"They "Served" My Lord... Like An Appetizer:" Liturgical Abuse at Villanova U.

myself | 6/2/2005 | Pyro7480

[fortunecookie]

Me, too. And so many buy into it. I don't get it. Some priests speak out against it's use as 'protestantizing' and detracting from the Eucharistic prayer that follows shortly. It's use in my local parishes was started with a negative, a slam at 'traditionals' who 'oppose it's use because they don't understand it'. But no explanation was given. That also gets me.

[Bigg Red]

Miss Manners is great!

[Bigg Red]

Heck, I don't even like to applaud the bride and groom.

&&

Same here, and I never do it. The applause can wait until the reception.

I don't think the bride usually minds the attention. Most view the wedding day as a chance to put on a show.

[theFIRMbss]

>I do not wish people to wear to my wedding what they would wear to the pool

Well, good luck! These days
if the minister isn't
Elvis, you're ahead!

[ninenot]

It is IMPRACTICAL for us to limit the reception of both forms of Communion to the ordained alone

Really?

How so?

No "practicality" problem in the parish I regularly attend...they just don't DO IT, with the usual exceptions such as Holy Thursday, and a very few special other occasions.

[ninenot]

Thanks for confirming my post--note that the primary method in both the Papal writings AND the St A Missal is "interior."

Please don't mis-read my posts--the "make 'em sing" mentality is well-meant, but secondary to "interior participation."

And as for "make 'em sing," the FIRST vehicle mentioned is Gregorian Chant Ordinar(ies.) Not Fred Rogers tunes, which are ipso facto inappropriate for worship.

[ninenot]

Applause during church? I may be way lapsed, but even I know that is grossly inappropriate.

Bet you NEVER thought that age 36 makes you an Old Fogey...

[ninenot]

WINNER OF THE Best Riposte Post Contest!!!

[ninenot]

Please see MaryZ's WINNING post-referent.

[Xenalyte]

I'm telling you, the older and crankier I get, the prouder I am of my incipient curmudgeonliness!

[k omalley]

Miss Manners and I think alike! I wish our priest would read her books. He is always getting us to applaud for something or somebody. When I attend Mass in Mahonyland the people always applaud at the end of Mass, like good show!

[Romulus]

Thanks for confirming my post--note that the primary method in both the Papal writings AND the St A Missal is "interior."

Excuse me, but your point was that

[active participation] "does not necessarily require activity, song, or verbal response."

I think I have documented at a minimum that both song and spoken response (at appropriate times) were strongly encouraged, as opposed to silent assistance. I hope you won't plead that, just because it fell short of an binding mandate, this strong encouragement did not constitute what was normative in the eyes of Rome. I feel quite comfortable with my position -- that more than a half century before Vatican II, Rome was gently but unambiguously prodding the laity to contribute more than silent assistance at Mass.

[maryz]

the prouder I am of my incipient curmudgeonliness!

Monitor your progress, though -- I saw a cartoon once about two guys discussing an old codger: "He used to be a crusty old curmudgeon, but now he's just a mean old bastard!"

Just stay as curmudgeonly as you are! ;-)

[ninenot]

We are both correct.

In the Mass rightly celebrated and with rightly-used congregational participation, there are many periods of SILENT but 'active' participation--e.g., during the Canon before and after the Acclamation, during the reading of the Word, and after reception of Communion.

The congregation can also "actively LISTEN" to the choir singing the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus/Benedictus, and Agnus Dei--not to mention other voluntary Motets.

[Romulus]

When I wrote that "at Mass, we all have our proper parts", I meant "proper" in the sense not of decorum, but of property -- that which belongs to one. I hope I've always been clear that there are times for the laity to be heard and there are times for them to be silent and attentive. And for the record, there is never a time for them to be lifting their hands in imitation of priestly gestures, or holding hands, or waving them in the air.

