Translate

Tuesday, May 5, 2020

RITA'S RANT AT PRAYTELL DEBUNKED




Recommended Guidelines Raise Troubling Questions

By Rita Ferrone of Praytell

 Unfortunately, in the attempt to “do the right thing” liturgical values and priorities are not being respected.

 Rita's rant is based upon this:

 The guidelines that Archbishop Blair, head of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship, has offered to bishops of the United States are taken from the Dominican House of Studies in Washington DC. They state that their preferred option is that Communion should be distributed after Mass, rather than at the Communion Rite.

 Here is her rant with my comment on the rant in "red."

The reform of the liturgy corrected this anomalous situation, (Communion after Mass) which diverged from the roots and normative vision of liturgy. Communion distribution at the Communion Rite has become standard practice. It was not an insignificant change. The shift contributed to a renewed sense of Eucharist as a sacred meal shared by a community of faith, an action in the heart of the liturgy.

 (I do not think offering Communion after Mass was ever normative prior to the reform of the liturgy. Perhaps some were given Communion before Mass or after Mass if they were in the choir, but that was only in case of need and the difficulty of the person coming to Communion. So this idea that it was common prior to Vatican II with the "unreformed" Mass is false. 

But the ideology that the Communion Rite makes the Mass a sacred meal shared by a comunity of faith, is the real ideology here. She does not want to state what the dogma of the Mass in the EF or OF is, that it is a Sacrifice first. The Communion Rite, in both, is a Sacred Banquet for those who discern they are in a state of grace and free to receive Holy Communion.) 

There is another reason advanced for this recommendation too. They preferred to offer Communion after Mass so that no one would feel that he or she has to receive. Although it’s fine to be sensitive to people’s feelings, it seems to me that this is a peculiar expectation. Here you have a Eucharistic ritual that culminates in the sharing of the Body and Blood of Christ. The meal aspect of Eucharist not an add-on; it’s hard wired into the service. Many Catholics are going to brave coming to Mass during a pandemic precisely out of a desire to receive Communion. So the solution is that you put Communion outside of Mass so that they will not feel they have to receive? These people are adults. They’re not on the hook. If they don’t want to receive, they can simply stay in their places at Communion time.

(I agree with Rita that it is unnecessary to move the Communion of the laity after Mass. It makes no sense in either the OF or EF Mass as a result of the pandemic. The bishops are at fault collectively for not emphasizing in normal times that no one should be receiving Holy Communion simply because they are at Mass. They should not receive Holy Communion if they are in a state of mortal sin, if they are not in full communion with the church and if they simply don't believe that Holy Communion is the Risen Lord, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity.  The reception of Holy Communion by the celebrant is what "culminates the sharing of the Body and Blood of Christ, not the reception of the same by the laity! Rita says that "Many people brave coming to Mass during a pandemic precisely out of a desire to receive Communion." I get that, but they should want to come to Mass because it brings forward in a "glorified way" the One Sacrifice of Christ for our eternal salvation. That "unbloody" Sacrifice completed by the Priest's reception of the Oblation/Holocaust is what brings salvation, not the reception of Holy Communion by the laity. This post-Vatican II practice that every lay person receive Holy Communion simply because they came to Mass misses the point of the Mass even if the laity don't receive Holy Communion.)


Spatially Separating the Priest’s Host from the Hosts Consecrated for the Faithful
These guidelines also recommend putting the hosts of the faithful on a separate corporal on the side of the altar, and only having the priest’s host in front of him at the consecration.
Now, this may be good epidemiology, but liturgically it seems to me not only inappropriate but even somewhat scandalous because this arrangement visually suggests that there are two quite separate sacrifices on the altar, the priest’s and everyone else’s.

(This is another "spirit of Vatican II" myth and ideology that the priest's host needs to be with the congregation's hosts because there is one Sacrifice not two and it makes the priest's host more important than the laity's host. 

