
This happens to be a matter very close to my heart. One reason I love the traditional (Tridentine) Mass is that the Eucharist is received in genuflection at the communion rail. Most churches that feature the novus ordo Mass have done away with the communion rail in favor of a procession. Fr. Rutler, of the Church of Our Saviour in NYC, graciously allowed me to receive Communion on the tongue, in genuflection, as I reached the head of the line; but because this practice tended to distract the rest of the congregation (rather than influence others to do the same, as it should have), I stopped kneeling and now receive Communion standing — though still upon the tongue.
Not all pastors are as sensible, nor as humble, nor as orthodox: My mother tells me of her pastor who actually admonished her for curtseying prior to receiving Communion by saying, in a nasty tone, “You know better than that!” — She didn’t even fully genuflect; she merely curtseyed in respect of the Body of Christ she was about to receive. When she inquired, after Mass, why he had said that to her, he reiterated that one shouldn’t curtsey or genuflect, but at most should bow at the waist, lest he interfere with the procession; and added that “if you don’t like it, you should find another church.” This mindset and attitude are clearly the deleterious effects of his Vatican II upbringing. Had he read more of the Classics, he might choose to reign in some of his hubris, lest he one day meet a very tragic end.
I think I should forward him Mrs. Dudro’s letter, excerpts of which are below:
The right of the faithful to receive the Eucharist kneeling is practically impossible to exercise in most churches in the United States, in spite of a clarification by the Congregation for Divine Worship on this point. Why is this?
- Many of our altar rails have been removed, and few of those still standing are used. Churches built since the Council are without altar rails. Indeed, some of them have no place whatever for any kind of kneeling.
- We have been instructed through statements made by our bishops and pastors that the only proper way to receive Communion in the United States is to stand erect. I have seen priests ignore or chastise people who kneel.
- We Americans cue up for Communion as if we are at the bank or the movie theater. Sometimes ushers tell us when we may enter the aisle and direct us to the closest line. Kneeling at the terminus of such a line is unthinkable.
- Even receiving Communion on the tongue is difficult. For one thing, the practice is discouraged as outdated and unsanitary. For another, most of us receive Communion nowadays from laymen who do not have the use of a paten; most priests do not use patens either. As a resutl, it is not uncommon for the Host to fall to the ground. After it happened to me, I never again tried to receive Communion on the tongue from a layman.
Twice a month we drive to another town, in another diocese, so we can attend an indult Tridentine Rite Mass. There we can receive the Body of Christ at the altar rail, on our knees, and on our tongues from the sacred hands of a willing priest. There we are free from the worry that we are attracting attention to ourselves and giving the appearance of defying a bishop. We are not alone in this. Other families such as ours, scattered all over this country, are being drawn to more traditional forms of the Mass. Some are driving far from home in order to attend Eastern Rite liturgies. We know those who go out of their way to locate orders such as the Fraternity of St. Peter. And, sadly, we know those who go to illicit Tridentine Masses. […] Unfortunately, there are Catholics, and their numbers are growing, who have come to believe that it is the Holy See that has abandoned them, not the other way around. […]
Some bishops perhaps are alarmed by the […] widespread lack of faith in the Real Presence. Perhaps some are seeking ways to encourage greater respect for the Blessed Sacrament. I am depending upon you, Holy Father, to show them the way, to tell them that there is no simpler means to begin restoring what has been lost than by allowing us to kneel for Communion.
And certainly, there are so many other things to try to correct in the Church — How about all the members of the congregation who receive Communion each week without ever going to Confession, regardless of their habitual sins… Such as the teenagers who are known to engage in premarital sex or morning-after-pill abortions. What about those who dress for Church like they are going to the beach or a night club? How about those who receive Communion in the hand as irreverently and nonchalantly as if they’re being given a potato chip. What about the popular music that has supplanted the grand hymns of days of yore? No one dares to preach on sin and Hell anymore. Everything has to be so ‘politically correct’ nowadays, for fear of offending someone’s selfish attitudes and ‘lifestyle choices.’
The Church has become so liberal that it has lost its direction. In the words of G. K. Chesterton, “Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.”
When a priest incorrectly admonishes good Christians for adhering to Tradition, he has gotten caught up in the novelty of Vatican II. Instead, he should turn his attention to what matters: Preach dogma, and people will listen.
P.S. — I also draw your attention that many people consider Communion in the hand to be a sacrilege. Take, for instance, the following: As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat and so on. “Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’”. Read more here.)
Comment by karyn — 28 January 2008 at 07:33
I hope that by reference to going to an “illicit Tridentine Latin Mass” you do not mean SSPX Holy Masses.
Comment by alessandro — 28 January 2008 at 14:57
I don’t mean anything by the word illicit, since I didn’t write it… It’s in the quote from Mrs. Dudro. I can’t speak for her, but it seems like, yes, she was referring to SSPX Masses.
So, let me clarify here: While there has been, and remains, a good deal of controversy over the SSPX, the Magisterium has repeatedly concluded that SSPX Masses (and other Sacraments) are valid. Be that as it may, one (like Mrs. Dudro) might argue that they are still illicit, as they are not sponsored by or approved by the Holy See, even if they remain valid.
Now, with the widespread allowance of the Tridentine Mass (”Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite”), SSPX Masses will not be illicit by any interpretation. Whether or not they remain necessary is another issue, as there are other aspects to orthodoxy (besides liturgical re-reform) that still must be addressed. No doubt, our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, will tackle that as well, God willing.