Disrespecting the Eucharist.
Where I think it all started - a layman’s perspective.
Recently Archbishop Ranjith, secretary of the Congregation of Divine Worship at the Vatican, has been in the news asking that the now common practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand be reviewed. The practice “evolved” after the reform of the liturgy took place with the imposition of the Mass of Paul VI - otherwise known as the Novus Ordo. As we know well, the reformed liturgy has been a source of contention with traditionalists ever since.
After I returned to the Church in 1972, I attended two churches which remained intact from pre-Conciliar days - in other words, the altars were never turned around. Yes, one church was St. Agnes in St. Paul, but the other church I frequented daily happened to be Assumption in downtown St. Paul. The “new” Mass was celebrated in both churches, and as far as I could tell at the time, with little distinction in form from the TLM.
And I don’t think it is just a problem of language.
Of course the vernacular was used, which I immediately appreciated, since I could hear and understand what was being said without using a book. I liked it for the simple reason - being a new convert, in my first fervor - I had the grace of recollection and could “contemplatively” follow the prayers of the Mass along with the priest. (I know TLM people will want to correct me on this - but it is true. Also, some priests who favor the TLM are now talking about inserting the vernacular in the Extraordinary rite - it will happen.)
At both churches, Holy Communion was distributed kneeling at the altar rail, on the tongue, by the priest, just as I had been taught in my youth. Since I wasn’t a liturgist, I experienced the Mass as being the same as the one as before the Council, except of course, it was in English - which as I said, I appreciated and liked. I still do.
Turning the tables.
My point is this - and I’m convinced of it. The disrespect for the Eucharist, and subsequent lack of faith in the real presence, began when the altar of sacrifice was turned around to face the congregation, or as in many newer churches, placed in the middle of the assembly. Yet it isn’t limited to that - I think it involves a key change of focus in the “turn-around” process of the Mass as well.
In other words, the “new” emphasis in the Mass, or Eucharistic Celebration, centered around the idea that what was happening was more a banquet, a celebration - that everyone present must partake in. Much like an ancient ”love-fest” - and the partaking meant the apparently mandatory reception of the “bread and the wine”. I also think this “turn-around” was responsible for the increased participation by the laity in sacredotal duties during the celebration of the Eucharist.
The priest is a “celebrant” and lay-servers are “ministers”. (Now that’s a language problem.)
As the reform took root, lay people, most often more women than men, began taking their places in the sanctuary alongside the priest. Transporting the Eucharist from the tabernacle to the table, and then handing it out to the dinner guests who stood around or in line; the “participants” in turn took the ”wafer” from the “minister”. Eventually, as more and more license was taken, the focus seemed to be placed entirely upon the people; “Grams and gramps have been married 50 years - round of applause!” or, “A round of applause for the music ministry! Aren’t they great?” Hence, the centrality of the Eucharist, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, diminished and became obscured.
So there you have it - “They” screwed up when they turned the altars around and permitted lay people to have free reign in the sanctuary. It is not so much about the vernacular, or even communion in the hand - it is about the desacralization of the sanctuary and the eroding effect it had on the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Anyway - that is my take on it.
(Maybe my next post should be, “Liturgists with academic degrees, but absolutely no taste.” LOL! They mean well.)
[Top photo: Just a comment. For over 20 years JPII sat through some very weird liturgies and never really said anything publicly against them. No offense, but I wonder what he was thinking?]
April 24th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Terry:
The turning of the priest toward the people–was most certainly a sign of “a turning” away from the sacredness of the Eucharist. Also, I hate when people take in the hand–I know it’s acceptable, but it seems so wrong! I like being “fed” our Lord–He comes to me–He feeds me, I do not feed myself.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I accept Communion from a priest on the tongue, but if it’s a lay person distributing Communion, I’ll receive in the hand because the handful of times I’ve allowed a lay person to give me Communion on the tongue, they FLINCH, recoil, or barely place the Host on my tongue for fear of touching my tongue. Understandble that they don’t want a wet finger (and I don’t wanna taste Dick & Jane’s fingers, either). But when they do that flinching thing, the opportunity increases in the Host dropping to the floor. So I just receive in the hand from the lay persons and on the tongue from Father.
