Looking at my blog feeds the other day, I saw that Andrea Tornielli, and Luigi Accattoli picked up his reference to communion in the hand. Here is my translation of the relevant section:
Let us distinguish carefully. The post-conciliar reform was not entirely negative; on the contrary, there are many positive aspects in what has been realised. But there are also changes introduced without authorisation which continue to be carried forward despite their harmful effects on the faith and liturgical life of the Church.I am relieved that we can now speak openly of "a certain loss of faith" that has resulted from communion in the hand.
I speak for example of a change that was brought about in the reform which was not proposed either by the Council Fathers or by Sacrosanctum Concilium, that is, communion in the hand. This contributed in a way to a certain loss of faith in the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. This practice, and the abolition of the altar rails, of kneelers in churches, and the introduction of practices which obliged the faithful to remain seated or standing during the elevation of the Most Holy Sacrament reduced the genuine meaning of the Eucharist and the sense of profound adoration which the Church should direct towards the Lord, the Only-begotten Son of God.
Archbishop Ranjith spoke of communion in the hand back in February in an interview with "Inside the Vatican" (text at CWN), when he said:
For example, Communion in the hand had not been something that was first properly studied and reflected upon before its acceptance by the Holy See. It had been haphazardly introduced in some countries of Northern Europe and later become accepted practice, eventually spreading into many other places. Now that is a situation that should have been avoided. The Second Vatican Council never advocated such an approach to liturgical reform.
29 comments:
Well of course a practice that is rooted in the Protestant denial of transubstantiation and the real presence, is going to cause loss of faith to Catholics worldwide!
I'd be interested to see what are the "positive" aspects of the conciliar reform, that Archbishop Ranjith mentions. I cannot find one.
Father ~ I have huge fears, at the moment, that the local Church has drifted into schism. I am no longer confident that priests believe in the real presence and that I am participating in the sacrifice of the Mass. What are we to do? I sense a great deal anguish and/or denial about the state of affairs.
YJ - If you are in real doubt about a local parish, perhaps a good rule of thumb would be to see where there is adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. If a parish arranges that, you could reasonably presume that he believes in the real presence.
Not only was the change to communion in the hand not proposed either by the Council Fathers, or by the Sacrosanctum Concilium: it was specifically rejected by Paul VI when he 'decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful'. (SCDW, Memoriale Domini, May 1969). He reached this decision having consulted all the bishops, and having realised that the vast majority felt the change 'would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful'.
The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship states in this instruction that the placing of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant 'must be retained ... because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist', and urges 'bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed.'
Lastly, and this is the loophole which was exploited, the Sacred Congregation asked those bishops' conferences which had already allowed a 'contrary usage' to carefully weigh what special circumstances may exist there, take a vote and send detailed accounts to Rome. See Flannery, Vol I, Vatican Council II.
Fr. Tim, does the priest have to believe in the real presence or the nature of Mass as sacrifice for the Mass to be valid? What makes a Mass invalid?
yorkshire joe, I too suffered the trauma of being unplugged. It was awful. You feel like a stranger in your own home. You are the lucky one though. When you get over the shock you might be able to very very gently help your parish. Give yourself time and take Fr. Tim's advice. Things will get better. I always console myself with the thought that at least we have a great Pope. In the past, the Church suffered many crisis. During a particularly bad one she had a Pope who publicly threatened to excommunicate his concubine if she didn't return to the papal chamber! Remember, the gates of hell....
This is OT, but related...what about the fact that the altar was moved and turned around?
I realize I could do my own research, but I'm too busy with assignments I have to do for class. Why did some turn the altar around, under whose authority, and why has this atrocity been perpetuated? Sacrosanctum Concilium never suggested most of the "reforms" that were made. The Church today is liturgically in complete disobedience of this document.
Can you point me in some direction with regard to the current Novus Ordo altar position?
Father, the archbishop's interview was just impossibly revealing about how times are changing. There are so many clear indications showing that there is a bright and glorious future ahead of us (who love the liturgical tradition and) who want to be able really to live out the rule: lex orandi, lex credendi.
Let's just not forget to pray, pray and pray and then work in a charitable and constructive way even if it would sometimes require many sacrifices from us, and patience...
Without wishing to preach or be judgmental, Yorkshire Joe, you really must avoid the dangers of scrupulousness. Just hang in there, and live your own spiritual life as best you can, and leave the rest to the One who has promised to be with us always.
Pray too for others who are going through far worse persecutions than we are, and they will pray for you.
We may not live to see it, but the Church will be glorious renewed and completely faithful at the end, be certain of that.
