New rules on the Holy Eucharist on Holy Thursday

Catholic Herald ^ | 03/15/2004 | Luke Coppen

[dsc]

"One thing which I was taught is that a Catholic is obedient to the Church and loyal to the Magesterium. Anyone who is not, and is trying to "change" the Church to fit their own notions of how the Church should be"

And what do you do when the people who are trying to "change" the Church have infiltrated into positions of authority?

"is not a Catholic in my opinion!"

It might be more accurate to call them bad Catholics than not Catholic.

[Desdemona]

So far as I can tell, you have done nothing along the lines of calling into question anyone's faith, which is what the "new rules" were all about. This is known as the religion ghetto for a reason. The fighting and insulting was really bad for a while and the mods stepped in and put a stop to it.

What you have done, is what so many of the rest of us have done in expressing anger and dismay over what the Novus Ordo has become in the last 25 years. Liturgical abuses upon abuses and liturgists who think that the altar is their personal stage. Well, there are people who believe that this is perfectly legitimate and have no interest in correcting these abuses and they are hostile to the idea even of an indult let alone attending one. With a certain segment, it's a hot button. That's all.

With that said, it would be very nice to see more reverence from everyone at Mass, from the priest on down.

[GoBoks]

Good point DSC and the answer is simple .....

PRAY!

God can do all things and I trust Him to keep His Word. Remember that the "gates of Hell shall not prevail against My Church".

So often people say "well, all we can do now is Pray" as if that is some far inferior option once all practical actions are exhausted. I believe that we should turn to Prayer first instead of wondering what we as puny humans can do in any given situation. What do we think we can do that God can't do?

God Bless You
Steve

[Desdemona]

Anyone who is not, and is trying to "change" the Church to fit their own notions of how the Church should be, is not a Catholic in my opinion!

Kind of defeats the purpose of being Catholic, doesn't it?

I have long been an advocate of only receiving the Sacred Host.

As have I. If this is one of the directives, I expect to see it regularly ignored. I walk by the EEMs holding the cups all the time. So do many others.

Another thing I would advocate, that is being noticed where I go to church is after the singing of the recessional is done, kneel for a while and give prayers of thanksgiving. From some people you get wierd looks, but they generally will leave you be. The priests do notice, though.

[GirlShortstop]

It was Judas, who left immediately after Holy Communion at the very First Mass. He had serious business to take care of.

When I was in seventh grade, one Monday morning in a quiet English class, the door flung open, and our Pastor stepped boldly in with his arm outstretched and finger pointing at one pupil, and with a voice soooo booming I think I came near to wetting myself, he roared, "You!!  How daaaare you leave the church with the holy Eucharist on your tongue!!!".  His posture was like Charleton Heston in the Ten Commandments or somethin'.... whew.... even today, I can remember clearly how stunning it was to every last one of us, even our dear SSJ teacher.  Father's point was made.   Ahhhh, the good ole days (even though it was twenty some years ago)    :-)   FReegards.

[Desdemona]

Ahhhh, the good ole days

When we were expected to be at school at 7:45, Mass at 8, Confession one Friday morning a month (two classes at a time), Stations EVERY Friday during Lent with Benediction...

I wish the schools would go back to this.

[dsc]

"I wish the schools would go back to this."

Schools? Tarnation, I wish *I* could go back to it.

[dsc]

"PRAY!"

Pray, yes. Pray always. But pray only?

No.

God expects us to do things.

[AnAmericanMother]

Good morning!

Can you explain for me the tradition/belief/custom of receiving in one kind only? Even very high Anglicans receive in both kinds. It is optional at our new parish, the split seems to be just about 50/50 between those who take the cup and those who don't.

[Desdemona]

Can you explain for me the tradition/belief/custom of receiving in one kind only?

Well, there is a custom of something called intinction, which is where the priest dips the Host into the Precious Blood and then places it on the tongue of the Communicant. This fell out of favor with "communion in the hand" which was an abuse in the begining. I don't know the whole history of it, honestly.

[lrslattery]

Can you explain for me the tradition/belief/custom of receiving in one kind only? Even very high Anglicans receive in both kinds. It is optional at our new parish, the split seems to be just about 50/50 between those who take the cup and those who don't.

There were many reasons in the very early Church for administering Holy Communion under one species alone even though it was also given under both species.

There was the primary reason of safeguarding the Precious Blood from spilling or other irreverence, not to mention the inconvenience and delay in administering the Sacramental species, the problem with reserving the precious Blood, hygience, etc. The Church at the Council of Trent determined and taught, for these and other reasons and to dispel many heretical ideas that by reason of the hypostatic union and of the indivisibility of His glorified humanity, Christ is really present and is received whole and entire, body and blood, soul and Divinity, under either species.

There is considerable information about this. If one is interested, I might suggest this from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04175a.htm

[AnAmericanMother]

Thanks for the source. I've found the Catholic Encyclopedia very helpful in the past - shoulda looked there first (as usual . . . looking for the easy answers from Freepers . . . :-D )

[rcath60]

do you mean you speak out right then and there...in the middle of Mass????

[Salvation]

**do you mean you speak out right then and there...in the middle of Mass????**

Yes, I say it loud enough only for those around me to hear it.

[Salvation]

**do you mean you speak out right then and there...in the middle of Mass????**

And at the end of Mass as I am exiting behind the priest (about 10 steps behind him) and the clapping starts.

BTW, I work the welcome station so I want to be out there for newcomers to sign our Guestbook.

[heyheyhey]

But they clearly gave them permission to adapt the Mass in all kinds of various ways.

As long as the adaptations are licit (authorized by the Magisterial Authority of the Church) you have no reason to be anxious about them.

[Maximilian]

As long as the adaptations are licit (authorized by the Magisterial Authority of the Church) you have no reason to be anxious about them.

Thanks for the reassurance. So now I no longer need feel anxious about "altar girls"? Nor do I have any reason to "feel anxious" about the "adaptation" in which the Buddha was placed on top of the tabernacle in Assissi. I guess I can also feel better about clowns on stilts, dancers, aztec pagan rituals and all the other "adaptations" that have not only been authorized but even conducted by the "Magisterial Authority." Whew, that's a load off my mind.

[dsc]

"As long as the adaptations are licit (authorized by the Magisterial Authority of the Church) you have no reason to be anxious about them."

Our Declaration of Independence speaks of a long chain of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object...

What should we think when a long chain of licit adaptations is pursuing invariably the object of reducing the reverence of the Mass and damaging faith?

[heyheyhey]

What should we think when a long chain of licit adaptations is pursuing invariably the object of reducing the reverence of the Mass and damaging faith?

There is no proof that this is happening because of licit adaptations.