[Frank Sheed]

Most excellent! I feel the same! If we, the Church, allow this to continue, it will be hoots, catcalls and air horns next!

Frank

[B-Chan]

Don't forget about Anglican Use. They aren't plentiful, but the one I attended in Houston was a beauty.

Ah, Our Lady of Walsingham. A beautiful parish and a marvelous edifice. When in north Texas, please join us for mass at St. Mary the Virgin!

[sempertrad]

I often find myself, when serving as EMC to be overcome by the awesome presence of that which I hold in my hand. It usually manifests itself physically in tears, or sharp pains in the palms of my hands. I mentioned this to be, what I consider the highest honor bestowed on a living layperson. I truly believe that. I feel the Church agrees.

With all due respect, the honor and pleasure you get from being an EM is not a guarantee that God is honored or finds pleasure with it. In addition to the Tabernacle being cast aside or into another room, Communion under both species and other things, I believe the common use of EMs have also played a part in the loss of belief in the Real Presense in 70% of Catholics. Something which must offend Him greatly.

In the Traditional Mass just prior to the Consecration the priest will wash his fingers. In a few moments his fingers will touch Our Lord. From that moment on, he keeps the index finger and thumb on both of his hands joined together to keep even the smallest Particle safe with him.

Communicants receive on the tongue only. There is no risk of particles left on hands.

After Holy Communion, he returns to the Altar where he will scrape the paten over chalice, the server will pour water over his joined fingers so that any Particle will be washed into the chalice. He will then consume the water with any Particle(s) which may have remained between his fingers and/or the paten.

All of these acts demonstrate and reinforce the Real Presence. They clearly express our belief that Christ is present even in the smallest Particle and therefore all possible measures are taken to protect Him from every possible insult/injury.

I have not received Communion in the NO in a decade and have attended the NO only a few times in between (weddings, funerals.) IIRC, the EMs did not have to cleanse their fingers either before touching the Hosts or after distributing Communion. Obviously the faithful receiving in the hand aren't required to do anything before or after. What is one supposed to think of this? If one says the precautions taken at the Traditional Mass are obsessive or fanatical, than one can conclude that the lack of precautions with EMs and those who receive in the hand demonstrates an "Its no big deal" attitude with regard to the Holy Eucharist.

It is IMPRACTICAL for us to limit the reception of both forms of Communion to the ordained alone.

Why is impractical? Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Host. There is no need for the faithful to take from the cup as well.

I consider it the greatest honor possible to assist the ordained at mass.

Yet you think its "impractical" for certain things to be granted exclusively to them. IMO, we should seek to honor the ordained rather than want to share in the honor which should go them alone. The best way one can honor the Ordained is to graciously accept that theirs is an elevated status - so much so that it would be an insult to want to share in their awesome privilages.

[murphE]

In the Traditional Mass just prior to the Consecration the priest will wash his fingers. In a few moments his fingers will touch Our Lord. From that moment on, he keeps the index finger and thumb on both of his hands joined together to keep even the smallest Particle safe with him....

St. Isaac Jogues (1607-1646):

Isaac was born at Orleans, France, 10 January 1607. He was martyred at Ossernenon (Auriesville), in the present State of New York, 18 October 1646. He was the first Catholic priest who ever came to Manhattan Island (New York). He entered the Society of Jesus in 1624 and, after having been professor of literature at Rouen, was sent as a missionary to Canada in 1636. He came out with Montmagny, the immediate successor of Champlain. From Quebec he went to the regions around the Great Lakes where the illustrious Father de Brébeuf and others were laboring. There he spent six years in constant danger. Though a daring missionary, his character was of the most practical nature, his purpose always being to fix his people in permanent habitations. He was with Garnier among the Petuns, and he and Raymbault penetrated as far as Sault Ste. Marie, and "were the first missionaries to preach the gospel a thousand miles in the interior, five years before John Eliot addressed the Indians six miles from Boston Harbor". There is little doubt that they were not only the first apostles but also the first white men to reach this outlet of Lake Superior.