Thank you Father for this article. I have a dilemma over it. On the one hand everything you say is right. I watch people casually approaching the altar and I realise how much there is a loss of faith. If this is the Body of Christ we should be on our knees. Now that is my problem. The removal of the altar rails meant people could not kneel and somehow when I approach the priest in a standing position it seems so awkward to stick out my tongue. So I receive in my hands. When kneeling, on those rare occasions I am in a Church with altar rails it seems natural to receive on the tongue. The reformers who removed the altar rails knew what they were doing. I now genuflect when the person in front is receiving so that I do not hold others up and become too noticeable. I do wish at least we were given the option in reformed churches.
"I am no longer confident that priests believe in the real presence and that I am participating in the sacrifice of the Mass."
Does the validity of the Mass depend on the belief of the priest? I thought rather that so long as he intends what the Church intends, the Mass is valid "ex opere operato."
Nevertheless, I too would skedaddle from the parish if I thought the priest were an unbeliever at heart.
If only Rome would give us back the ember days- which were prayer and sacrifice for priests institutionalized- a very great deal of moral and intellectual weakness, unbelief, controversy and scandal would dissipate like the fog before the rising sun.
We can't chatter our way out of this darkness. It's inane to think we can. "If only you would fast so as to make your prayer heard on high."
Holy Father please make Archbishop Ranjith the next Cardinal of England & Wales.
SOON AS PLEASE - BIG PLEASE!
Father, I feel that what Yorkshire Joe says reflects the way a lot of people feel. I have personally been through a huge crisis of faith over the last couple of years, initially brought on by liturgical abuses creeping in at all the parish Masses I used to attend, followed by the discovery of the Tridentine rite, mainly through the providential meeting with some wonderful families who attended the SSPX Masses. Then an intense studying of the history of the changes to the Mass, as well as reading Ratzinger's Spirit of the Liturgy, (just before he was elected Pope) and some of Aiden Nichols' work, lead me almost along the path to Sedevacantism, which seemed (at the time) to be the logical conclusion of what I was reading. I went from someone who used to attend daily Mass, say the Divine Office, went to Adoration whenever I could, helped out in the Parish, etc. to someone who found the New Rite almost repulsive! and so no longer felt in communion with members of my parish. I didn't want to be in this predicament, but it seemed to be where my intellect had taken me. I've reached a plateau in the last year or so, by simply attending LMS Mass whenever I can, and occasionally attending the NO if I must, but I have to say that I no longer feel at home with the latter, even though I long to belong to a Parish. There are times when I doubt the validity of the NO Masses I do attend, but I know that I could go mad trying to work it all out so I try and leave it in God's hands. I long for a parish where the parishioners have the same Catholic faith as myself, but there does not seem to be one near me, at present (and there are very few options where I live).
It's almost laughable that some people talk about the SSPX as being schismatic, and look at you as if you've been dancing with the D, if you admit to having attended a Mass offered up by an SSPX priest, and yet think nothing of attending Ecumaniacal gatherings with Anglicans and Protestants who are not only schismatic, but morally reprehensible in their so-called teachings. I do believe that many of the local Churches have drifted into schism - ah, but who am I to judge?
End of rant!!!
Regarding the validity of the Mass, what is required of the priest as an absolute minimum is that he intends to do what the Church does. This would be possible for a priest who had intellectual doubts about the real presence. However, I think that if a priest was in a state of habitual and effective denial of this truth of the faith, it could affect whether he was genuinely intending to do what the Church does - particularly if he saw himself as a hero of dissent from the institutional Church.
On current legislation regarding the altar - it is to be freestanding, i.e. it is possible to walk around it. There is no requirement to say Mass facing the people. (This point was clarified because of an ambiguity in the Latin.)
John - I would receive communion on the tongue whether standing or kneeling. Some people stoop a little if they are tall. Others again take the option of giving witness by kneeling down anyway. (Rome has upheld a complaint by a communicant in America and specified that nobody should be refused communion simply because they choose to kneel down.)
When I decided to receive Communion on the tongue standing I went to an SSPX website to see how it should be done.
Head back, eyes closed, mouth open, tongue slightly out resting on the lower lip.
Thy Kingdom Come www.tkc.net
have produced some beautiful materials which show how the Ordinary Rite should be celebrated. I watch my DVD whenever I am discouraged by father taking the centre stage and putting on a performance instead of acting as an alter Christus.
St Jean Marie Vianney intercede for our priests.
Sharon
It is not true that Memoriale Domini (1969) forbids communion in the hand; on the contrary, it officially permits it, under certain conditions, and an accompanying letter even specifies how communion in the hand is to be administered. This is not an inadvertent 'loophole' but the very point of the document. The Italian Bishops eventually took advantage of the procedure offered in the document twenty years later in 1989; their decision to allow communion in the hand is signed by Archbishops Ugo Poletti and Camillo Ruini. By the way, 'without authorisation' is a misleading translation of 'abusivamente'. Ranjith knows very well that it was authorised by Paul VI and by the episcopal conferences, but he consider Paul VI to have abused his authority.