I succumbed to this ideology due to my seminary training in the 1970's and scoffed that the priest's host wasn't presented to the priest at the offertory procession. But the priest's host is to be larger and it is usually separated in the traditional Mass from the ciborium hosts of the laity because for the validity of the Sacrifice, the priest must consume the Holocaust consecrated at that Mass. The laity's host can be from the tabernacle although the OF GIRM recommends, does not mandate, that they should receive hosts consecrated at the Mass they attend. 

But if the laity's host is away from the priest toward the side of the altar in order that the spread of coronavirus germs, if the priest has the virus and does not know it, does not make the laity's Host a different sacrifice. Even if they receive from the tabernacle, there is only one Sacrifice, because the Mass and receiving Holy Communion is eternal. Every Mass is the One Sacrifice of Christ, not multiple sacrifices because eternity just is,not was or will be, it just is!!!

But Rita, to bring caution to the spread of droplets to the laity's host, the simple use of the lid on the ciborium or a pall that is removed only for the consecration and then immediate replaced is the solution, which is the rubric, by the way, of the EF Mass.

What Rita does for us is to show how impoverished the "spirit of Vatican II' ideologies about the Mass is, especially as it pertains to the laity's Holy Communion.

However, I do agree with Rita that many of the suggestions of the bishops, especially Holy Communion to the laity after Mass is just plain unnecessary. Why not just have them come for Holy Communion outside the Church apart from Mass. Let's get back to normal when the laity are in the reopened church building.

Finally, and thanks be to God, the bishops are allowing for Holy Communion on the tongue or the hand. Bishops, please know that when the communicant is kneeling for either form of receiving, it is easier not to touch their hands or tongue when both are slightly below the priest distributing. 

We also need to eliminate the number of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion who normally don't give the Host to the laity and when they do so do so in a less secure manner than the official ministers of Holy Communion, priests and deacons.)


11 comments:

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

What actually are the current rules on the use of Extraordinary Ministers?

Will they be necessary since no sane person will be sharing the chalice after the China Flu?

Fr Martin Fox said...

Here's why I think Bishop Blair's recommendation about distributing Holy Communion after Mass makes sense:

- You may have Mass outside in less than favorable weather conditions. The distribution of the Eucharist could take place inside church, but over a prolonged amount of time, with only a few entering at a time.

- Alternately, you may have a limit on how many people can attend Mass (i.e., indoors), but then be able to have an unlimited number enter church for Holy Communion over several hours.

My modification of Bishop Blair's excellent proposals would be to substitute grain alcohol (151 proof) for hand-sanitizer, i.e., in the distribution of the Eucharist, because grain alcohol is still food. A residue of alcohol on the Host is one thing, a chemical residue is another.

Marc said...

I've read somewhere that the laity communed after mass prior to the pontificate of Pius X; hence, there being no communion rite for the laity in the Pius V mass.

If that is the case for some period of history, it was surely an anomaly that was good to correct.

Anonymous said...

One reason to have Communion available after Mass back then was to allow a lot of Masses to be celebrated back to back since Mass could not begin after noon. The NLM posted a schedule of masses from an English cathedral a while back that showed this practice. If you wanted to receive after a Low Mass, you could go to a side chapel. High Masses were usually the last on the schedule and might not offer communion at all since they were celebrated so late at a time with much stricter fasting rules.

Some churches in dense cities might have needed as many as a dozen Masses on Sunday morning, which is why the quick Low Mass became so predominant. Rather than criticise the practice, I marvel that so many Catholics valued attending Mass at all. My generation considers avoiding the Mass one of the biggest perks of leaving the Church.

Also, Rita isn't worth engaging. She quickly resorts to personally insulting those who disagree with her.

Sincerely,
N.A.K.

Anonymous said...

I have contracted "TJM Dysentery" from reading his posts. Can I sue?

TJM said...

