QUAERITUR: Do we have to pray the Luminous Mysteries of the Rosary?

From a reader:

I have a kind of…confused question for you here, im told that i dont need to say the Luminous Mysteries, im told Pope John Paul II “suggested” it, not declared that it must be said, i wonder this because i just read somewhere that heresy/schism is excommunicatable…id really like to think that not saying them wouldnt grant such a punishment……i know its completly valid and accept by The Church….but im sure you already know the claims for it, and against it….i really dont know what i should do, and i realllllllyyyyyy dont want to be excommunicated..haha and if its all the same to you Father, if im lucky enough for you to read this…please edit most of this out if your putting it on the front page :p

?!?

Well.. no.  I don’t think I will edit most of this out. I shouldn’t have to do your work, too.

But to the question.

We are not obliged to pray the Rosary.  It is a devotion we are free to embrace.  If we do pray the Rosary, we are not obliged to use the Luminous Mysteries.  You can feel free to use just the three, classic, sets of mysteries.

As Pope John Paul reminded us in his Letter for the year dedicated to the Rosary, praying the Rosary redirects us back to the Lord.  Mary teaches us how to gaze at the face of Christ.  The Rosary is a power means of intercessory prayer as well.

I highly recommend praying the Rosary.  And please, dear readers, pray for me right now as well.

And you don’t have to use the Luminous Mysteries, either.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged ,
54 Comments

New Kindles coming

I have been enjoying my Kindle enormously. I have the Kindle 3g which has a keyboard. I was sceptical at first but I have been won over. It is especially useful for books I don’t especially want to keep on a shelf for reference. It is perfect for more ephemeral book. I use it for periodicals.

I use both the text and text to voice options. I plug it into my stero when I am doing chores. The reading is machine-like but it ain’t bad.

Did you know that you can lend books from one Kindle to another? You can highlight something you read on your Kindle and then tweet it to your followers?

The newest Kindles amazon is putting out run on a new technology. There is new generation of Kindle, Kindle Touch, and a new Kindle Fire with color. The Kindle Fire is more like a tablet, like an iPad, and it has a new browser that runs on cloud technology which is apparently very fast.

KindleThe new generation Kindle Touch, however, without a keyboard is 30% lighter and weighs less than 6 ounces and is 18% smaller body but with the same 6″ screen size. It also allows one to borrow books from the local library. Gotta see how that works. [see UPDATE, below]
In any event, if you are going to take the plunge into a Kindle, it might be good to do it now (and do your very early Christmas shopping). I received my Kindle as a gift from a reader here and I have really enjoyed it.

I now have a Kindle wishlist, by the way. Do you?

Did you know you can lend books to another person’s Kindle?

USA only, click HERE to pre-order a Kindle Fire.
To order a simple Kindle Touch HERE or the top end with free 3g HERE.
For the Kindle 3G with the keyboard (the one I have now) click HERE.

UPDATE 2031 GMT:

I did some checking and found that a zillion libraries in the USA, which can lend e-books via Overdrive, can now lend to Kindles. Very cool. I have done this with some library books using Overdrive in the past on my iPad. Having the option for Kindle is great.

The college text book option would be revolutionary, no?

Many of Pope Benedict’s book are available on Kindle, by the way.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Just Too Cool, The Campus Telephone Pole | Tagged ,
8 Comments

NCFishwrap getting it wrong about abortion and capital punishment.

Over at the National catholic Fishwrap, Jamie Manson has flung herself headlong into another error.

I won’t torment you with a fisking of the whole article.  Suffice it to say that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is said to have defended, as Jamie puts it, a “pro-death penalty position” during a speech at Duquesne University’s Law School.  What Scalia said was,

“If I thought that Catholic doctrine held the death penalty to be immoral, I would resign. … I could not be a part of a system that imposes it.”

There are many and good reasons to argue against capital punishment.  Jamie found a bad one: defense of abortion.

Jamie tries to argue – obviously thinking that she is getting in a good dig at conservatives and Catholics – that if we are supposed to deny Communion to supporters of abortion then we have to deny Communion to supporters of capital punishment.  Get it?  Huh?  Get it?  Turn the sock inside out. Admitting supporters of capital punishment to Communion means that we have to admit supporters of abortion.  She is, in effect, defending pro-abortion politicians.

