In the bad old pre-Vatican II days, post- Vatican II progressives often made disparaging remarks about the religious education of the unwashed laity of that time. Most Catholics did not go to Catholic schools or CCD programs. Their only exposure to the truths about God, the Mass and other sacraments was by attending Mass. Prior to Vatican II most Catholics would never question publicly or answer publicly that they did not believe in the Real Presence.
Why? Because the Law of Prayer is the Law of belief. The manner in which the Mass was celebrated, for the most part, vast, vast most part, was reverently. And most Catholics with minimal religious education knew and believed in the Real Presence of Christ.
Today's enlightened lay Catholics not so much.
Is it too much to ask for a return to kneeling for Holy Communion? I contend that this is even more important than ad orientem. And I know from first hand experience what John Nolan says about kneeling for Holy Communion in the Ordinary Form. That people who receive in the hand while kneeling would place the Host in their mouth in a more reverent way while kneeling than they would while standing and moving. They would not get up until the Host was in their mouth.
And yes, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion should be used sparingly and when truly needed. We need fewer, who should be properly trained and educated for this ministry and required to wear an alb (as a sign of their baptismal garment/dignity). Holy Communion by Intinction could be quickly accomplished and without rushing at the altar railing with one priest and one extraordinary minister of Holy Commuion. Thus the EMHC could act as the adult server of the Mass as well.
17 comments:
There is, of course a problem if Communion is routinely offered in both kinds. We don't want laypeople following the priest along the rail. Apart from anything else, it would more than double the time taken for Communion, and those who do not wish to take the Chalice would be in a difficult position. It's different in the Anglican Church where everyone receives in both kinds.
Intinction is not the answer; it is alien to the Western tradition (and was in fact reprobated on theological grounds from the first millennium onwards) and in effect denies the opportunity of receiving in one kind only.
Until Easter this year the Oxford Oratory (which has kneeling Communion) offered the Chalice at its Sunday Solemn Mass; those who wanted it could go to a side chapel and receive it (standing) from a priest. This practice is now discontinued, and as far as I know no-one has objected. They also discontinued the Offertory procession. I don't think anyone missed it.
way back when my old country parish had the collection baskets on stands in the back of church, offerings went in as you came in the door, no muss no fuss, then we got our "new" priest, a grumpy old fart who had to change everything and berated us as he went. "the collection at offertory is designed to shame you into giving", collection went down, he crapped a large egg and demanded that the parish go to envelopes, announced in his sermon that he was going to post a list at the back of church of people who he didn't think gave enough. collection stopped, he screamed and gave up on the envelopes, still passed the basket but, one for us, one for him.
My point is that there used to be no offertory procession and things got on swimmingly without it. So much of the "new" mass is just showing off, look at us we are involved, so what, one distraction after another, it all gets very old
some day I need to compile a list of the crap that fool did to our quiet little parish, smallest in the Cincinnati diocese, but it's still there and still quit healthy 20 years after he left this mortal coil
Part of the reason for the design of the older churches was to teach the faith. The windows and statues told a story. Things had a purpose. Even the altar rail did more than give a place for people to kneel, it defined the sanctuary. Now going to Mass is similar to attending a high school pep rally.Noise and all. One of the old traditions that gave reverence to Eucharist is something that you don't see, the fast.
Anyone see the news about a deacon in amazonia being told by a bishop to celebrate the "mass?"
Articles say this has been going one and is fully "Francis-approved."
It is arguable - St. Thomas Aquinas being among the proponents - that there is one Sacrament of Holy Orders, and that once a person is ordained a deacon he possesses the fullness of the priesthood of Jesus. What that deacon lacks is the jurisdiction, granted by the authority of the Church, to act as priest or bishop.
Granted that jurisdiction by the Holy Father, the deacon may be able to celebrate the mass.
What you write is heretical. By this heretical logic, I can, as a priest, be given jurisdiction by my bishop or the pope to ordain priests and deacons and if I find two other deacons to assist me, we can ordain bishops. Heretical and schismatic to say the least.
Is it heretical to say that there is one Sacrament of Holy Orders?
Or are you suggesting there are three, raising the total number of Sacraments to nine?
Not suggesting anything, but teaching in a dogmatic way what the dogma of the Catholic Church is as it regards the one Sacrament of Holy Orders, that makes it unique among the other sacraments. It has three distinct stages, deacon, priest and bishop and each have their own "powers" if you will. The bishop, though is also a priest and a deacon and a priest, though, is also a deacon, but a deacon, he's a deacon, not a priest or a bishop no matter who gives him any kind of heretical/schismatic jurisdiction to be a priest or a bishop without additional ordinations.
If there is one Sacrament, there is one ordination.
If there are "additional ordinations," are you not suggesting additional Sacraments?
It’s obvious you are a neophyte lacking understanding of Catholic dogma. I recommend the CCC to you and you can report back your findings. Let us know!
Anonymous @ 8:31 AM
"It is arguable - St. Thomas Aquinas being among the proponents..."
Aquinas is one of the greatest of theologians but he was just that, not anyone
who had the authority to decide Church discipline or policy.
So why is it that a seminarian is first ordained a deacon and then on the completion of seminary training is subsequently ordained to the priesthood by the bishop?
"So why is it that a seminarian is first ordained a deacon and then on the completion of seminary training is subsequently ordained to the priesthood by the bishop?"
After the ONE Sacrament of ordination, the subsequent ceremonies are a conferral of jurisdiction, the power or ordination having been given at the first instance.
A@11:28, you must be an inquirer into the Faith which explains your befuddled ignorance . Please read me@ 1031am.
Anonymous, you are so right. And your comment got me thinking - why even stop at the deaconate? Let's make baptism the sole requirement for offering the mass. Requiring anything more is just clericalism!
Silly me for being concerned about the "Francistein Church."
The idea that St. Thomas says what this Anonymous person attributes to him is ridiculous. In fact, it would appear this Anonymous person is pulling this suggestion from the objection that St. Thomas is refuting. That is, St. Thomas teaches the exact opposite.
From time to time the question may arise, when it comes to holy orders, which did the Lord establish---the episcopate or the prebyteriate? Were the apostles the first bishops or priests? John Wesley, waiting in vain for an Anglican bishop to come to the colonies, did not find any distinction between bishopic and priest and thus decided to ordain on his own. He could not find any scriptural distinction between bishop and priest. Of course his decision to ordain "on his own" was a clear break from apostolic succession.
"From time to time the question may arise, when it comes to holy orders, which did the Lord establish---the episcopate or the presbyterate? Were the apostles the first bishops or priests?"
The question may arise? From whom? In the first apostles, Christ established both.
As far as John Wesley, apostolic succession was broken well before he did what he did.
Post a Comment