Posted on 10/23/2007 4:25:18 PM PDT by NYer
ROME, OCT. 23, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Q: My parish priest made a regulation that anyone who arrives in Mass after the Gospel is not allowed to take Communion. According to him, the reason is that Jesus is "the Word made flesh." Therefore we must recognize Jesus in the Word before we recognize him in holy Communion. Another priest, who is a professor of liturgy, has another opinion. He said that people who arrive late in Mass with a valid reason (for example, an unusual traffic jam, attending sick children, etc.) should not be denied Communion. Could you please give a clarification on this matter? -- B.E., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
A: We dealt with the question of late arrivals at Mass in one of our first columns, on Nov. 4 and Nov. 18, in 2003.
Then as now, I would agree more with the second priest: that someone who arrives late out of no fault of their own should not be denied Communion.
I also consider it unwise to set any barrier point; I continue to insist that the faithful should assist at the whole Mass.
It is quite possible that some members of the faithful could begin to see the Gospel as the cutoff moment and feel comfortable in habitually arriving for the second reading, thus assuring that the Mass is "valid."
It is true that the Mass is a whole and that we must first recognize Jesus in the Word before we recognize him in the Eucharist. But this would include the entire Liturgy of the Word and not just the Gospel.
Also, while there is some certain logic in choosing the Gospel as such a moment, the reasons given are not sufficiently well grounded from the theological, canonical and moral standpoints to support such a blanket impediment to receiving Communion.
The pastor has a duty to direct and inform the consciences of the faithful entrusted to him. And while I disagree with his suggesting the Gospel as a demarcation point for receiving Communion, it is at least clear that he his trying to perform his sacred duty.
Therefore, the onus of the decision whether or not to receive Communion, in this particular case of a late arrival, falls primarily upon the individual Catholic rather than upon the pastor who can hardly be expected to be attentive to every late arrival.
It is therefore incumbent on those arriving late to examine their conscience as to the reason behind their tardiness. If the reason is neglect or laziness, then they would do better attending another full Mass if this is possible. Even those who blamelessly arrive late should prefer to assist at a full Mass although they would be less bound to do so in conscience.
At the same time, there are some objective elements to be taken into account besides the reason for lateness. Someone who arrives after the consecration has not attended Mass, no matter what the reason for his belatedness. Such a person should not receive Communion, and if it is a Sunday, has the obligation to attend another Mass.
It is true that Communion may be received outside of Mass, so Mass is not an essential prerequisite for receiving Communion. This would not, however, justify arriving just in time for Communion at a weekday Mass, as all of the rites for receiving Communion outside of Mass include a Liturgy of the Word and one should attend the entire rite.
* * *
Follow-up: Mentioning the Mass Intention
After our commentaries on reading out Mass intentions (Oct. 9) a priest observed: "At a concelebrated Mass, each concelebrant conceivably has a separate Mass intention. At my monastery, we have daily concelebration, and we have a policy of never mentioning any Mass intention at Mass. Otherwise, it could happen that if one Mass intention is mentioned by the presiding celebrant, someone may be present who has requested a different intention from one of the concelebrants, and would have the impression that the requested intention was not fulfilled."
This is certainly a legitimate policy given the circumstances. There might be particular occasions, however, when the fact that several priests are concelebrating specifically allows for more than one intention to be mentioned, provided that the faithful know that each intention will be entrusted to a different priest.
Even though only one Mass is celebrated at a concelebration, each priest legitimately celebrates a Mass and may receive a stipend for the corresponding intention.
There is, however, a strict norm that a priest may never receive a stipend for a concelebrated Mass if he celebrates, or more rarely concelebrates, another Mass on the same day.
For example, if our correspondent, besides concelebrating at the community Mass in the monastery, were to also celebrate for the people at some other time, he could only accept a stipend for the second Mass.
He could have any number of personal intentions to offer at the community Mass, but none associated with a stipend.
* * *
Wow, it must be difficult for you to track all of your parishioners eating habits and still make it to mass on time.
“Wow, it must be difficult for you to track all of your parishioners eating habits and still make it to mass on time”
Nobody tracks anything. The fast is the fast, as it always has been. The requirement for confession is has it always has been. The requirement not to live “in sin” is as it always has been. The priest announces before communion that it is reserved for Orthodox Christians who have properly prepared themselves by fasting and confession and who are living their lives in accordance with the dictates of The Church. We are then told, “With fear, faith and love approach”.We know the rules and live by them. Nobody needs to “keep track” anymore than anyone needed to “keep track” in the Roman Church before Vatican II.
That is not at all the conversation we were having. There are ugly people everywhere. Decent folks despise people who are ugly to somebody on account of his ethnicity.
Here is what you said:
Greeks weren’t considered “white” into the 1920s. In the South it was bad, very bad, into the early 1960s. Greeks didn’t find friendliness in the WASP South, AAM.
You were just flat wrong in that statement, because I was HERE, in the South, in the 60s, and my dad lived here all his life and was born in 1924. Nick Lambros was his law school classmate and lifelong friend. I can't express to you how much everybody loved Nick, he was a great big man with a great big laugh and always ready to help somebody in need. He was a good judge, too, stern but fair on the bench.
