Author Topic: Communion (Read 1126 times)

love alabama · « **on:** November 09, 2011, 04:14:42 PM »

Why is this in the Ritual on Communion? This is not done in trad circles as far as I know.

Roman Ritual on Communion
3. Hence he will frequently remind the people that this divine sacrament is to be approached with proper preparation, with fervor and piety, and with an outward bearing of humility; likewise, that sacramental confession should precede it if necessary and that the eucharistic fast is to be observed; and that at the moment of communion they should kneel on both knees, receiving it in humble adoration and with reverence, the men separate from the women, if possible.

Matthew · « **Reply #1 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:29:02 PM »

What do you mean? This is the way communion was handled in every trad chapel I've ever been in -- and that is quite a few.

I assume you're underlining the "men separate from women" thing -- I don't know about that one. I've never been to a chapel where the genders are segregated, for communion or otherwise.

They did say, "If possible".

Caminus · « **Reply #2 on:** November 09, 2011, 04:48:15 PM »

Women also sing in trad choirs which is objectively sacreligious, but can be tolerated for grave reasons. In many cases, the majority in the choir are women. The problem is that many of them do not realize that this is an evil that is merely tolerated for a good reason, and think, rather that it is the norm. I am for the separation of genders during Mass. Women should not where short sleeved shirts or skirts that are much more above the ankles. Nor should they wear anything that shows the form of the body. Nor should they wear open-toed shoes. Nor should they dress in flamboyant colors or "modern" styles. They should drop the "mantillas" which is a complete mockery of this tradition and at least veil themselves with the standard lace veils, though it would be much more preferable if they veiled themselves with a solid, opaque piece of fabric. Men, on the other hand, should wear some kind of jacket. They seem to wear ties okay, but forget a jacket, therefore inadvertently showing their rear-ends. Wearing a tie does not supply for this irreverence. I wear a jacket, but no tie. Ties are to impress men, not God. If there were a choice between a tie and a jacket, the jacket should take precedence. No short sleeves obviously either.

:soapbox:

Vladimir · « **Reply #3 on:** November 09, 2011, 05:01:50 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Women also sing in trad choirs which is objectively sacreligious, but can be tolerated for grave reasons. In many cases, the majority in the choir are women. The problem is that many of them do not realize that this is an evil that is merely tolerated for a good reason, and think, rather that it is the norm. I am for the separation of genders during Mass. Women should not where short sleeved shirts or skirts that are much more above the ankles. Nor should they wear anything that shows the form of the body. Nor should they wear open-toed shoes. Nor should they dress in flamboyant colors or "modern" styles. They should drop the "mantillas" which is a complete mockery of this tradition and at least veil themselves with the standard lace veils, though it would be much more preferable if they veiled themselves with a solid, opaque piece of fabric. Men, on the other hand, should wear some kind of jacket. They seem to wear ties okay, but forget a jacket, therefore inadvertently showing their rear-ends. Wearing a tie does not supply for this irreverence. I wear a jacket, but no tie. Ties are to impress men, not God. If there were a choice between a tie and a jacket, the jacket should take precedence. No short sleeves obviously either.

:soapbox:

Curiously, the only place where I've seen total seperation of the genders for seating during Mass is at the Novus Ordo in Vietnam.

I also agree about women singing in choirs. It is technically a liturgical abuse since laypersons that sing in the choir are taking up a liturgical function, which women are forbidden to do. Unfortunately, not many young boys seem to be able to sing well or don't want to. Something that is also ignored by the more established choirs is that nothing but Latin is supposed to be sung during Mass and that literature written with elaborate vocal or instrumental solos are forbidden, even if it is good concert music like Schubert's Ave Maria.

I never thought about the jacket covering the rear-end. Men should avoid ostentatious dress as well - I've seen this to much where the young men dress up like they are trying to impress someone or show off rather than dress practically and modestly.

What do you think about wearing a short-sleeve collared polo shirt or just a long sleeved dress shirt, but wearing a jacket (not a suit jacket, but just a modest, unpretentious zip up jacket, etc) over it to cover the bare arms?

Caminus · « **Reply #4 on:** November 09, 2011, 10:42:17 PM »

No problem at all. During the winter months, I simply leave my long black coat on during Mass.

MiserereMeiDeus · « **Reply #5 on:** November 15, 2011, 07:24:52 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

[snip] ... I wear a jacket, but no tie. Ties are to impress men, not God. ... [snip]

I was raised pre-VII, and we were taught to dress nicely for Mass, including (for men, of course) wearing a tie, to show respect for the True Presence of the King of Kings. The sisters reminded us that no one would dream of appearing before a worldly king or president dressed casually, so why would anyone think it appropriate to dress up like that for Our Lord?

PartyIsOver221 · « **Reply #6 on:** November 15, 2011, 08:07:30 PM »

Quote from: Caminus

Women also sing in trad choirs which is objectively sacreligious, but can be tolerated for grave reasons. In many cases, the majority in the choir are women. The problem is that many of them do not realize that this is an evil that is merely tolerated for a good reason, and think, rather that it is the norm. I am for the separation of genders during Mass. Women should not where short sleeved shirts or skirts that are much more above the ankles. Nor should they wear anything that shows the form of the body. Nor should they wear open-toed shoes. Nor should they dress in flamboyant colors or "modern" styles. They should drop the "mantillas" which is a complete mockery of this tradition and at least veil themselves with the standard lace veils, though it would be much more preferable if they veiled themselves with a solid, opaque piece of fabric. Men, on the other hand, should wear some kind of jacket. They seem to wear ties okay, but forget a jacket, therefore inadvertently showing their rear-ends. Wearing a tie does not supply for this irreverence. I wear a jacket, but no tie. Ties are to impress men, not God. If there were a choice between a tie and a jacket, the jacket should take precedence. No short sleeves obviously either.

