|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Blessed Sacrament
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Can anyone, Catholic or otherwise, help me with this question (I've tried Googling for an answer,particularly on Catholic websites, but can't seem to get a straight result): why is it that, when a consecrated communion wafer, duly transubstantiated into the Body of Christ during the Mass, is handed to a communicant, both the priest/ Eucharistic minister and the communicant can handle the Host, but when it is then reserved as the Blessed Sacrament, only a priest can handle it, and only then with his hands wrapped up to avoid direct touching?
Surely both in Catholic Eucharistic theology are the Body of Christ and are thus sacred, so why is one scenario can it be touched with human hands and the other not? In what way is the latter 'different' from the former - what's changed in its nature?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Once the communion bread has been consecrated it is often called the Blessed Sacrament.
Yes it is customary now for the communicant to take the Host (another word often used)or Blessed Sacrament into his or her hands to consume it.
The occasion which Matt Black refers to is when the Host/Blessed Sacrament is put into a monstrance and used to bless the faithful.
The rite of Benediction calls for a humeral veil to be used at the time of the blessing, but there are other times during the rite when the priest does not use the humeral veil. The humeral veil goes round the shoulders (meaning of 'humeral) and covers the holding part of the monstrance. I suppose it was originally to protect it from grubby hands, but it also enhances the ceremonial aspect.
The humeral veil is also used on Maundy Thursday at the time that the priest is transferring the Blessed Sacrament to the Altar of Repose. In this case it covers the ciborium containing the Hosts.
Again it adds dignity to the ceremonial.
The blessing with the Sacred Host called Benediction is not carried out nearly as often as before Vatican 2 and I suppose that the ceremonial has never really been simplified. That could be another reason.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Forthview will know better than I, but I believe that before reforms some 40 years ago, the host was placed directly in the communicant's mouth and she (or he) did not take it in their hand.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Indeed you are correct, venbede, but 40 years ago was 40 years ago and much has changed in the interim.
40 years ago or more there would have been no non-ordained Eucharistic ministers.
40 years ago or more a lay person would not have touched the chalice and most certainly not the monstrance , never mind the Blessed Sacrament itself.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Some of us recalcitrant trads think that the changed customs around the Blessed Sacrament following VCII have not really been a great catechetical success when it comes to fostering a belief in the real and substabtial Presence of the Lord therein. To put it mildly. Conduct your own survey, by all means.
The reason why only priests traditionally handled the Sacred Species Itself (I'm making no apologies for the capitals, btw) was because they had their hands specially consecrated with oil at their ordination for that very purpose. The reason why at High Mass the subdeacon (not in major orders) held the paten and chalice only through the humeral veil (perhaps the most common use of the humeral veil before "the Council") was because even they were not allowed to touch the sacred vessels which came into direct contact with the Blessed Sacrament. This ancient part of the ceremonial of course still continues throughout the world in celebrations with the pre-Council books.
One of the lessons-by-example Pope Benedict XVI tried to give was in returning to the custom of the faithful receiving the Sacrament kneeling and on the tongue whenever he was administering It personally.
In the words of Cardinal Arinze, in a truly barnstorming moment recorded here: "If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that is His Body and Blood, why do we not kneel? Why do we not crawl?"
Anyway, returning you to your regular programme...
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
In-the-hand is still in the, erm, hands of episcopal conferences, as I discovered to my embarrassment in Poland, where it turns out it is Not Done
The humeral veil is meant to visually underscore that it is not the priest pronouncing a blessing, but Christ himself blessing the people with his presence: the priest is merely providing the arms. Actually, in the Roman Rite, a deacon can also officiate at Benediction (Anglicans of course have no rules about such things, but the sort who do it would presumably look to Rome - or perhaps Antioch? - for guidance).
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc, I've wondered about another thing in connection with handling the sacred vessels: traditionally do clerics in major orders have charge of cleaning them and putting them away? In Pisky churches there is usually an altar guild doing these things, but obviously we are a different bunch. Thanks.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I have been told that in orthodox churches nobody is allowed behind the altar area except the priests. Which makes me wonder about plumbing, vacuuming, and what happens when the ceiling needs painting.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Although in the olden days only clerics touched the chalice and other objects which came in contact with the Blessed Sacrament, there was, but of course, special permission, for experts to maintain the objects and even for cleaners to give them a thorough cleaning.