Jamie and, therefore, Fishwrap paint Justice Scalia as – and I am not making this up – a “cafeteria Catholic”.  Think about that for a moment.  If that isn’t ironic, I don’t know what is.

Nice try.

Keep in mind I am not herein so much defending Justice Scalia as I am showing how bad Manson’s argument is.

First, you cannot label Scalia’s position as “pro-death penalty” from that quote. Keep in mind that Supreme Court Justices make distinctions.  Justice Scalia is surely not unaware of the Church’s teaching on capital punishment.  Surely, Justice Scalia knows that there is a general moral norm against capital punishment.  But when we begin to make distinctions, we see that there are exceptions to this moral norm.  Second, abortion and capital punishment are not equivalent.  Again, the Church’s moral norm against capital punishment is not an exception-less norm.

Jamie could spend some useful hours with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Shall we have a look?

CCC 2267 was revised after the release of John Paul II’s Evangelium vitae 56.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.

So, Holy Church takes a strong position against capital punishment.  However, the Magisterium does NOT exclude the possibility of capital punishment.  There is a general moral norm is against capital punishment, but the Church foresees contingencies which could permit it.  The Church does not, indeed cannot, list what those exceptions could be.  Under certain circumstances the Church does not describe, capital punishment is not immoral, as Scalia suggested.

Thus, the Church’s opposition to capital punishment is not as iron clad as its opposition to abortion, for the moral norm against capital punishment is not an exceptionless norm.  Even Card. Bernardin, beloved of liberals, correctly affirmed that capital punishment was not as iron clad as abortion and euthanasia.  He upheld the state’s right to impose it.

You have to work your imagination pretty hard to come up with, in the USA at least, an exception to the Catholic Church’s moral norm against capital punishment.  Let’s give it a try.

Let’s imagine for a moment that someone commits 1st degree murder and is sentenced to life, not the death penalty.  While in prison he kills another prisoner.  He is determined not to be insane.  His freedom of movement is restricted even more.  Then he kills a guard.  He goes into maximum security.  He manages to kill another guard.  Despite the many precautions taken, he is dangerous to anyone he is near.  Can the state not execute him?  Should the murderer be kept alive at state expense chained at six points points to a wall and fed through a straw in a Hannibal Lector style mask?  This mind exercise is way out there, but the Church says that the exceptions to the moral norm “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

In any event, the Catholic Church foresees that there could be exceptions to the moral norm against capital punishment.  Justice Scalia was right.  The Church doesn’t forbid capital punishment.  Jamie was wrong us use his words as a way to defend Catholics who promote immoral acts.

We must bring in also the important issue of scandal given by Catholics who openly deny and defy the Church’s teachings.  For example, pro-abortion Catholic VP Biden and Rep. Pelosi – and many more – give public scandal to the point that they should not receive or be given Communion.  The teaching about abortion is exceptionless.  NY Gov. Cuomo is living in open concubinage and is therefore clearly acting against undeniable Catholic teaching.  He should not receive or be given Communion.  Justice Scalia correctly indicated that capital punishment is “not immoral”, provided, I – I – hasten to add, the right circumstances apply.  We can argue, based on CCC 2267 and EV 56, that most instances of capital punishment are immoral, but  at the end of the day the Church teaches that there are exceptions.  To say that capital punishment is not immoral is, when we make necessary distinctions, not at the degree of scandal that would preclude reception of Communion.

On the other hand, active, open, public advocacy of other immoral acts, say for an example, homosexual acts or “lifestyle”, would be grounds for exclusion from Holy Communion.

Who, again, is the cafeteria Catholic?

Posted in Emanations from Penumbras, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , , , , ,
36 Comments

QUAERITUR: Kissing the priest’s hand

From a reader:

I was coerced into attending a church function tonight with a number of the other Latin Mass members and the priest (a member of the FSSP).

When the priest arrived and the greetings started, I noticed everyone kiss the priest’s hand when he reached out to shake people’s hands.