Anonymous K aka fake Catholic priest,

This is who you are:

Martin Tolchin, a founder of Politico and former New York Times correspondent in Washington, DC, published a letter to the editor of the Times Tuesday calling for a Joe Biden “coronation” regardless of claims of sexual assault.The letter came in response to a recent Times editorial calling for the Democratic National Committee to investigate claims by Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, who claims Biden assaulted her in 1993.Tolchin wrote that he did not want Reade’s claims investigated — or anything else about Biden — because all he wanted was to see Trump defeated in November

Bob said...

One of the primary advantages seen in the Communion for laity only after the Mass completed, was that it allowed the priest to perform entire Mass without mask or gloves, and also allows priest to remove vestments and prevent entirely the possibility of a communicant from sneezing or coughing on an item not able to be pitched in washing machine after Mass.

As for their recommendation of communion on tongue, they mentioned the entirely unwieldy idea of hand sanitizer after every such communicant. Once again, non-medical types loose in the house...firstly, hand sanitizer is toxic, and secondly, hand sanitizer, as most all non-food liquids on shelves today, contains a preservative which has caused an epidemic of serious allergic reaction in its own right, where the American Dermatological Association labled it allergen of the year back 4-5yrs ago, look up MCI/MI for info. It also takes very little exposure to it to trigger permanent reactions evermore to any exposure whatsoever in any product, it estimated 10-15% of all dermatologist office visits caused by this chemical, whether recognized by them or not.

Bob said...

One of the primary advantages seen in the Communion for laity only after the Mass completed, was that it allowed the priest to perform entire Mass without mask or gloves, and also allows priest to remove vestments and prevent entirely the possibility of a communicant from sneezing or coughing on an item not able to be pitched in washing machine after Mass.

As for their recommendation of communion on tongue, they mentioned the entirely unwieldy idea of hand sanitizer after every such communicant. Once again, non-medical types loose in the house...firstly, hand sanitizer is toxic, and secondly, hand sanitizer, as most all non-food liquids on shelves today, contains a preservative which has caused an epidemic of serious allergic reaction in its own right, where the American Dermatological Association labled it allergen of the year back 4-5yrs ago, look up MCI/MI for info. It also takes very little exposure to it to trigger permanent reactions evermore to any exposure whatsoever in any product, it estimated 10-15% of all dermatologist office visits caused by this chemical, whether recognized by them or not.

PS...ALSO, needed to add that any sanitizer of even food grade applied to hand needs a minimum of 30 secs to kill any virus...its effects are NOT instantaneous.

Anonymous said...

Bob, that’s part of the reason I make my own hand sanitizer. Additionally I don’t have to compete shopping for it which has been a nightmare here locally.
No preservatives, aromatics, or other non-essential additives. Just 2/3 91% ISOPROPYL alchohol + 1/3 Aloe Vera gel.

Anon12

Bob said...

I normally do not reply to Anon posts, but let me ask why you making an aloe vera gel (which WILL have that preservative if not straight from your own plants), plus alcohol sanitizer, should matter to anyone else? For own sanitizing, I just use alcohol or soap and water, because my skin stays baby soft even with alcohol, because...

For the record, as one of those now allergic to nearly EVERY non-food liquid on the planet, thanks in part to that chemical (which got its start as a jet engine fuel preservative and just the thing to out in baby wipes, hand cleansers, and cosmetics and household and body cleansers), I have been making my own skin protectant from unrefined bees wax, food grade mineral oil, and food grade petroleum jelly for over a decade, as well as own soap made from pure lye, food grade lard, and water. Not much help to anybody else in a pandemic, though.

Anonymous said...

These liturgists baffle me. Does she have any evidence whatsoever that people are in danger of beginning to think that the communion of the faithful is accidental to the Mass, or that the priest's host is somehow special if it is separated from the other hosts on the altar?
My guess is that people would treat these things as a precaution to keep people from getting sick nothing more and nothing less.