I'd forgotten about the use of the Humeral Veil at High Mass but I would say that few Catholic parishes would regularly celebrate High Mass, whereas Benediction would be given regularly , at least twice a week,if not indeed daily.
Until the late 1950s there were no evening Masses and Benediction would sometimes be given at the end of the last Mass in the morning.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
I should have added that in the olden days it was customary for the priest to arrive at the altar carrying the chalice and paten covered with another smaller veil of the liturgical colour of the day.Similarly he would leave the altar with it.
Otherwise the priest would have brought the chalice etc and placed it on the altar before the beginning of Mass.
At a service concluding with Benediction the priest would have earlier placed the monstrance,itself covered with a veil, on the altar before the service.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I have been told that in orthodox churches nobody is allowed behind the altar area except the priests. Which makes me wonder about plumbing, vacuuming, and what happens when the ceiling needs painting.
It may be that what is a general rule was presented to you as an absolute, which is often how many Orthodox perceive these things.
In my experience, the clergy will usually clean within the altar - deacons and subdeacons in particular. It is usually subdeacons who clean the vessels, refill the lamps, change the cloths on the Holy Table, and so forth. Subdeacons may touch the Holy Table and vessels if their duties require it.
If electrical or plumbing work needs to be done, then the necessary people are brought in for the purpose, although in most purpose-built churches, there will be no plumbing within the altar itself (there is no need for it). The sinks and such like will usually be in a small functional room off to one side of the altar. I have known churches where the Holy Table has been removed when the time has come to have the wall icons in the altar painted.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Brenda Clough: I have been told that in orthodox churches nobody is allowed behind the altar area except the priests. Which makes me wonder about plumbing, vacuuming, and what happens when the ceiling needs painting.
I guess these priests need to be versatile.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Although I (well sort of) admire the respect for the Lord that this represents, there's a much more fundamental problem with the level of sacerdotalism Chesterbelloc lauds. If the Sacred Species can only be touched by a priest whose hands have been specially anointed with sacred oil at his ordination, how can they then go into our mouths and down into our stomachs, where even if we've fasted correctly, they will then get mixed up with other food.
It strikes me as wishing something very fundamental about the incarnation would politely go away.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I was thinking something similar, Enoch, to do with the Lord incarnate pulling kids onto his knee, and telling us we need to be like them. I've seen humility that looks like pride in the presence of the Host. Then again, for me there's a both-and about this too - a sense of reverence / awe doesn't happen all by itself, and without it the part of the gift which is the sense of privilege and gratitude we have at being welcomed at the Lord's table is somehow lost.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Utrecht Catholic
Shipmate
# 14285
|
Posted
The statement that only priests are allowed to enter the altar areas in Orthodox churches is not correct.
It is forbidden for lay people to enter through
the Royal Doors,the only exception was for the former Czar of Russia.
I have visited many Orthodox churches, was allowed to see the altar areas however I had to use one of the side doors.
--------------------
Robert Kennedy
Posts: 220 | From: Dordrecht | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The statement that only priests are allowed to enter the altar areas in Orthodox churches is not correct.
It is forbidden for lay people to enter through
the Royal Doors,the only exception was for the former Czar of Russia.
I have visited many Orthodox churches, was allowed to see the altar areas however I had to use one of the side doors.
Presumably as the asserted heir to the Roman Emperor. I wonder if Putin's about to claim that he now stands as heir to the Czar?
More seriously, the problem I have with the humeral is that it's an instance of tortoises all the way down, to pick up Hofstadter - and also Enoch's remarks. That does not detract from my unworthiness to receive the Host, nor the reverence and devotion due to it. But even then, no reverence given can hope to meet what is really due.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Some of us recalcitrant trads think that the changed customs around the Blessed Sacrament following VCII have not really been a great catechetical success when it comes to fostering a belief in the real and substabtial Presence of the Lord therein. To put it mildly. Conduct your own survey, by all means.