I’ve heard of this before, but I’ve never seen it. Quite honestly, I’m not particularly comfortable with doing it (it’s also not very practical either, given that I’m a young woman who likes to wear her lip gloss). I understand that it’s a sign of respect and veneration for the priest’s hands that can consecrate the host, and I don’t mean any disrespect by not doing it, but I’m really not comfortable with the whole hand-kissing thing. I got a weird reaction when I stood and just gave the priest a good firm handshake, so I’m wondering if it’s expected among traditional priests, or if it’s just something that the people at my parish do on their own and the priest has grown accustomed to it. I’m kind of the odd one out, and many of the trads at the parish look down on me as it is (I’m kind of dumb and awkward when it comes to Clerical Etiquette, but I was raised in the “Just call me Fr. Bob” era, so I don’t know what they can expect from me).

So what’s the deal with the whole kissing the priest’s hand? Am I expected to do it, or is it perfectly fine for me to just stick to what I’m doing? I still stand when the priest enters the room, or gets up to leave the table, and I don’t dare call him by his first name.

Does this suffice, or should I be doing something more?

A couple things occur to me as I read this.  First, it may be that you are too concerned about what other people think or that you might be imagining that others are seeing you negatively.  Maybe they are, I don’t know for sure.  But I raise the point.

The whole hand kissing, or baciamano “thing” is an old custom which shows respect for the priest as mediator.  It actually shows respect more for what we receive from the priest, rather than for the priest himself.

I don’t know any priests who expect that people should kiss their hands.  It may be that there are a few out there, but I haven’t met them.  I sure don’t expect it, but I accept it as graciously as possible when it occurs. It is sometimes a bit of a surprise.

If you are not comfortable kissing the priest’s hand, then don’t.  Don’t worry about what others do.  I am fairly sure that the priest doesn’t think you have to.  As a matter of fact, I am pretty sure the priest will be okay with not having – what did you call it? – lip gloss? – on back of his hand.  Blech.

On second thought, perhaps we should start a movement of people kissing the hands of liberal priests.  And the more liturgical abuses they perpetrate or ad libbing they inflict, the more lip gloss should be applied to their hands.

Posted in ASK FATHER Question Box, Our Catholic Identity | Tagged , ,
57 Comments

QUAERITUR: Latin and languages in seminary

From a seminarian:

I am a seminarian from the southern region of the US. Here at seminary, there are many guys, I myself included, who are more traditionally minded who enjoy Latin and orthodoxy. Others however, see that the hispanic populations are rapidly growing and they say that Latin has no place in the Church, but rather, spanish should be learned and used in many parishes in every diocese. Personally, I do not see a problem with Spanish. I am favorable to Latin, but I am very open to Spanish. I do not see a reason for conflict.

My first question is, “Why do you think many people prefer one language over another instead of realizing that both can be learned? Is one better than the other?” My second question is, “What are your thoughts? What do you think should be practiced in seminaries to prepare us for the priesthood?”

I circle back to this topic from time to time.  The Code of Canon Law can. 249 requires… it doesn’t suggest… it requires that all seminarians be taught both Latin so that they are very proficient and also any other language useful for their ministry.  In your case that would be Spanish. So, as far as the law is concerned for the program of formation, this is not an either/or question, this is a both/issue.

The problem is, by the time men come to seminary, and men are often older today than once upon a time, it is a little late to bring them from zero to 60 in four years.  So, what do we do?  Add a couple more years of formation?  Have a couple propaedeutic years for Latin and Greek, other basics of a classical liberal education which they ought to have had and which a Catholic seminary formation presupposes?  What do we cut from the curriculum to make room?

The fact is that men have to have a foundation in Latin long before they get to major seminary.  This simply has to happen.

That doesn’t mean we should give up at the major seminary level.  Start with Latin and keep it going all the way through.  It just has to be done.  If the men need Spanish, and that need will be greater in, say, Texas than in Maine, then have them learn Spanish.  Spanish and Latin aren’t quantum mechanics, they are just languages.

And, yes, some of you have been saying “But Father! But Father! Remind people that if you learn Latin first, Spanish comes more easily!”

Okay.  If you learn Latin first, Spanish comes more easily.