:soapbox:

OK, Caminus....

I actually agree with you on this post.

Thorn · « **Reply #7 on:** November 15, 2011, 09:57:57 PM »

I was going to bring this up on the communion rail thread, but hesitated. Now I see the Communion thread so I'm going to finally get this off my chest & bring something up that maybe most have never thought anything about but I feel is very important. I see it at SSPX, sede, & independent chapels. I've only been to one tiny CMRI which didn't have any little children so I don't know about them.
Some background: I grew up completely pre- Vatican II and can count on one hand the times I've been in a NO church.
When we were growing up I remember being taught that ONLY those going to communion went up to the communion rail. So if a family had little children, first the mother (or father) would go up for communion & when they returned the other parent would go. There were several reasons for this. First, a little child in arms could unexpectedly flail his arms & perhaps cause Father to lose the Host. Secondly, since only those receiving were at the rail, Father gave communion to all without inadvertently giving it to someone coming up for just a Blessing. Thirdly it kept the reverence and awe of Communion - only those receiving went up. It was special.
Then the NO came to be, but in the underground church we went to this custom continued. The first time I saw everyone going up to the communion rail was in a NO church to get a blessing. I wondered if this had anything to do with Universal Salvation - you know- everyone come on down! I then started noticing it in trad chapels. I know of some children who have received their 'First Communion' this way when a parent didn't motion to Father quickly enough to let him know not to give it to the child. The child was around five & big for her age the first time I heard of this. I don't know how the other children came to receive Communion by mistake.
As far as receiving a Blessing - Father turns around during Mass, makes the sign of the cross to bless everyone TWICE! Isn't that a forceful enough blessing? Yet I see many of those same children who went up to the rail for a blessing (and others too) not crossing themselves or paying attention to Father giving a blessing!!

Many NO people who never grew up in tradition are now coming to trad chapels but unfortunately bringing their NO habits with them. I just wish that priests would explain that ONLY those in sanctifying grace should come up to the communion rail to receive. It avoids many problems and keeps the reverence and awe alive.

TKGS · « **Reply #8 on:** November 16, 2011, 07:14:58 AM »

I learned the same thing, Thorn, that only those receiving Communion should approach the communion rail. However, I never saw any custom the father going first and the mother second. What I remember is this:

If the child is too young to attend Mass, he would be placed in a babysitting room where volunteers took care of the child while the parents attended Mass or the parents would split up attending Mass so that one could be with the younger children.

Those too young to receive communion sat in the pews (and to the chagrin of the parents, sometimes misbehaved).

The reason, it seems to me, that this is not generally the case anymore is the fact that most traditional parishes don't have several Masses a day and/or families have to travel quite a distance to get to Mass even when there is more than one Mass scheduled. It is extremely inconvenient for families, oftentimes boardering on the impossible, to split up and since the congregations are mostly smaller they have a much smaller pool from which to solicit volunteers for babysitting (if they have more than one Mass).

Even in those few chapels in which this is no longer the case, nearly all of them started out in this situation.

Thus, over the years, many parents began taking very small children with them to the communion rail. (I've never seen a traditional priest give these children blessings as they do in the Novus Ordo churches where even the "Eucharistic Ministers" blesses little kids with their hosts.)

I think this current "custom", so to speak, really grew out of necessity at one time and it is oftentimes difficult to change midstream, especially in an area that really doesn't have to be a problem.

At my chapel, there is a family of eight children. The youngest of them do often go to the communion rail with the parents while the older ones who have not yet received first Communion usually stay in the pew. Sometimes, though, as children are often wont to do, these older children just will not stay in the pew and come up with the parents as they used to do. They do not create a disburbance and there is simply no disrespect shown to the Blessed Sacrament. The altar boys know who can receive Communion and place the patten under the chins of those who will receive and the priest gives Holy Communion. Then they simply go down the line to the next person who will receive. Again, there really isn't a problem.

Thorn · « **Reply #9 on:** November 16, 2011, 11:25:26 AM »

Yes, my friends who lived in town that had more than one Mass on Sunday would split up so they could leave the little ones at home with one of the parents & then the other parent would go to Mass later. I went to a little country church with one Mass & so one or the other of the parents, or even an older child, would stay with the little ones during Communion. In my day there was no babysitting room anywhere. The prots had babysitting tho. I still say that it's doable to not have children come up during Communion.

In the trad chapel, when the priest came to a child that was there for a blessing he'd put his hand on the child's head & bless him (keeping his finger & thumb together however). In the SSPX church & sede church he simply went past the child so I guess that they weren't there for a blessing but so the family can all go to Communion together.

I didn't mean to imply that the father went first to Communion. It was either parent but usually it was the father going first so the mother could be there & they would learn that soon the mother would go too and return. Some little ones get anxious when seeing their mother going & think that they must follow. Everything seemed so logical and put together & worked so well back then! We now see many more undisciplined children and many parents can't seem to be able to train little ones.