The reason why only priests traditionally handled the Sacred Species Itself (I'm making no apologies for the capitals, btw) was because they had their hands specially consecrated with oil at their ordination for that very purpose. The reason why at High Mass the subdeacon (not in major orders) held the paten and chalice only through the humeral veil (perhaps the most common use of the humeral veil before "the Council") was because even they were not allowed to touch the sacred vessels which came into direct contact with the Blessed Sacrament. This ancient part of the ceremonial of course still continues throughout the world in celebrations with the pre-Council books.
One of the lessons-by-example Pope Benedict XVI tried to give was in returning to the custom of the faithful receiving the Sacrament kneeling and on the tongue whenever he was administering It personally.
In the words of Cardinal Arinze, in a truly barnstorming moment recorded here: "If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that is His Body and Blood, why do we not kneel? Why do we not crawl?"
Anyway, returning you to your regular programme...
I would add that celebrations according to the old rite continue to increase each year, particularly as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter continues to ordain a goodly number of priests. Twelve deacons were ordained in North America this year, and eleven in Europe, so next year's priestly class will be nearly two dozen--not bad for a small order whose average age of priests is 37. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) These rites are assuredly not relegated to history.
I would offer one correction, though. The subdeacon at Solemn Mass does touch the vessels. He is the one who purifies them after communion, while the priest recites the communion antiphon. In fact, a subdeacon is handed a chalice in paten at his ordination, and it is his responsibility to care for all sacred vessels. The humeral veil signifies that the object one is holding does not belong to the holder.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I don't really understand the rationale here, maybe someone could explain it to me.
So the host is special and is handled specially in special ways. And the vessel it is held in is special and is also to be handled in special ways.
How is it determined how far this should go - why not, for example, have a "holy of holies" where only the priest prepare everything? Why doesn't the holiness which-cannot-be-touched by non-priests extend beyond the vessel in which the host is held?
Second, I was wondering if you can help me understand the nature of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as per RCC and/or Orthodox understanding. Am I wrong to think that we're all agreeing that Pentecost led to the indwelling of the HS within the believer?
If that's the case, is it wrong to say that the believer has God-the-Trinity living inside them?
And if that's the case, why is there a problem with a non-priest handling the elements? Or is the idea that the inside of the celebrant is made holy by the indwelling of the HS, but the outside, including the hands, could somehow contaminate it?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The statement that only priests are allowed to enter the altar areas in Orthodox churches is not correct.
It is forbidden for lay people to enter through
the Royal Doors,the only exception was for the former Czar of Russia.
I have visited many Orthodox churches, was allowed to see the altar areas however I had to use one of the side doors.
For those interested in this tangential topic, the President of Cyprus entered the royal doors at the wedding of the sister of a medical friend in Nicosia but that is the only Orthodox republic figure of which I am aware who has taken advantage of this privilege. King Michael of Romania, the last remaining anointed Orthodox monarch, has done so, but so has Prince Alexander of Serbia.
Like Utrecht, I have entered the side entrance into the altar areas in a few Orthodox churches, most namedroppingly at the old patriarchal sobor on Spartakovskaya in Moscow in the 1970s, but always accompanied by a helpful (and perhaps watchful) young cleric.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
At our not especially-high church, the clergy are assisted by lay eucharistic ministers, who are just regular people deputed to assist at dispensing the elements. These are also the people who take over the visitation ministry -- taking the consecrated bread and wine in little kits to give Communion to shut-ins. Although these people are vetted and trained, they're not ordained.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Basically it is because there is an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Blessed Sacrament.
In different ways, in different culture, in different ages people have shown and still show respect in different ways.
Today in the UK the monarch opened Parliament. The official who hands the Queen her speech has to walk backwards away from the throne, in order not to show disrespect by turning his back on the Queen.
Years ago when the Blessed Sacrament was exposed on the altar, particularly at a devotion called Quarant'ore,it was considered very bad form to turn one's back on the Blessed Sacrament and that one should walk backwards out of the church.
I don't think people would do that today. Within the mainstream of the Catholic Church, things are much simpler. Of course some people say that there is a lack of respect. I might even say that myself sometimes.
We are indeed, as the previous poster suggests, all 'Temples of the Holy Spirit'.