A focus on Latin is better for seminarians than Spanish, because a) they are being trained to be priests of the Latin Church, b) it is the language of their Rite, c) they need Latin for their academics, d) it helps them learn English (which more more can’t be assumed), e) the law requires it and, at their ordination, someone has to attest that ordinands were properly trained and f) armed with Latin they can learn Spanish more easily.  I am sure you can think of other reasons to obey the Church’s law about this matter.

Why do people prefer one language over another?  I assume you mean “how could Latin Church seminarians prefer some inferior language to Latin”?

How about … maybe they just don’t know any better?  Maybe they have misplaced priorities?  Nah… because they are silly, that’s why.  They are silly, and dim, and probably killed their pets when young.

I don’t know.  My psychic powers are weak today.

What do I think you should do during seminary?

Since major seminary is big-boy-underwear time,

  • smile a lot,
  • say very little,
  • don’t whine,
  • read WDTPRS,
  • pray lots,
  • confess often,
  • and study until blood pours out of your eyes.
Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Brick by Brick, Our Catholic Identity, The future and our choices, Wherein Fr. Z Rants | Tagged , , , ,
43 Comments

LATINUM ITER MONTANUM … WYOMINGENSE

My friend Prof. Nancy Llewellyn of Wyoming Catholic College sent the following:

Since you’re a fan of Wyoming and a strenuissimus fautor of Latin, I thought you might be interested to know that the Latin Program here at WCC has taken a big step forward with the successful conclusion last Saturday of our first-ever Latin Immersion Outdoor Weekend.  Nine students and four faculty spent four days backpacking through a portion of the Bridger-Teton National Forest in central Wyoming, in a trek that included a climb to the spectacular summit of East Temple Mountain.  All participants spoke only Latin for the entire duration of the trip.  I’ve included a few photos illustrating our experience.

All cordial greetings to you, Father.
Nancy Llewellyn

Omnia vobis quaeque optima exopto omnibus!

Very cool!

And since this was in WYOMING I will put in a shameless plug for Mystic Monk Coffee because they are in Wyoming.  They are in a different part of Wyoming, but they are there.

So, refresh your coffee or tea supply now.

But… a couple shots from the Latin fun in the mountains of Wyoming.  This is what students get to do there!

Posted in Brick by Brick, Just Too Cool, Lighter fare, The future and our choices | Tagged
4 Comments

Taking it to the street

Over at Catholic Vote I saw this photo of a Greek Orthodox priest trying to stop a protester from throwing a Molotov cocktail.

Impressive.  I wonder if I would launch myself in like that.

BTW… I might have a chance to find out if things in the USA keep going the way they are going.

For more about the USA following in the steps of Greece, see Mark Steyn’s brilliant After America: Get Ready for Armageddon.

USA book click here.
USA Kindle book click here. (Text-to-Speech enabled)
UK book click here. UK doesn’t have a separate Kindle version yet.

Posted in Just Too Cool | Tagged , ,
18 Comments

D. of Madison’s newspaper’s explanation of EMHC’s giving blessings as if they were priests

In The Catholic Herald of the Diocese of Madison, where the great Bishop Robert Morlino exercises oversight, there is a great article on an issue we have addressed here many times: Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion giving blessings to non-communicants as if they were priests.

The whole thing deserves a reading here and there is no combox over there.

My emphases, though I put the headers in bold.  My comments.

Can lay ministers give blessings during Communion?
Guest column

Written by Paul M. Matenaer
Thursday, Sep. 22, 2011

If you took a vacation this summer and had the joy of participating at Mass in a church other than the one you usually attend, you may have noticed that since we belong to a universal Church, there was an incredible similarity between the Mass you attended on vacation and your usual Mass back home.

On the other hand, you may have also noticed slight variations between the two. My intention in this present article is to examine the legitimacy of one common variation, namely, the practice of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion giving blessings during Mass. As in all of my articles, I do not wish to give a complete historical overview or to exhaustively treat the theological reasoning behind such practices. Rather, I hope to simply and clearly explain the ius vigens, that is, the law presently in force.

What is an EMHC?

In order to properly understand the issue, we must first examine the role of the extraordinary minister of Holy Communion (hereafter abbreviated EMHC). An EMHC is a lay person who has been commissioned — typically by the bishop or vicar general — to distribute Holy Communion to those present at Mass when needed. The 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the official instruction manual of the Mass, describes the function of EMHC’s in articles 162-163.

