I think it is important for the Church to listen to drivel in order to wipe it up and put it in the trash or flush it down the toilet.
The biggest problem with progressive liturgists is their obsessions with norms that in fact are flexible. For example, the congregation should receive Holy Communion consecrated at the Mass they attend.
Okay. But is Christ different in the Hosts received from the tabernacle, verses the Host consecrated at the Mass they attend. Isn’t every Mass from Calvary to the Second Coming ONE MASS? The Risen Christ, the One Sacrifice just are, never were or will be. God is I AM, not I was or I will be! We’re speaking about eternity here and progressive liturgists simply can’t figure that out and don’t want mysticism to be a part of liturgical theology.
Below I link a post from Praytell that simply ignores the eternity of Christ and His Sacrifice in the Mass. They just don’t get it and prefer to focus on things that don’t really resonate with most lay and ordained Catholics, like Jesus in the Tabernacle verses Jesus consecrated on the altar. Communion from one Loaf rather than multiple Hosts. Bread that looks, tastes and chews like bread, verses the sterile host most parishes use.
Nary a word about Jesus Christ the Risen Lord, sacrificed for our eternity of salvation and Who is in a personal relationship with His Church which He founded and in a personal relationship with each Catholic in the world. He calls us into a personal relationship with His Church and Him.
And then one notorious contrary poster there complains that the priest should receive from the tabernacle if the laity are made to do so. This betrays a grotesque misunderstanding of the unique role of the ordained priest who must, I repeat must, for the validity of the sacrificial aspect of the Mass, complete the sacrifice by consuming the Holocaust. This unique doctrine, also a dogma, only applies to the ordained priest, not the priesthood of the laity by virtue of Holy Baptism. I guess this is just another example of coloring book Catholicism.
Archbishop Broglio knows the Catholic dogma and doctrines of the Mass and in a timely way this week, offered a fraternal correction to the article I link below when he said this many years ago:
To those diminishing Eucharistic adoration and devotion, Broglio says: “The Church tells us that this Eucharistic Presence in the tabernacle is a prolonging of the Sacrifice of the Altar.”
Read the article at Praytell and of course the comments:
10 comments:
No thank you. PraySniff is a fascist blog suppressing reasoned arguments against “the agenda.”
The Church has for decades, since well before the Council, commended the practice of the faithful receiving communion from the same sacrifice that they have joined in offering. There is nothing "liberal" about this at all (unless you think Benedict XIV was a liberal). There is no denial of the timeless, universal nature of Christ's sacrifice either. If anything is being denied it is the idea that liturgy is about what is doing what is most convenient rather than what is most fitting.
Sorry, I'm not going to be nice about this.
Note well the author of the article admits that he hasn't been in a parish, but in academia. Then, risibly, as proof that he's right, he offers the example of a daily Mass with "ten to 50" attendants. Although I think he didn't address this, but Imma gonna guess he alone distributes the Sacred Hosts, or perhaps has one person helping, most likely standing next to him.
As it is, he still has to add hosts during Mass; and he still has to consume "two or three" after communion. No, these aren't terrible impositions, but they aren't evidence of his system working just fine; they are alarm bells of what await a pastor in a parish setting who takes the author's assurances at face value.
I know because I've lived it. I came out of the seminary in 2003, full of a desire to do all that Vatican II called for, and this particular recommendation was on my mind. (Continued...)
First, let's deal with the blythe suggestion that we have bowls, with tongs, so people can add hosts as they come into church. In a parish setting, it will take a great deal of instruction, repetition and reminding, for many months, to get this adopted. Ushers and greeters will need to be trained, first; and of course, good luck getting them all present at the same time to explain it all. Will ushers add hosts on behalf of those they think forgot to add their own? If you end up with several bowls (one for each entrance), will they all be combined? That likely will involve some handling of the hosts; or will each one be transferred by tongs? And, of course, we can be sure not a single tyke will put his or her hands into the bowls, right?
Now, one can surely hope this system gets to about the right number. But what if it misses the mark? If it overshoots the mark, well then, of course, we put the extra in the tabernacle. Oh, but if we're not drawing Hosts from the tabernacle, then it's all in, little out. The spectacle of the celebrant cramming dozens and dozens of hosts in his mouth is not edifying (and yes, I know that this happens). If the the number runs short, then, well, we have recourse to the tabernacle, oh well. EXCEPT -- this system assumes there isn't a large quantity in the tabernacle, except perhaps after Holy Thursday Mass. So you find yourself going to a nearly empty Divine Larder. Oops. (Continued...)
But now, let us be kind to these idealists and suppose, mirabile dictu, the quantity of hosts set aside before Mass is rather precise and admirably close to the quantity needed. Let us supply, for sake of an example, a number: 400 for a given Sunday Mass, which will be distributed, let us say conservatively, by four people at four locations.
The goal, then, for the celebrant would be to give each distributor (including himself) a bowl with 100 hosts, right?
Of course, this assumes those receiving are equally distributed around the church; but they are not. How many extra hosts are we allowing for? If each distributor has 10 extra, that means Father consumes 40 hosts after Mass.
Guess what happens in this scenario. Distributor A runs low and is not situated close to another distributor, and so starts breaking hosts; or runs out. The process slows down as distributors go find each other to share hosts. When it is all said and done, the priest discovers Distributor B brings back 30 or more hosts, plus a handful from the other 3. Father proceeds to stuff his face with the Blessed Sacrament.
I will simply tell you from experience that either the priest has to overconsecrate; or else he runs the risk of running out. And when you play that lottery, at some point, it will happen. So, of course, in support of this Vatican II suggestion, we can always trot out a pre-Trent, or a Jansen-era explanation, to the effect that you shouldn't be receiving Holy Communion anyway.