We have had a number of explanations of the use of the Humeral Veil. Ceremoniar's made me smile.. It reminded me of the little humeral veil,called a vimpa which is worn by episcopal attendants to carry the episcopal insignia of mitre and crozier.I imagine then saying 'this is not my mitre,this is not my crozier. (or miter and crosier).
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I'd forgotten about the use of the Humeral Veil at High Mass but I would say that few Catholic parishes would regularly celebrate High Mass, whereas Benediction would be given regularly , at least twice a week,if not indeed daily.
We (Anglican) had some talk a while back about dispensing with the humeral veil at the weekly and feast-day high masses, but thankfully it didn't go anywhere.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Ceremoniar: quote:
I would offer one correction, though. The subdeacon at Solemn Mass does touch the vessels. He is the one who purifies them after communion, while the priest recites the communion antiphon. In fact, a subdeacon is handed a chalice in paten at his ordination, and it is his responsibility to care for all sacred vessels. The humeral veil signifies that the object one is holding does not belong to the holder.
Thanks. I think this answers my question nicely.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Oblatus
Shipmate
# 6278
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Basically it is because there is an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Blessed Sacrament.
...
Years ago when the Blessed Sacrament was exposed on the altar, particularly at a devotion called Quarant'ore,it was considered very bad form to turn one's back on the Blessed Sacrament and that one should walk backwards out of the church.
I've seen priests at Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament use a sort of "crabwalk" to descend the altar steps after exposing the Sacrament, to avoid turning one's back to It. Sort of sideways down the steps, carefully.
Posts: 3823 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
The statement that only priests are allowed to enter the altar areas in Orthodox churches is not correct.
It is forbidden for lay people to enter through
the Royal Doors,the only exception was for the former Czar of Russia.
...
Although presumably this is not what is being referred to in the expression 'Я иду куда сам царь идет пешком' ('I am going where the Czar himself goes on foot')...
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I would add that celebrations according to the old rite continue to increase each year, particularly as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter continues to ordain a goodly number of priests. Twelve deacons were ordained in North America this year, and eleven in Europe, so next year's priestly class will be nearly two dozen--not bad for a small order whose average age of priests is 37. These rites are assuredly not relegated to history.
Indeed, Ceremoniar - let it be known abroad. I deeply familiar with and support the Fraternity's work, for which I am endlessly grateful. More power to their unencumbered elbows.
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
I would offer one correction, though. The subdeacon at Solemn Mass does touch the vessels. He is the one who purifies them after communion, while the priest recites the communion antiphon. In fact, a subdeacon is handed a chalice in paten at his ordination, and it is his responsibility to care for all sacred vessels. The humeral veil signifies that the object one is holding does not belong to the holder.
I stand corrected, Ceremoniar. I really ought to know this!
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Am I wrong to think that we're all agreeing that Pentecost led to the indwelling of the HS within the believer?
No, that would not be wrong - we are all temples of the Holy Ghost.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If that's the case, is it wrong to say that the believer has God-the-Trinity living inside them?
Nope.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
And if that's the case, why is there a problem with a non-priest handling the elements? Or is the idea that the inside of the celebrant is made holy by the indwelling of the HS, but the outside, including the hands, could somehow contaminate it?
There is a problem generally with the risk of profanation - and this is premissed on the belief that Christ is present, body, soul and divinity in a very specific (substantial) way in the actual, physical host. In the old rite (today as anciently) the priest used only to touch the Host with his two index fingers and thumbs, and after the consecration kept them joined together for the rest of the Mass (until the ablutions following Holy Communion) lest a particle should drop or be lost. Not because we can harm the Holy One, but because we know Him to be present and act accordingly - lest we harm ourselves or cause others to lose faith in His presence.
So it's not so much that our hands are not annointed for the purpose (though that's also true) but that it avoids the chance of particles being lost or dropped.
To answer another query, why does it matter when we take the Host into our mouths and into our digestive tracts anyway? It's not as if our insides are "more holy" than our outsides - that's not at all the case. When we say that we are temples of the Holy Ghost we don't mean the He lives inside our bellies or hearts or guts (as if He were a physical substance and our bodies the container) - but rather immaterially "in" us. The actual answer is that the primary "purpose" of the Blessed Sacrament is precisely to be consumed. Once consumed - received into the mouth, swallowed, passed into the digestive tract - there is no (or little) chance of It being list or dropped or discarded.