To summarize, the EMHC’s first approach the altar only after the priest has received communion. After receiving communion themselves, they then receive from the priest the proper vessels containing the Most Holy Eucharist and in turn distribute Holy Communion to the faithful gathered for Mass. When the distribution of communion is finished, they return the sacred vessels to the altar where the priest is to purify them and the EMHC’s return to their spots in the congregation.

When can EMHCs be used?

Lay persons who are called upon to distribute Holy Communion during Mass are not actually called “lay ministers” as the title of the article may lead you to believe. On the contrary, they are properly referred to as “extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion,” which happens to be a very descriptive term.

As we have already seen above, EMHCs are indeed ministers of Holy Communion, but there is more to it than that. They are extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion. The presence of this necessary adjective is not intended to communicate that they are wonderful people, even though most of them are. Rather, this word “extraordinary” is meant to distinguish them from the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion, who are priests and deacons.

As those who have been ordained in order to serve the Christian faithful, priests and deacons are the ordinary ministers, that is, servants of Holy Communion. Priests and deacons have been set apart by the Sacrament of Holy Orders to serve the rest of the Body of Christ, especially at the altar.

In 2004, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments promulgated an instruction entitled Redemptionis Sacramentum, which clarified certain matters regarding the Eucharist. In paragraph 88, it states that it is “the priest celebrant’s responsibility” to distribute Holy Communion, perhaps assisted by other priests or deacons who are present. Paragraph 157 of that same document notes that if there is a sufficient number of ordinary ministers present, then EMHCs should not be used.

However, article 162 of the GIRM indicates that if there are no other ordinary ministers present and there is “an exceedingly large [valde magnus] number of communicants,” the priest celebrant may then call upon EMHCs to assist him. Paragraph 151 of Redemptionis Sacramentum explains further that these EMHCs are to be used “only out of true necessity” and that when they are used, “special urgent prayers of intercession should be multiplied that the Lord may soon send a priest for the service of the community.” [Do I hear an “Amen!”?]

Thus, paragraph 158 summarizes that EMHCs may only be used when the priest is impeded (e.g. old age or sickness) or when “the number of faithful coming to communion is so great that the very celebration of Mass would be unduly prolonged.”

Can EMHCs give blessings?

With this proper understanding of the role and usage of EMHCs, we can now begin examining the question at hand. As noted in the introductory paragraph, this is one of those practices that seems to vary by community. In some places children and non-Catholics are instructed to come up with their arms crossed in order to receive a blessing from the EMHC, whereas in other parishes, they are asked to remain seated. Even the blessing given varies greatly from place to place. Whatever the practice may be, [QUAERITUR:] let us now ask whether EMHCs are permitted to give blessings during communion.

In 2008, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments received a letter asking precisely this question. The congregation responded in a private reply with five observations on why this practice is not permitted. [NOT]

But first, let me note that even though private replies do not have the force of universal law, they typically (and this one especially) contain an excellent analysis and resolution of the issue, giving us a unique look at the practice of the Roman Curia. In other words, this private reply is persuasive not by reason of authority but by the authority of right reason, to which every well-intentioned Catholic should submit. Here are their five observations:

Blessing given at end of Mass

[1] The Congregation for Divine Worship points out in their first observation that the liturgical blessing of the Mass is given to everyone gathered in the church just a few moments after the distribution of Holy Communion. This occurs when the priest, making the sign of the cross, says, “May Almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

In other words, there is no need to bless only some members of the congregation (e.g. children and non-Catholics) during communion, when the entire congregation is blessed by the priest just moments later.
Laity unable to bless at Mass

[2] In the second observation, we are reminded that within the context of Mass, blessings are the competency of the priest, not lay persons. Article 18 of the Book of Blessings [ugh] notes that even though lay persons may give some blessings, “whenever a priest or deacon is present, the office of presiding [over a blessing] should be left to him.”  [And at Mass there is always a sacerdos present.]

A 1997 instruction, Ecclesia de Mysterio, on the collaboration of the lay faithful further indicates that the laity should never say prayers or perform actions during the Mass which are proper to the priest, as this may lead to a confusion of roles. Since the blessing of the congregation during Mass is reserved to the priest, lay persons must avoid doing so.