Memoriale Domini can be found here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM
John Kearney - when approaching the Priest for Holy Communion in a church without altar rails I wait until the person in front of me goes up to receive Our Blessed Lord at which point I drop to one knee and genuflect quietly saying to myself 'My Lord and My God'. By which time I'm next in line to receive Holy Communion - on the TONGUE. Yes, maybe it's a bit of a compromise but in my own personal way I acknowledge my God as my Creator and the Creator of the entire Universe and I simply cannot do that without being on my knees.
"abusivamente" in Italian does mean "without authorisation". The most common use is in reference to buildings erected without planning permission. Archbishop Ranjith spoke of various abuses introduced without authorisation although I appreciate that his use of "for example" does imply that communion in the hand was "abusivo" - I'm not sure he meant to say that.
I think that it would be more accurate to say that the purpose of Memoriale Domini was to retain the existing practice but to allow communion in the hand in order to avoid the scandal of disobedience. Of course it then became routine and seen as a good thing.
Another thing that leads to "a certain loss of faith" is the indiscriminate use of Extraordinary Lay Ministers of Holy Communion. In my parish church, this involves at least five extra people, who not only self-communicate from the chalice (and, on one occasion, are given the Sacred Host from the ciborium at the same time as the priest)but who also, with clerical aquiescence, keep the purifying of the Sacred Vessels for themselves. On one occasion, a lady let her seven year old daughter "help" her in this task on the grounds that she "felt hurt" not to be allowed to do so and, anyway, she had made her first communion so was entitled to do so.
I don't go there any more. I travel an hour and a half to the Extraordinary Form Mass at the London Oratory. I hate having to do so, but to go locally would, I fear, be debilitating to my faith.
PS: the priest occasionally invites the congregation to recite portions of the Eucharistic Prayer with him. Some have taken this invitation to its logical conclusion and now recite the words of consecration as well.
Auricularius - that's it!
The answer to the UK's perceived shortage of priests!
Clericalise all of the laiety, yep - even the 7-year olds can be priests, isn't that a cute idea. We can then make up and recite our own liturgies, you know, make them all woolly and cuddly bring in things like CO2, global warming and saving periwinkles, so that we feel good and warm inside, you know apple-pie and chocolate sauce kind of nicies.
We can do our own communion thing, share it with everybody - real ecumenism and apostolate - honestly!
Hey, we can even share it with the dog and budgie - isn't that what God wants?? That's real catholicism, 'all things bright and beautiful, the wonderful animals lalalalalaaaaaa..... kum-ba-ya....fallaloo-fallalay...'
What? It's been done already??? Oh yes - ECUSA, and the other 35,000,000 sects of protestantism!
Father, as a point of interest, the liturgical requirements for altars have always stated (in the rubrics of the Missal of the Council of Trent and in the various clarifications to dubia by the Sacred Congregation of Rites) that the altar should be free-standing, that is, not attached to the wall, and that (in clarifications) it should ideally be possible to walk around it. Hence when these (almost universally ignored) rules were reinforced during the Liturgical Movement, the correct practice of walking around the altar to incense it returned, as opposed to the incensations as the picture in the missal when one cannot walk around – inherently a compromise. This continuous incensation is in no way a modern practice, and is much more dignified and symbolic.
Thus, in fact, the rules in the Novus Ordo, and the Missal of Pius V, are the same. This is important, it underlines what the Holy Father tells us, that there is much less break with the Tradition of the Roman Rite, even in the details, than we might suppose.
"...the priest occasionally invites the congregation to recite portions of the Eucharistic Prayer with him. Some have taken this invitation to its logical conclusion and now recite the words of consecration as well."
While I haven't seen this dreadful abuse here in Ireland, what is actually happening seems to be going in the same direction. For example, just after the "new" Mass was introduced in 1970, in Ireland for some reason the habit grew of the people joining in the concluding doxology after the EP ("Through him...). As far as I know, this didn't happen elsewhere, at least I haven't seen it in all my travels.
But over the last 5 years or so the practice has become widespread of the priest actually inviting the people to join in the "Lord Jesus Christ, you said to your Apostles...". I seeem to recall that this all started back in the 70s & 80s when on occasions the people would be requested to join-in whenever a particular atrocity had happened in Northern Ireland, as if it were a sort of communal expression of the desire for peace. All very laudable, but all leading down the road towards the "huggy-wuggy, let's all say the Mass together, aren't we all equal anyway" viewpoint.
It's now got to the stage where, without any invitation (and unfortunately the invitations are stil being issued, everywhere), the people just join in - they seem to think it's the done thing.
I've seen some Masses where the priest has then pointedly repeated the prayer himself, or actually said: "this is said by the priest only". But in those cases I've noticed that the priests in question have stopped now, as they probably don't want to confuse people.