And, not wanting to be gross about it, we need not worry about the journey beyond the stage where the accidents of bread/wine are broken down by the body, for by then they are no longer distinctly recognisable as bread/wine and therefore the substance of the Sacrament no longer is present, the accidents being destroyed. Consummatum est, as it were.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
I'm late to this party, but reading through, it doesn't seem like anyone's given the current norms for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. We do indeed still use humeral veils for benediction (not so rare as some have made out: daily at Notre Dame, weekly at my former parish) as well as during certain parts of the Triduum.
This may seem like a contrast with our practice during Mass and communion services. The sacred vessels will be touched by all manner of people, sacristans, servers, those bringing up the gifts, deacons, extraordinary ministers of holy communion, and those receiving from the cup. The sacred species itself is touched by anyone receiving communion. The 'first round' of purifying the vessels is carried out after communion by a priest, deacon, or instituted acolyte, but they will then be washed by sacristans. In the US, we used to have an indult from the Holy See for EMHCs to do that 'first round' of purifying, but that lapsed. The US bishops asked for it to be extended, but Rome said no.
This does indeed contrast with the practice at other rites, but it is not in conflict. I think it's actually a healthy reminder that our embodied practices of reverences are important, but they are means, not ends, and different circumstances can call for different ways of embodying that reverence. There's nothing 'magic' about a humeral veil, or a monstrance or a chalice. Our dealings with these things have the power to sanctify, though, and God can use our bodily practices to transform our hearts.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
My cradle Catholic 80yo grandma was surprised to hear that kneeling for communion is the norm in Anglican churches - why is this something Anglicans still do but Catholics don't? Maybe modern RC church architecture? Her 90yo sister will not touch the host and has the priest put it in her mouth.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Cradle Catholics would undoubtedly likewise be very surprised (? shocked?) to learn that the first time I attended an RC mass - Vatican II would have been still in progress - it appeared odd, undignified and irreverent, particularly in comparison with the way we did things, to see people go up and stick their tongues out so that the priest could put the wafer directly on it. I suspect that would be most CofE people's reaction. So I suppose it depends what you're used to.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
My cradle Catholic 80yo grandma was surprised to hear that kneeling for communion is the norm in Anglican churches - why is this something Anglicans still do but Catholics don't? Maybe modern RC church architecture? Her 90yo sister will not touch the host and has the priest put it in her mouth.
Some Catholics do still kneel, but you're right, most don't. What I appreciate about kneeling for the "Behold, the Lamb of God..." and then standing for communion itself is that it coheres quite nicely with a dynamic we see in the gospels: lots of people fall to the ground to worship Jesus; Jesus often tells people to rise. So, we kneel at the "Behold" and then rise to receive him. The (presiding) priest's movements have the same dynamic here: we genuflect immediately before the "Behold."
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The sacred species itself is touched by anyone receiving communion.
Indeed, Father, but whilst this is the most common form of communication in the USA today, it is only possible by use of the indult granted to dispense from what remains the norm for the Church - Communion on the tongue.
And it must be admitted that the history of that indult in the USA is particularly ugly.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
I am a bit surprised by the idea mentioned above that people could be less aware of the real presence because of handling the elements of communion themselves.
I am from a middle of the road Anglican background, not Anglo Catholic, but the way I feel when receiving communion is to remember the story of Thomas. Although my faith is sometimes weak, my hand is on the risen Christ.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I am a bit surprised by the idea mentioned above that people could be less aware of the real presence because of handling the elements of communion themselves.
The idea is that the more we treat the Sacrament just as we would ordinary bread the less it appears we are according It the recognition that It is more infinitely more than that.
One needn't be less aware of the presence just because one handles the Sacrament, of course, but making an effort to treat It with physical signs of care and reverence - including handling it in a way in which the particles would less likely be lost - is more likely to keep us aware of what It is.
Conversely, and other things being equal, it is much easier for a community of worshippers to slip into an unconscious neglect of full awareness of the awesome reality of the Sacrament the more workaday/casual their outward behaviour towards it becomes.