Laying on of hands discouraged

[3] The third observation addresses the practice in some places where the EMHC lays hands on a member of the congregation as a sign of blessing. The private reply states that this practice “is to be explicitly discouraged” because the laying on of hands has its own “sacramental significance” which is inappropriate here. The Catechism notes that since this specific sign commonly accompanies the administration of sacraments (e.g. Confirmation) and the succession of the apostles, the laying on of hands must not be used here.

Some prohibited from receiving blessings

[4] Finally, in the fourth and fifth observations, the private reply notes there are some who should neither approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those mentioned in canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law, such as those under the penalty of excommunication and those persisting in manifest grave sin. [!] Giving a blessing to these persons might give the impression that they are in full communion with the Church or have returned to good standing. In order to avoid the possibility of scandal, EMHCs should not give blessings.

Additions to the rite prohibited

[5] Finally, even though the private reply does not specifically mention this, we ought to recall that “no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in [liturgical] books” as canon 846 of the Code of Canon Law clearly states. Nowhere in the Roman Missal or the GIRM are the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion instructed to bless those unable to receive communion; therefore, this practice of blessing is one of these additions to the rite which is strictly prohibited.

Making use of the sacramentals

Sometimes we may be tempted to think that since something is not part of the Mass it has no spiritual importance. But this would be to neglect the power of the sacramentals, such as blessings, which are liturgical actions signifying spiritual effects obtained through the intercession of the Church. Done properly and in the right context, these blessings better dispose us to receive grace and sanctify various occasions in life.

[NB] One such sacramental that lay persons may administer is the blessing of sons/daughters, which can be as simple as praying over your children: “May the Lord keep you and make you grow in his love, so that you may live worthy of the calling he has given you, now and for ever. Amen.”

Therefore, even if EMHCs are not permitted to give blessings during Mass, the desire to bless is good nonetheless and can become a fruitful aspect of our faith when done in accordance with the Church’s rites. As a parent, I have always enjoyed the practice of blessing my young children before bed and teaching them to reverence the Eucharist with a simple bow of the head as they walk past the minister of Holy Communion at Mass.

Paul Matenaer holds a M.T.S. from Ave Maria University, teaches for the Seat of Wisdom Diocesan Institute in the Diocese of Madison, and is currently studying canon law at St. Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario, where he lives with his wife and three children.

We have seen Mr. Matenaer’s excellent work before on the posture and manner of receiving Communion.

This is a good and comprehensive explanation.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, Brick by Brick, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
37 Comments

QUAERITUR: What if someone walks away with a Host?

From a reader:

Father, what is proper procedure when someone walks up, receives the Eucharist in the hand (BTW, this is the best reason for forcing receiving it by the mouth) and tries to walk out with It? Twice I have seen this happen, and both times the person was apprehended at the door and ‘held’ till they put it in their mouth. I was wondering if It should have been taken back. A person who tries to walk out is most likely not taking it home for someone who could not make it to Mass.

Is their any procedure or document regarding this?

The first thing that jumped into my mind was Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

Thus, it is good for parish ushers, not to mention the EMHC’s and the clergy themselves,  to be trained to be vigilant in regard to what people are doing with Hosts.

Some well-motivated but ignorant people think they can take a Host home to someone who is ill.  They don’t realize that they are not permitted to do this.  Some are simply ignorant or, perhaps being non-Catholics, don’t know what to do at Communion time.  Others, however, are not well-intentioned.  They want Hosts to profane them or sell them.

We all have an obligation to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament.  Let priests catechize and train up their helpers.

Otherwise, we have to use common sense, no?  If you see someone walking around with a Host, obviously not intending to consume it, approach the person and find out what’s up or tell someone.  Be careful not to do anything that could result in prosecution, but don’t do nothing.  Certainly make sure the priest knows about it after Mass.  And if it is happening often, make sure the bishop and/or the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith is informed.

Posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, ASK FATHER Question Box, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill | Tagged , , , , ,
27 Comments

Listen closely.

From a priest friend comes this.

[wp_youtube]bYI_aOyCn9Y[/wp_youtube]

Posted in Lighter fare |
3 Comments