7 Common Holy Communion Abuses(Catholic Caucus)

http://www.communion-in-the-hand.org/articles.html ^ | Jan 2011 | Rev. Fr. John Lankeit

[stfassisi]

A Letter from Our Cathedral Rector by Very Rev. Fr. John Lankeit, Rector, Ss. Simon & Jude Cathedral Phoenix, AZ January 30, 2011

Dear Parishioners,

I want to thank all of you who have recently started receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, not to mention those of you who already had been. This subject has generated a lot of buzz over the past few weeks, the vast majority of which has been overwhelmingly positive.

While my main objective in encouraging reception on the tongue is to deepen appreciation for the Eucharist, I also have a pastoral responsibility to eliminate abuses common to receiving in the hand. Such abuses are no doubt unintentional. Nevertheless, what I witness troubles me. And I'm not alone.

In 2004, responding to the problem of Eucharistic profanation, the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacrament released an official instruction entitled REDEMPTIONIS SACRAMENTUS: On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist. Regarding Holy Communion the document states:

"[S]pecial care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful." (Paragraph 92)

Here are just a few examples of profanation that I see all too frequently:

• Blessing oneself with the host before consuming it. (The act of blessing with the Eucharist is called "Benediction" and is reserved to clergy).
• Receiving the host in the palm of the hand, contorting that same hand until the host is controlled by the fingers, then consuming it (resembling a one-handed "watch-the-coin-disappear" magic trick).
• Popping the host into the mouth like a piece of popcorn.
• Popping the host into the mouth like a piece of popcorn.
• Attempting to receive with other items in the hands, like a dirty Kleenex or a Rosary.
• Receiving the host with dirty hands.

• Receiving the host, closing the hand around it, then letting the hand fall to the side (as if carrying a suitcase) while walking away and/or blessing oneself with the other hand.
• Walking away without consuming the host.
• Giving the host to someone else after receiving... yes, it happens!

We would never treat a piece of GOLD with the same casualness - especially in this economy! Yet many treat the Eucharist "piece" of GOD with casualness at best, indifference and irreverence at worst. Of course, much abuse is due to ignorance, owing to poor catechesis, which is precisely why I have written about this issue for four consecutive weeks.

Yet we have another great incentive...

When Holy Communion is received on the tongue... every single one of these abuses is instantly eliminated!

The way we treat another person says more about our relationship with that person than any words we might say. This is especially true of our relationship with the Divine Person, Jesus Christ. So let us continually seek to increase our reverence for our Eucharistic Savior, and to eliminate anything that degrades the respect He deserves.

God's Blessings... my prayers...

[Jeff Chandler]

“Please stand and greet those around you.”
.
Would it be improper simply to refuse?

I like to shake hands and say "Peace be with you." It is a subtle criticism of the fact that it is a redundant Sign of Peace.

[dsc]

“Did you just read the first sentence? Sheesh! Try to be nice to people, and see what you get!”

I’m sorry that my post seemed contentious to you. The irritation I showed was not with you, but with (1) some people who have actually irritated me at Mass; (2) the “reformers” who protestantized the Mass; and (3) the priests who support and encourage this kind of thing today.

Again, I apologize. I had no intention of attacking you.

[johngrace]

I can understand the perspective you presented. It can seem ackward at times. Interesting.Something tells me most would not be as social without after Mass. I have a feeling it started from people not really knowing each other in a congregation. Also from infighting among the church. To show that we should show peace of the Spirit. This is spiritual love after all. Never mind if it is ackward. Life is ackward. Christ demands it or else. Notice after the "Our Father" our Savior talks that if we never forgive neither will he forgive us. That means Hell no doubts about it. I have seen people go up for communion who still never forgave at all. Yet go up to eucharist. It is a sin. Wether you notice or not this act wakes people up to what it really is about.

I found it amazing its after vatican council two that this was put into liturgy. You have to remember what the culture did at this time too. The tv was one of many devices of the new future till the present time that kept people from each other.

I remember an old italian owner of a deli explaining how people were closer and more sociable before tv. He talked about how every other night was a day to be over this friend and relatives home. When tv came all that slowly ended. He longed for that time. Maybe I just am thinking too much on my part. But one thing I know is if you read the ex- catholics they feel more at home at indy church. I left the church at first because of the aloofness of our structure. Then when I started to study and see our history with How biblical the Mass really has proclaimed the Gospel. I came back. But this is just one man's opinion. IMHO.

[Salvation]

I stand, bow my head, close my eyes and fold my hands for the Our Father. I never thought about continuing it through the Sign of Peace.

Hmmmm. Something to think about.

[Cronos]

I didn’t know the “sign of peace” is from post VII times! (I was born in the late 70s)

[I_be_tc]

How about Oklahoma City area?

[netmilsmom]

http://www.parishesonline.com/scripts/HostedSites/Org.asp?ID=20500

Maybe one of us in OK can direct you to a post VII Holy Mass that’s more traditional, in the meantime, there is the TLM.

[jmacusa]

Yes it’s pre-Vatican 1964. Mass was nice without all that .

[jmacusa]

Might sound silly but it’s a part of the Mass I just never have gotten used to. That and a lot of other things, like chanting responsorial prayers for one.