It seems to me that our behaviour and conduct surrounding the Sacrament ought loudly to proclaim our belief in the Lord's Presence therein. Alas, if someone completely unversed in Catholic doctrine were told she was about to witness people who believed that the bread in the Mass was actually tranformed into their God and then was shown the average Parish Mass in the UK/USA, I think that unfortunately they would find it difficult to believe from the worshippers' conduct around It that they did indeed belive that. They are more likely to echo Cardinal Arinze's "Why do they not kneel? Why do they not crawl?"
I think a lot of this common sense, really, but I know not all my fellow Catholics agree with me by any means.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomb
Shipmate
# 174
|
Posted
I have long thought that there is no possible posture we could adopt nor ceremonial we might observe that would adequately express our reverence and worship of the physical presence of Jesus Christ revealed on the altar.
If western Eucharistic celebrations focus on the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus, then it seems to me that our willingness to disclose Jesus under the accidents of bread and wine through processions and benediction and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament indicate the necessity to celebrate Our Lord's incarnation also as one of those mighty acts whereby God redeemed the world.
I'm not talking about Christmas here. I'm talking about 9 months earlier when a frightened girl said, "Be it done unto me according to thy word" and thereby established the gold standard for all of us on how to respond to God.
Our Lady's response to Gabriel's message has precedent. Certainly, when Eli taught Samuel how to respond to the word of God with, "Here I am," there is a subtext from both men when approaching the Most High God: "Here I am {oh, shit}. And certainly, prophecies directed toward the Blessed Virgin never encouraged her that she'd made the right decision.
There is a sense that, when all our ceremonial points to the reality of Emmanuel, God-With-Us, it also tends to obscure precisely that to which it is pointing. Obi-wan's waving his hands and saying, "These are not the droids you are looking for" can't hold a candle to the priest elevating the Body of Jesus and intoning, "Behold the Lamb of God!" while the assembly corporately wonders how much longer Mass is gonna drag on.
Now. To answer the OP's question, it is equally licit for the communicant to receive the Most Precious Body of Jesus in his/her hand and convey it immediately to the mouth for consumption or to let the Sacred Minister place it reverently on the communicant's tongue--also for consumption.
As with most liturgical acts, the operative word is Purpose. If you approach the altar with the intention of receiving the Most Precious Body of Jesus, it's pretty small beans whether you take the Host in the palm of your hand and immediately convey it to your mouth or whether you receive Him on your tongue.
It gets sort of sticky if you approach the rail with blasphemous purposes in mind. Any public church worth its salt will have sidesmen watching communicants receiving Holy Communion, and they will have been trained to note when people swallow.
But I digress.
Notwithstanding the truth that bread and wine are objectively changed into the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ during the Eucharist, it is also true that the Holy Food can be communicated to the faithful in a variety of pious means, including delivering the Host into the hands of the faithful. During his Passion, Jesus was "delivered into the hands of sinners." It is doubtful that, after his resurrection and ascension, he would develop scruples.
Posts: 5039 | From: Denver, Colorado | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vulpior
Foxier than Thou
# 12744
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
In the words of Cardinal Arinze, in a truly barnstorming moment recorded here: "If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior and that is His Body and Blood, why do we not kneel? Why do we not crawl?"
I like that.
Actually, I'm perfectly happy with standing or kneeling for consecration; it's sitting that gets my goat. Oh, and changing posture during the thanksgiving prayer.
--------------------
I've started blogging. I don't promise you'll find anything to interest you at uncleconrad
Posts: 946 | From: Mount Fairy, NSW | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Should we not also laugh with joy, dance with glee, run with urgency and leap to our feet to see? I'm part of a tradition that kneels in a quiet and reserved reverence, but I think I'd be a fool to suggest it is the only right thing to do.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Thanks for all the replies - cheers
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
Any public church worth its salt will have sidesmen watching communicants receiving Holy Communion, and they will have been trained to note when people swallow.
Wow. And if they don't...err...swallow?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I know of no such observers at my church. (Although who knows what the training of those lay eucharistic ministers entails? I like the idea of jiu jitsu.)
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Is there an opposite of the Heimlich Manouvre?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
Gavage.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Wow. And if they don't...err...swallow?
