullian and St. Cyprian, the faithful took the Blessed Sacrament home with them. According to St. Ambrose (from the late fourth century) and St. Justin Martyr (early to mid second century) the faithful took the Eucharist with them on long journeys and the deacons made sick calls to those who did not attend Mass.
Good grief! UR, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel to attribute to the Church nefarious motives.
It's simply impossible to take you seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.