[jmacusa]

Might sound silly but it’s a part of the Mass I just never have gotten used to. That and a lot of other things, like chanting responsorial prayers for one. “Glory to God in the Highest’’, a simple response, right? At the 9 mass in my church it turns into a dirge!

[jmacusa]

I hear you. That’s what I call the “Father Flap Doodle’’ stuff.

[jmacusa]

Good idea, thanks. “Happy clappy’’ LOL!

[Jeff Chandler]

That’s what I call the “Father Flap Doodle’’ stuff.

The literary term for that is "hooptedoodle". In a story, it is the author showing off, interjecting himself into the story and thereby breaking its continuity. Of course, the Mass isn't technically a story, but the principle is the same: The hooptedoodle in the ego-driven prologue interrupts the flow of the mass.

[Notwithstanding]

Since we are temporal creatures by God’s design, those who are living in the era after Vatican II should seek to live in accordance with all laws, rules and rubrics that are currently valid. These are post-Vatican II laws, rules and rubrics.

Any Mass that is valid under the post-Vatican II laws, rules and rubrics is a post-Vatican II Mass.

When we refer to something as “pre-Vatican-II” and praise it, we give the impression that Vatican II is somehow not legitimate.

Vatican II is a gift of the Holy Spirit. John Paul II sought to correct any misinterpretation of the council by his example and his teaching, and Benedict XVI continues to do the same.

Anything pre-Vatican-II is only good today if it remains licit post-Vatican-II. We must not fall into the trap of making Vatican II a dividing line.

Don’t get me wrong. For exmaple: my children all memorize the Baltimore Catechism, which is their basic text every year. But they are also famimiliar with the CCC issued by John Paul II. Both are leigitmate after the Vatican II. The new did not nullify the old. But neither does the old preclude the new.

[AnAmericanMother]

It's o.k., I understand. :-)

I was trying to take my approach from the bishops of England and Wales, who wrote a very fine letter to the faithful regarding the revision of the English translation of the Mass. They showed respect and compassion for all their flock -- they didn't abuse the old translation (tempting as it is) out of consideration for the folks who may have gotten attached to what Fr. Z calls "the lame duck translation", instead they pointed out the positive benefits of the change.

WRT the Peace, we've got people on this thread on both sides of the debate, you catch more flies with honey, etc. etc. I think the Peace is grossly abused in some places, in others it is subdued (but arguably as you state still distracting from the "point" of Mass); still we need to be gentle with people who may be attached to it!

[Notwithstanding]

If it is discretional, then we should not protest if our priest chooses to include it even after we suggest it could be eliminated.

I don’t see how it helps to provoke those who we find to be uninformed (or misguided or obstinate) by trying to force them to opt for the option that we prefer.

We should first focus on ensuring the essentials are licitly offered.

If the non-essentials are licit but poorly done, we should be wary of the temptation to insist on changes we prefer but that are not mandatory.

[netmilsmom]

>>Since we are temporal creatures by God’s design, those who are living in the era after Vatican II should seek to live in accordance with all laws, rules and rubrics that are currently valid. These are post-Vatican II laws, rules and rubrics.

Any Mass that is valid under the post-Vatican II laws, rules and rubrics is a post-Vatican II Mass.<<

When the “Liturgical Committees” stop dinking around with the Post Vatican II mass, People will stop begging for the TLM.

Sorry my FRiend, but you can have a perfectly licit Mass that is still crass and distasteful when run by certain Liturgical committees. People don’t want that and long for the olden days.

>>When we refer to something as “pre-Vatican-II” and praise it, we give the impression that Vatican II is somehow not legitimate.<<

And that is simply your opinion. It is much easier to write TLM and NO, but some do not know what you are talking about. Vatican II ushered in the hippies and libs to our Holy Masses. Mother Angelica helped people to see why we were uncomfortable there and start the long process back to a historic NO. To use VII and Pre-VII defines the innovation or non-innovation in the Holy Mass. Only the “Happy Catholics” prefer we not speak in this way.

[netmilsmom]

>>If the non-essentials are licit but poorly done, we should be wary of the temptation to insist on changes we prefer but that are not mandatory.<<

That hasn’t worked in the last 50 years and our Holy Masses have grown more and more innovative. Now, Our children think that holding hands and Orans for the laity are perfectly normal.

Time to take back our Holy Mass. We ALL participate, not just the priest. If it’s not to YOUR liking, talk to the priest and if he still insists on innovations, talk with your feet and your checkbook.

[patton]

Did you fast beforehand, and take confession first?

I will not take the host, if I have not confessed, and fasted.

IOW, I have not had communion since the 60’s. My wife thinks I am wierd.

[Notwithstanding]

Actually it is the happy catholics that coined the false and derogatory term “pre-Vatican II” as a slur.

Almost as if in retaliation, some people use the term “post-Vatican II” as a reverse slur.

I repeat: Vatican II was a legitimate event led by the Holy Spirti. It is wrong to use it as a dividing line to split the church into two camps and two eras.

Such short-hand is harmful, regardless of who uses it.

When you bitch, please bitch intelligently and with charity.