April 24th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Jeron - I do exactly the same thing - we are so alike.
April 24th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I do the same thing - get in line to a priest WHENEVER possible to receive on the tongue. Some priests will recoil as you say Terry, and with some you’ll get the big ol’ finger on the tongue business too. With a layperson, I will as reverently as possible receive on the hand. Lord save us from this!
April 24th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Alice Thomas Ellis: “‘Reformers’ are commonly distinguished by arrogance, ignorance, fanaticism and naivety. They have a biased, partial and misinformed view of all that has gone before and are intent on its destruction…..he was kindly explaining to us why the re-ordering of churches is a good thing, and why the tabernacle should be put ’somewhere else. Somewhere dignified like a side chapel’ so that it won’t be the ‘centre of attention’ during the Mass, which we must now regard, if I get his drift, as only ‘a shared meal’. Apart from the sensitive shrinking occasioned by this horrid phrase, I am perturbed by the apparent dismissal of the concept of the Sacrifice. What, I want to know–indeed I demand to know–is going on?”
Dear Alice, may you rest in peace.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Terry - the altar was not “turned around.” It was made freestanding but at no time was versus populum required or advised. In fact if you read “the red” it says at one point for the priest to “turn and face the people”. In order for him to do that he would have to be facing “liturgical east.”
Pope Benedict re-focuses the attention by simply placing a large crucifix on the altar.
April 24th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Adrienne - you are right!
April 25th, 2008 at 5:52 am
I don’t like Communion in the hand either, but do think it is part of a larger problem of people not believing in the Real Presence. If people truly believed it was God on the altar, so many of these abuses would end, no matter what direction the altar was facing.
I’m too young to remember any Mass except the NO said in English, but do appreciate the Latin Mass. As you said, there are places where you can attend the NO where it isn’t full of abuses or any different from the Latin Mass in reverence and beauty.
Liked your celebrant and minister comment.
April 25th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Is that Cathy in the last picture??
April 25th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Consider that the real turn around…revolution…. occured in the 1950’s outside the Church. The world of TV and rock concerts and cassette players cascaded onto the modern scene …leading later to CD’s and walkman’s whereas the pre 1950’s world had been radio…. and this new world of spectacular entertainment was a world of sometimes exceptional talent that flooded modern consciousness….against which the reciting and by rote nature of the Mass suddenly had to compete whereas prior to 1950, it only had to compete with radio and books.
Bad singers and actors did not make it to the TV screens…but bad homilists did make it to every parish. The talent/spectacle discrepancy between the new world of entertainment versus the Mass and its by rote reciting nature was never mentioned.
Likewise the best talent in the Church does not necessarily rise to the top and to the rank of Cardinal…but in the world of entertainment a talent that appeals to at least a million people must be there for one to advance in the world of entertainment.
Hence there were attempts to compete with that world of entertainment (your photo of the dancer at liturgy) but read psalm 149…it enjoins that people praise God through dance and the tambourine..the very things traditional Catholics denigrate…e.g. for the then Ratzinger at one point to say that dance was never in Christian ritual and should not be there is to tip off the old Catholic de facto negligence of the Old Testament (rather than our compulsory nice things said about the Old Testament).
If the Mass is partly rooted in the Last Supper wherein John seemed to lie partly on Christ physically, then the Mass is not simply about the Crucifixion but is also about a convivial banquet of sorts, the Last Supper where the Eucharist was taken most likely by each one with his hands.
As to facing east, I wonder how that squares with Christ rising above such dichotomies.. saying to the Samaritan woman whose prayer concerns were physical and opposing the Samaritan concern with Mt.Gerizim rather than Jerusalem… “believe me woman, an hour is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem….authentic worshipers will worship the Father in Spirit and in truth.”
The muslims too have this physical concern with turning toward Mecca and Christ seems to be pointing toward transcendence of this physical concern and physical level at the level of prayer.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Wow, good job on the post! A lot of food for thought. We have a lot of work to do to get the focus back onto Christ at the Mass. Thank God for Pope Benedict and his devotion to the liturgy. I enjoy your blog! Keep up the good work! God bless! Padre Steve