Consider the following items, all of which are rather minor on the liturgical reform scale (I think).
1. Priest facing God
2. Absolute prohibition on altar girls
3. Complete suppression for communion in the hand
4. Going back to communion under one species
5. Barring all non-chant music from Mass
6. Roman Canon (Eucharistic Prayer #1) only
7. A complete re-translation of the Missal, with a focus on reflecting the Latin terms as closely as possible (ie- saying stuff like "consubstantial")
As an experiment, rank these items from least to greatest in terms of how big of a blow-up there would be if the Holy Father implemented such measures.
Would any of these be enough to create a schism such as what Fr. Ryan was hinting at in our previous article?
6 comments:
I think number 5 would rile up a lot of people and number 2. I think people in many churches would be upset about 4 as well given that many churches commonly distribute both. I am not sure I see the point of 4, I never really understood why you wouldn't want to give both forms. Especially for people with gluten allergies I would think being able to receive wine instead of Eucharist would be a good thing. 1 I don't think would be that huge of a blowup, people are used to the priest facing them, but it isn't that big of a deal, I don't think 3 is a huge problem either. 7 I think would also go ok, and I really don't think people care at all about 6. For 7, I remember when they went from saying this is the word of the lord to the word of the lord, and they just explained it one Sunday why they were doing it, and why the new form was better and that was that.
The big things that led to communion under one kind was reverence for the Precious Blood (not wanting it spilled) and utraquism, the belief that you MUST receive communion under both kinds. This was thrown around by some Nestorians in the patristic age and then made a comeback with Jan Hus.
The bad thing is that you are actually seeing this latter sort of thinking is on the rise again. Folks saying that you get more graces by receiving under both kinds or being upset if the Blood is all consumed before they get to it because they didn't receive the "whole Christ."
As for communion under both species, perhaps Latins should be informed (or should inform themselves) as to the reason why Easterners recieve under both and why we do not. A good history lesson might work wonders to put things into perspective. Sort of like why we have Eucharistic Adoration while it is absent in the East.
Minor? I don't think any of those are minor. Especially the Priest facing God and banning communion in the hand. That would be big.
Mark, I am not aware of the reason with the difference between the easterners and the Latins, and would love to hear it if you could sum it up in short.
Alexander communion in the hand seems to be a US Phenomenon as when I go to mass in other countries I haven't seen people taking communion in the hand.
For one thing, the East never had a Jan Hus to make the utraquism bit such a big deal. In a lot of ways the various developments in Eastern and Western theology have been the result of the different heresies we've had to deal with.
On communion in the hand, that's been the 2nd most common response to the question (behind forbidding altar girls). I admit being pretty surprised by that. I didn't realize how married folks are to the practice.
Post a Comment