Would it be inappropriate to point out that one can adhere something with the texture of a typical communion wafer to the roof of one's mouth, and swallow without actually swallowing the wafer?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The sacred species itself is touched by anyone receiving communion.
Indeed, Father, but whilst this is the most common form of communication in the USA today, it is only possible by use of the indult granted to dispense from what remains the norm for the Church - Communion on the tongue.
Actually, when I said "touched" I was thinking "touched by the hand or by the tongue." I've got nothing against receiving on the tongue, but it does still involve the communicant touching the host.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
It would be hard to consume it without touching it.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I know of no such observers at my church. (Although who knows what the training of those lay eucharistic ministers entails? I like the idea of jiu jitsu.)
When trained up to deliver the chalice I was instructed that if I suspected someone hadn't consumed the host then I was to give the vicar the nod; on occasion he did plunge into the congregation and tell someone "eat That". There were innocent visitors and silly schoolgirls--do not start me on attempts to spit into the chalice. But one didn't check on swallowing, just whether the wafer had gone into the mouth.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
This thread is all about our feelings, spontaneous or induced, of awe and fear.
I fundamentally doubt the reality of holy fear. To me, it's always unholy fear dressed up in a chasuble, for the purposes of controlling the people.
More importantly, however, there is nothing of the limitless joy and intimacy into which God invites his people, all his people, through the sacraments. This physical encounter between God and creation seems to me to be much of the point of the sacraments. I absolutely see the point of reverence, but not to the point that it strips out all the joy and intimacy of contact.
Whatever coming to God as a little child may or may not mean, the joy of a child in renewing contact with a beloved elder seems to me to be something that might well characterise our contact with God. It is also interesting to consider what might be behind any absence of such joy.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam.:
The sacred species itself is touched by anyone receiving communion.
Indeed, Father, but whilst this is the most common form of communication in the USA today, it is only possible by use of the indult granted to dispense from what remains the norm for the Church - Communion on the tongue.
Actually, when I said "touched" I was thinking "touched by the hand or by the tongue." I've got nothing against receiving on the tongue, but it does still involve the communicant touching the host.
Oh, indeed. But I did mistake your meaning upthread. I'd only add that touching the Sacrament with the tongue is, as Lyda notes, necessary for consuming It, for "taking and eating" as we are exhorted to do. It differs from touching with the hands in several ways, one of which is that this is not necessary for consumption; but another of which is that handling without the particles of the Host getting where they they're not meant to end up is not particularly easy. If we can easily avoid that loss, shouldn't we?
Those who hark back to the practise of communciating in the hand in the early Church usually omit to mention that it was very different from the current version of the practise (i.e. receiving the Host in one palm then picking it up and placing it in the mouth with the fingers of the other). For a start, there was customarily a pure linen cloth (forerunner of the houselling cloth, perhaps) placed over the hand before the Host was placed on it and the communicant then raised It directly to the tongue. This, it seems to me, makes all the difference in the world.
Finally, Thunderbunk's suggestion that reverence is the enemy of comfort and joy is a starkly counterfactual assertion. Just ask the many communicants who receive in the traditional way for just such traditional reasons.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Finally, Thunderbunk's suggestion that reverence is the enemy of comfort and joy is a starkly counterfactual assertion. Just ask the many communicants who receive in the traditional way for just such traditional reasons.
I would not say it is "starkly counterfactual" per se, but contextual perhaps, or cultural.
This is one of those cases, I think, where one size does not fit all. I do not doubt at all that you and many others find that comfort, joy and reverence co-exist peacefully in the approach to reception you describe and cherish. But that doesn't mean everyone will.
I find that comfort, joy and reverence co-exist peacefully in receiving the broken loaf of bread from someone who calls me by name and says "the Body of Christ, broken for you," or "the Body of Christ, the bread of heaven," then breaking of a piece and passing the loaf along to the next communicant in a similar manner. But I know that doesn't mean everyone will.
Sure, differing understandings of things like the Real Presence and the priesthood come into play. But so do different cultural expectations and understanding about things like how joy or reverence are expressed.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
It's a slight aside but there is a great story I recommend called Mr Pim and the holy crumb by TF Powys, concerning a small piece of the communion bread which does get separated and not eaten.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