Jogues proposed not only to convert the Indians of Lake Superior, but the Sioux who lived at the headwaters of the Mississippi. His plan was thwarted by his capture near Three Rivers returning from Quebec. He was taken prisoner on 3 August 1642, and after being cruelly tortured was carried to the Indian village of Ossernenon, now Auriesville, on the Mohawk, about forty miles above the present city of Albany. There he remained for thirteen months in slavery, suffering apparently beyond the power of natural endurance. The Dutch Calvinists at Fort Orange (Albany) made constant efforts to free him, and at last, when he was about to be burnt to death, induced him to take refuge in a sailing vessel which carried him to New Amsterdam (New York). His description of the colony as it was at that time has since been incorporated in the Documentary History of the State. From New York he was sent; in mid-winter, across the ocean on a lugger of only fifty tons burden and after a voyage of two months, landed Christmas morning, 1643, on the coast of Brittany, in a state of absolute destitution. Thence he found his way to the nearest college of the Society. He was received with great honor at the court of the Queen Regent, the mother of Louis XIV. Pope Urban VII allowed him the very exceptional privilege of celebrating Mass, which the mutilated condition of his hands had made canonically impossible; several of his fingers having been chewed, cut, or burned off. He was called a martyr of Christ by the pontiff. No similar concession, up to that, is known to have been granted.

In early spring of 1644 he returned to Canada, and in 1646 was sent to negotiate peace with the Iroquois. He followed the same route over which he had been carried as a captive. It was on this occasion that he gave the name of Lake of the Blessed Sacrament to the body of water called by the Indians Horicon, now known as Lake George. He reached Ossernenon on 5 June, after a three weeks' journey from the St. Lawrence. He was well received by his former captors and the treaty of peace was made. He started for Quebec on 16 June and arrived there 3 July. He immediately asked to be sent back to the Iroquois as a missionary, but only after much hesitation his superiors acceded to his request. On 27 September he began his third and last journey to the Mohawk. In the interim sickness had broken out in the tribe and a blight had fallen on the crops. This double calamity was ascribed to Jogues whom the Indians always regarded as a sorcerer. They were determined to wreak vengeance on him for the spell he had cast on the place, and warriors were sent out to capture him. The news of this change of sentiment spread rapidly, and though fully aware of the danger Jogues continued on his way to Ossernenon, though all the Hurons and others who were with him fled except Lalande. The Iroquois met him near Lake George, stripped him naked, slashed him with their knives, beat him and then led him to the village. On 18 October 1646, when entering a cabin he was struck with a tomahawk and afterwards decapitated. The head was fixed on the palisades and the body thrown into the Mohawk.

SOURCE

My mom told me this story, this had been told to her as a child. It made quite an impression on me regarding the proper reverence due the REAL PRESENCE of Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. My things sure have changed. This priest needed special permission to consecrate and hold the Body of Our Lord with different fingers, now any ole person can hold the Body of Our Lord in their own unconsecrated hands. What's different? Is His real presence due less reverence now?

St. Isaac Jogues, pray for us.

[sempertrad]

Thanks so much for posting about St. Isaac Jogues! As soon as I sent my last post in, I remembered him.

Shamefully I knew next to nothing about him before becoming a Traditional Catholic. I'd started learning more about the many Martyrs. My God! Some of the tortures they suffered!

Having read about those who had their skin peeled off, scourged with white hot iron hooks, etc., it was St. Isaac having his fingers gnawed off that left the most profound impression on me. His torturers knew what they were doing by biting his fingers off. St. Isaac endured so much more, as did all of the other martyrs...but taking his fingers, because they didn't want him to offer Sacrifice, sets that one particular mode of torture apart from the rest. The raw hatred for the Mass, the Priesthood and the Real Presence was demonstrated very clearly in that one violent act.