Meanwhile, what is overlooked is that the language from Vatican II is not a mandate; it is a suggestion: "It is desirable..." That is an aspiration; it is far from a norm or a law. And, indeed, it IS desirable. But to turn it into an iron law, as so many progressive liturgists and their students among the presbyterate have done (we used to have a priest, now deceased, who would rant about this at priest gatherings, year after year), simply invites mockery.
I'm sorry, those of you who think this "desire" is actually a law: you are wrong. You are, dare I say, being rigid. Stop it.
Now that my blood is up, let me go on...
There will be those who say, so what if you have to train everyone to this new system. It can be done!
Yes, it can be; I don't deny it. However, I will say that a pastor can only launch, and see through, so many projects that require a high degree of cooperation from all involved. Perhaps he also needs to get all his ushers on board for the proper handling of the collection? Or maybe he needs to train them in techniques of welcoming visitors? Or in being ready to assist someone in a health situation: the juice and crackers needed for a low-sugar situation are located here, the first aid kit is over here, and the defib machine is located here. Perhaps in other priests' parishes, the ushers have no other complications in their lives and they just LOVE showing up for monthly orientation sessions on whatever projects Father brings forward. And same for the faithful, who likewise have to be instructed not only in host-and-tong protocols, but in hand-sanitizing rules, and the right new way to make the sign of peace, and the right new way to process forward during Holy Communion, and the latest change in texts they recite at Mass, and the new hymnals or worship aids and so on and so forth. They, too, will love the monthly orientation sessions!
I remember visiting a parish where I admit, I admired how very orderly Holy Communion was; it was an intricate series of movements for a large number of distributors and the faithful, and they all seemed do their parts like a complicated ballet. And then I thought: Oh, what rigorous re-education must have been imposed on them for so long, to produce this result. And guess what? The pastor was indeed known as a bit of a dictator and humorless scold about certain things. Oh, what a friend we have in Jesus! But in the pastor? The liturgists? Not so much.
In the Byzantine East, there isn't a concept of going to the tabernacle for "more". The Faithful share in the result of the work performed at the altar, the consecrated body and blood. The tabernacle is meant to house that which is intended for the sick and the homebound. This is why, during the Great Fast, an anaphorion appears on many Byzantine Holy Tables (literally meaning bread box) containing consecrated bread soaked with consecrated wine (it is dried before reservation). The tabernacles themselves, particularly the Russian-style ones, are simply not large enough to reserve more than a few particles that, again, are intended for the sick/housebound. How the Western Church could effectively balance distributing to the faithful from the altar vs taking from that which is reserved (the same Christ), will not likely find an easy and practical end it would seem.
BYZRUS, (and this is a kind of response to Deacon Fritz) thanks for the Eastern perspective. My parochial vicar in Augusta, the late Fr. Dan Munn, a former Episcopal priest ordained for my diocese through John Paul II’s pastoral provision was also bi-ritual and the pastor of a small Byzantine (Greek Catholic) parish near my parish. He showed me the place of reservation and also mentioned what you said about this being for the sick, dying and I presume homebound. He also indicated no signs of reverence are shown to the reserved Sacrament.
I suspect part of the Eastern Custom which is more ancient than the current Latin Rite approach to the reserved sacrament is that you really can’t reserve the type of leaven bread which the East uses. It would go stale and moldy rather quickly. Not so with the “disc” type hosts the Latin Rite uses. These can last almost forever.
In terms of freshness, usually the Hosts that are used come in large numbers and the consecrated Hosts in the tabernacle are just as old as the fresh ones that might be consecrated coming from the same batch.
In the minds of most Catholics, not elitist progressive liturgists, the Lord is the Lord, whether from the tabernacle or consecrated at the Mass they attend. Apart from a connection to the Mass the laity are attending, progressive liturgists and even official GIRM statements that it is appropriate for the laity to receive Communion from Hosts consecrated at the Mass they attend, does not delineate what the difference is in terms of the Risen Lord, who is received in from either the tabernacle or the altar. Is He somehow different and disconnected from the Sacrifice of the Mass?
What progressive liturgists simply ignore is the expiratory aspect the the Sacrifice of the Mass, prior to the Communion of the laity. There is an abundance of salvation offered to the laity as a result of the Holy Sacrifice, whether they receive Holy Communion or not.
Frequent Communion is encouraged, but not necessary for the laity. Being at the Sacrifice though and participating in that aspect of the Mass is required by Church law. Receiving Holy Communion is not obligatory except once a year and normally as a part of one “Easter Duty.”
Progressives want to move away from that kind of legalism, but it is still on the books.
Another problem, which is a post-Vatican II issue, as this did not occur in the pre-Vatican II Church is the conundrum of “Communion Servies” when a priest is not available for Mass. In this case, Hosts are used from the tabernacle as no consecration takes place in the liturgy used, which is the Liurgy of the Word and the Communion Rite from the Mass. Apart from the elimination of the “Liturgy of the Eucharist” this service appears to be a Eucharistic Liturgy and it is, but not Sacrificial.
I think this has done more damage to the expiratory aspect of the Mass and making the reception of Holy Communion the end all and be all of what the Mass is meant for. It is only a meal and the Food and Drink and eating and drinking is the most important.
The other aspect that liturgists completely ignore about the Last Supper, is that Jesus was not talking to or celebrating this Paschal Meal with anyone but the 12 apostles, no other disciples (male or female) were there. Just the first newly ordained priests/bishops.
That they receive Christ at the Sacrifice they celebrate in memory of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, has a basis in history and from the Last Supper itself.
Obviously, the laity would participate in this Memorial and would receive too, but that is a later development and post-Resurrection.
More Magic Cookie nonsense except they want it to be Wonder Bread.
Post a Comment