And is there any Episcopal guidance on this? I don't know, but I wouldn't think so. So I'm wondering: how long before they start going down the road of joining in with the EP? The path is being well-laid. And of course we don't want to be "offensive", do we?
Catechesis??? Wha da?
Jaykay
Josephus - yes, the "freestanding" bit was always there, as you say. Many editions of the missal also have a scheme for the continuous incensation of the altar. It would be interesting to know if there is any evidence for when this was used, i.e. whether it was limited to the confessio-type altars of the sort that are found in Roman Churches, or whether it was more common than that.
JayKay - the Third Instruction on the Liturgy which was issued in 1971 IIRC mentions the "per ipsum" specifically. This was an abuse that flared up in England in the seventies but generally died out. It carries on among a few diehard trendies but is generally recognised as a bit daft since the Doxology is obviously part of the previous prayer.
The business of joining in with the prayers of the priest is often seen as some kind of generous democratic concession by the more community-minded priest. It is so sad that the Irish Church is indeed associating itself with this kind of really dumb liturgical abuse.
2 further comments, and sorry to be a bit off-subject.
1) re the contiunuous incensation of the altar: I assume it should only be done when it can be done on the footpace, without going down steps and without disappearing (such as at the Oratory). So if the baldachino allow a circuit within the columns, as at the Papal Altar in St Peter's, then it should presumably always be done thus. Equallly a high gradine would make it illogical, but of course, the Missal of Pius V rubrics do not foresee a gradine, but specify the candles sitting on the altar. Just like the new rubrics! 'Plus ça ne change pas...'
2) re joining in "Per ipsum": I find this is worst in parishes with 2 or more priests who regularly concelebrate. The people, unformed and unliturgical as they sadly are, simply hear a second voice come in on the microphone, so unthinkingly follow suit. No more sinister than that, but very damaging nonetheless.
Fr. Tim,
There is certainly a degree of priestly touchy-feeliness in altering the words of the Eucharistic Prayer and getting the congregation to take part in saying the "Per ipsum."
The alteration of "...and all the clergy [period]" in EP2 to something like "...the clergy and all of God's people" or "... and all who minister in your church" is one such example. Of course, this instance is a particularly stupid liturgical abuse, watering down a powerful prayer for priests in an age when we need to redouble prayers for the clergy -- and not weaken them or obscure them with irrelevant petitions for the laity.
But there is definitely an ideological element to these sort of things too. The watering down of the prayer for priests in EP2 implicitly downplays the role of the ministerial priesthood. And encouraging the congregation to join in the "Per ipsum" is surely influenced by the idea that the Real Presence arises from the prayers of the entire "worshipping assembly," and not just the words of consecration uttered by the priest?
The best technique I have seen priests use to stop "Per ipsum" from being the cue for "all together now" (in parishes where this has become a problem) is to sing it.
Francis - I agree with you that singing the doxology is normally a good antidote. However, there was an amusing case where this went wrong. Back in the 1970s, Fr Freddie Broomfield, of happy memory, was saying Mass in a school near the seminary and tried this out. Of course the children joined in :-)
Thanks for the translation of abusivamente.
To say that Memoriale Domini allowed communion in the hand only to avoid "the scandal of disobedience" is strange. Where is there evidence for this? The papal document and accompanying Oss. Romano letter actually has some quite positive things to say about communion in the hand.
Maybe what is meant is that people already started to receive communion in the hand (when and where???) and that the Pope wanted to regularize the situation?
Is it so terrible that the Irish faithful join in the Per Ipsum and the 'Peace I leave you' prayer? Again it is something "unauthorized" but it may be officially approved if it is recognized as aiding actuosam participationem.
In Japan the faithful join the Per Ipsum prayer at the words "all honor and glory are yours" (which in Japanese come after the words "almighty Father").
I fail to see how joining in the doxology entails an unorthodox doctrine of the Real Presence. I suppose joining in the words of consecration would implie that the whole community, not the priest(s) alone, consecrate the Eucharist -- which is an unorthodox idea. But the doxology seems a perfectly suitable point for communal recitation.
Communion in the hand was being practiced widely in Europe in the 1970s, especially in Holland, France and Belgium and, to a lesser degree in England. The legitimisation of the practice was a massive disappointment (actually betrayal would not be too strong a word) for those who had brought instances of this to the attention of the Holy See. It was very much in the ethos of that time giving in to those who disobeyed.
I do not necessarily agree that the doxology "entails" an unorthodox doctrine of the real presence. But if that unorthodox doctrine is there (receptionism) then joining in with the doxology helps it along. But it is certainly a dumb idea - the doxology is part of the preceding prayer and its integral conclusion. As even most liberal liturgists in England have realised, (and indeed St Justin some time ago) the response is "Amen".
Post a Comment