Monday, October 19, 2009

One Of The Joys Of Attending Mass Where They Offer The TLM
St. Francis Xavier Chapel, Camp Lejeune, NC

After we got home from Sunday Mass, I had a chance to peruse the bulletin. Under the heading of "Flu Season Precautions", there was mostly common sense calls like "stay home if you feel sick", etc, etc.

But I gotta tell ya, numbers 4 and 6 stood out in a crowd;

4. Do not hold hands during the Our Father, not merely because it could lead to the spread of germs, but more importantly because it is not rubically correct.

6. You have the choice of receiving Holy Communion under the species of Blood or not. Jesus is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in each species. He is truly and completely present under the species of Body and He is truly and completely present under the species of Blood.
And you know damn good and well that vast majority of Novus Ordo-only parishes wouldn't dare even whisper #4 to the registered self-worshipping drones.

I'll bet the "more fully under both species" crowd are apoplectic over #6.

I love it.

14 Comments:

Blogger Joe of St. Thérèse said...

The headline I wish they'd do is "because of swine flu Holy Communion will only be distributed on the tongue"

10:21 PM  
Blogger Fr. Erik Richtsteig said...

Msgt --

We did #4 this weekend.

7:27 AM  
Blogger Hail3N1 said...

Grew up in pre-vatII times. The Precious Blood was never given out to the faithful..just another Protestant invention for the creation of more abuse!

So, this flu-thing...is it going to stop the Precious Blood from being given out???? The liberals would luv to see everyone taking it (Host)in their paws...tell them, the Precious Blood then should Not be given out, our Lord is in the Host entirely anyway. But remain ALWAYS RECEIVING THE EUCHARIST ON THE TONGUE! AND ON THE KNEES!!

4:04 PM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

. . . just another Protestant invention for the creation of more abuse!

I agree with you about the innovationists who seem to be running (ruining?) the modern liturgy, but the reception of Holy Communion under both forms is not a Protestant invention. The Orthodox and Eastern Catholics receive under both forms. In fact there is NO reception routinely under one form only in the Eastern Churches.

Had there been a "decent" liturgical reform following Vatican II, IMHO there still could have been a legitimate change to reception under both forms--e.g., the Anglican Use RC mass as celebrated by Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church in San Antonio (Google them on the web) has two-forms reception at at altar rail with communicants on their knees. IOW, AU folks do it right! Such a liturgical reform also would have retained Latin in the liturgy and would have restored Gregorian Chant to our masses and chanted by the congregation as mandated by Sacrosanctum Concilium.

In my former parish during flu season, there was no "cup," only the Precious Body (which is the Body and Blood as you have so correctly stated). I never personally cared for the reception under both forms in the Roman Rite liturgy, but there is no legitimate theological complaint against it. Again, I do take your point about the liturgical innovationists whose motives IMHO are less than Catholic.

5:11 PM  
Blogger Hail3N1 said...

Adeo,

I'm aware of the Eastern Catholics distributing both Species. I, myself have attended Byzantine liturgies. The point I was trying to make, is that the Roman rite that we are familiar with used the hosts only. From grade school on we never had the Precious Blood administered. Also, the point I was trying to make is that since the "spirit of Vat II" everyone and their grandmother can distribute BOTH of these Species, which makes for more abuses. Maybe I should have been more clear. Non-Consecrated hands distributing EITHER Species is an abuse in itself!

7:13 PM  
Blogger Adrienne said...

We no longer attend our parish because of the hand holding and other innovations.

As to the cup - funny story. The looooooong time parish secretary (who just recently retired) and I were having a conversation. I said something about never receiving from the cup. She was just appalled and said, "Oh boy, not me! I want to receive all of Jesus!"

I couldn't let that pass and so I nicely explained the truth to her. This women came in contact with hundreds of parishioners every week for way over 15 years spewing her "theology" about this and many other subjects of which she knew nothing.

Gives me a headache...

7:28 PM  
Blogger Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Given that my folks' home Parish will no longer be having a homily, because there was too much blow-back when Father preached on divorce being bad without talking about how to get an annulment, that is pretty impressive....

10:22 PM  
Blogger Cam said...

I was so glad when they said number four at our parish a few weeks ago, because there's a lot of pressure to hold hands. My husband and I would both like to be holding the baby at that point so that we always have an excuse not to have our hands grabbed by the person next to us.

Sadly the closest TLM to us is over 3 hours away...

10:33 PM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

Non-Consecrated hands distributing EITHER Species is an abuse in itself!

Your statements re: the "spirit" of V2 [e.g., liturgical innovationism] and the above statement are where we agree completely.

I noticed two things in 1990 (I had been "asleep liturgically" for 21 years like Rip Van Winkle) that turned my interests to reading and experiencing all I could on traditional Catholic and Orthodox liturgy and theology: Communion in the hand and Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. There weren't any of these practices in the Archdiocese of Santa Fe at least since 1976 when I first moved into the area until about 1990. My personal studies led me to a love of the Byzantine Rite Divine Liturgy and a return to the Roman Rite's Mass of the Ages.

I suppose I should thank those SOBs who authorized and implemented these innovations for getting me to really think about what had happened to the Catholic Church since 1969 (since 1963?), but I won't thank them because they are SOBs in the first place! *angry smirk*

Again, I never really objected theologically to Communion under both kinds (even though I don't care for it myself as a personal practice) because I have seen it done (IMHO) appropriately in an AU RC mass setting and in the Byzantine Rite's Divine Liturgy. But I do not like the way it is done in modern RC "Novus Ordo" parishes. It is a liturgical abuse in this latter example IMO.

10:42 PM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

I should correct my previous statement about not caring for Communion under both kinds. Obviously, when I attend the Byzantine Rite's Divine Liturgy and communicate it is obviously under both kinds as it should be. I prefer one kind only in the Roman Rite mass--i.e., in the Novus Ordo Missae. Obviously the TLM has Holy Communion under one kind only for the congregation as it should be so.

10:49 PM  
Blogger Former Altar Boy said...

HailN confuses two oints: 1) whther the Precious Blood should be distributed, and 2) non-concecrated hands touching either Sacred Species.

I agree totally with Him on #2 but agree with Adeo on #1 -- I have no problem wtih reception under both species, at a New order Mass or wherever (I attended a Maronite church for a number of years) -- espeically if preceded by good catechesis so people don't think they get More" of the Lord under both kinds.

I now attend the TLM exclusively where the Sacred Host alone is distributed by tradition. But I can say this, if the only change that came out of Vat2 was to be reception uder both speciues, no one would have freaked out but accepted it as "organic developent."

12:51 AM  
Blogger Al said...

Ade, your comment about Eucharist under 1 kind in the TLM raises a question I have yet to fully find an answer to. I read that after Trent, in some parts of Europe like Germany Rome allowed Communion under both forms. I am still trying to find out if that was true. & if it was, then how it was done. I suspect that if it was done then it would be similar to how the Anglican use does it today.

7:38 AM  
Blogger Adeodatus49 said...

But I can say this, if the only change that came out of Vat2 was to be reception uder both speciues, no one would have freaked out but accepted it as "organic developent."

If only the post-V2 bishops (and Pope) had done this. Would have saved a lot of hate and discontent.
Oh . . . that and restore Gregorian Chant for Sunday worship with the sheep in the pews chanting it. This is what I think FULL and ACTIVE PARTICIPATION should actually mean.

12:10 PM  
Blogger mig said...

snicker. I just put my hands in prayer and close my eyes to recite the 'Our Father', not because I want to block people out but because I am hard of hearing and I like to focus on the words. It is a beautiful prayer and is packed with meaning.

12:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home