Did you bother to read the resolution in memory of Judge Lambros? A man doesn't get to be a city alderman, state representative, and re-elected repeatedly to the State Court bench in a place where Greeks "don't find friendliness." That resolution was sponsored by the then Speaker of the House and great power in the land at the time, Tom Murphy (D-Bremen). He was Speaker for almost 30 years, and he didn't have to curry favor with anybody - he sponsored that resolution because Judge Lambros was a much loved and well respected man.
I can't speak for other areas of the country, but you were flat wrong about the South based on my personal, lifelong experience and that of my father.
I'll repeat PAR's question -- is your idea that Southerners hate Greeks based on personal experience, or just something else that you think you were told or read somewhere and don't really remember the details?
I do hope, though, that it is better than the Baptist pastor (I was at the service to conclude a session of vaction bible school my kids attended with friends)who quoted:
The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This represents my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
I quickly pulled his version of the Bible from the pew in front of me and read:
The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, 24and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me."
Huh.
Then quit claiming to know what others had for breakfast.
Scripture says otherwise.
"I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." - John 6:51-56
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56). Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
“Then quit claiming to know what others had for breakfast.”
Read what I wrote. I didn’t claim to know what others had for breakfast. I asked if since the Latins effectively cut out fasting before reception of the Eucharist, did people have bacon, eggs, toast, coffee with milk, etc. I mean, apparently your hierarchs don’t think a fast lasting longer than the Mass itself is necessary before receiving the Eucharist, so that certainly leaves open the option, as far as your hierarchy is concerned, of eating a big breakfast with meat and other animal products, or am I missing something? I have to tell you that such a cavalier attitude towards the Eucharist has to be a cause of concern for Orthodox Christians as we watch our hierarchs speak with yours about reunion and that concern, among others, as a matter of Orthodox ecclesiology could prevent a reunion even if the hierarchs want one.
I have no problem believing discrimination. Most immigrant groups faced a certain amount of it.
A lynching in Wisconsin is another story. It would be strange to lynch a Greek for “consorting with a white woman”, when there were no blacks lynched in the state for it. As I said, the last lynching in the state that I found was in 1891. Most of the state’s lynchings were related to the state’s elimination of the death penalty after exactly one execution in the state.
A small article about Orthodox church history in the state:
Another about Greeks in Wisconsin:
Article about difficulties (discrimination) faced by early immigrants to the US.
Several Greek men were lynched in Omaha, NE in 1909 & some discussion about discrimination in Chicago, IL.
Wife is not Catholic. It has taken a great deal of encouragement to get the father to bring the girls to Religious Education. The youngest is in 3rd grade and the older one is in 6th. They have absolutely no formation in any faith, so we are starting from scratch.
Time for Father to address this in one of his homilies.
Our priest reminded the parish, during a homily, that Judas left early too.
It had a significant effect on the number leaving early.
I did before I posted. It's a little habit I've developed.
But, I get it, you are a better Christian and a better Catholic than the rest of us.
That is actually a clever approach. The parents are then required to attend classes in preparation for their child’s Baptism. These might jolt them into reality. It’s truly frightening to meet so many people, raised christian, who have strayed from their faith. And that word “hocus pocus” is one I have heart much too frequently.
Good one! Thanks for posting that.
I have never witnessed it either and doubt it happens much. I am not sure if I agree with Priests being able to say no or not. That is a tough dilemma.
This isn’t a thread about belief in the True Presence, but about the fast and also what constitutes attendance at Mass.
Thanks for following the thread though.
Yes, I’ll deny that there was widespread discrimination against the Irish in the south. Large parts of the upper South were settled by Scots-Irish Presbyterians.
Southerners pretty much limited their discrimination to Blacks. Even the local Jewish folks were not subject to overt discrimination. (The situation involving Mr. Franks being an aberration, and the lynching having occurred only after he was duly convicted. It also has as much to do with him being a Yankee as it did with him being Jewish.) Much of the hostility that Jewish folks encountered in the South can be traced to their involvement in the civil rights movement.
So in what Southern city was your father told to not shine shoes in front of the hotel?
“You don’t “receive the body of Christ” in your hands and run off with it.”
Right you are. I was very comforted to see the priest act with alacrity and confidence.
“Several Greek men were lynched in Omaha, NE in 1909 & some discussion about discrimination in Chicago, IL.”
Could be that’s what I heard about. My memory isn’t what it used to be; Wisconsin, Nebraska, they’re all out there somewhere. :)
“I did before I posted. It’s a little habit I’ve developed.”
And you didn’t notice the question mark at the end of the sentence? Believe it or not, English is my first language and I use question marks as they are intended to be used.
“But, I get it, you are a better Christian and a better Catholic than the rest of us.”
To the extent we ever think about it, yeah, I suppose we do believe we’re better Catholics than the Romans. Some might opine, however, that that’s damning with faint praise.
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.