Rorate Caeli

Another cathedral promotes communion on the tongue

From SS. Simon and Jude Cathedral of the Diocese of Phoenix, Arizona:



31 comments:

  1. Anonymous4:33 PM

    Wonderful news, and a very good and sensible letter. Encouraging!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Make that man a bishop - quick!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:54 PM

    Thanks be to God!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Saint Michael Come To Our Defense,

    I have saved your comment, if you wish to rephrase its last paragraphs. Just e-mail me, and I will send it back to you.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hope Springs Eternal9:27 PM

    Very nicely written! In addition, the Baltimore Catechism suggests that if the Host should stick to the mouth, we should carefully move it with the tongue and swallow it completely after it has nearly dissolved. It also reminds us to never remove the Sacred Host with the finger under any circumstances.

    Respectfully receiving reminds us to dress appropriately for the occasion as well.

    "If angels could be jealous of men, they would be so for one reason: Holy Communion." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wonderful. Brick by brick.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have this very bulletin because I was visiting SS. Simon and Jude Cathedral that Sunday. Fr. Lankeit nearly shocked me with his words encouraging us to receive communion on the tongue rather than in the hand. If I'm remembering his homily correctly, Fr. Lankeit reminded us that the altar is the Holy of Holies and that we shouldn't be so casual in approaching it and that receiving on the tongue reinforces the experience of the great mystery of God's presence in the Eucharist. (You might find my post on church architecture as sacramental interesting: http://catholicphoenix.com/2010/11/04/church-architecture-as-sacramental-returning-to-the-garden-of-eden/ .)

    Thank you for posting Fr. Lankeit's letter. I was meaning to but didn't get to it yet. Now I don't have to!

    As a native Phoenician, I can say that we are seeing much liturgical reform here across the diocese. Since Bishop O'Brien's resignation, the cathedral has been majorly transformed--the altar and ambo have been replaced with matching marble ones, the tabernacle has been returned to the high altar, a new baldacchino was built surrounding the main altar (which is still a sign of saying mass versus populum), the huge ressurected Christ sculpture in the apse was removed and a large medieval looking icon crucifix now hangs above the baldacchino, there's a crucifix in the center of the altar between priest and people like Pope Benedict XVI recommends (See: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100021782/pope-wants-crucifix-at-the-centre-of-all-westward-facing-altars-during-mass-says-papal-mc-so-why-do-our-bishops-ignore-him/ ), the new schola chants the Latin antiphons and propers at the 11:00 Mass, and the priests wear beautiful and intricate vestments full of rich symbolism, and there a few to no female altar servers.

    It should be obvious by now that Bishop Olmsted is about reforming the liturgy here in Phoenix and that he's in tune with Pope Benedict XVI on these matters. He invited the FSSP years ago and now they have their own parish. Maybe there'll be another St. John Cantius in Phoenix some day soon.(I sure hope so.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. \\[The Baltimore Catechism] also reminds us to never remove the Sacred Host with the finger under any circumstances. \\

    I'm saying nothing against receiving on the tongue--I do so myself--or the Baltimore Catechism as such, but it is NOT the last word in Catholic dogmatic or sacramental theology.

    And strictly speaking, the Liturgies of Addai and Mari and Byzantine St. James direct the faithful to receive Communion in the hand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. M. A.1:12 AM

    This makes my day!

    As Michael Davis called it,Communion in the hand was nothing but a fraud imposed on the laity. I remember 30 years ago when First Communicants were absolutely FORBIDDEN to receive on the tongue.

    Recently there has appeared another book against Communion in the hand-by Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise. It would be good to add that to the arsenal against C in the H.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous2:11 AM

    Again, credit due to the great Bishop Olmsted!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dear New Catholic,

    Thank you for the offer.

    That is truly Charitable of you.

    I stand behind everything I say, and if what I say is not acceptable on your blog, even though it be a portion, do not present its entirety.

    I respect your blog and all of you that maintain it.

    I will continue to read and learn from your blog and occasionally comment.

    I am not the smartest apple that feel off the tree, but I do love the Lord as much as you all appear to.

    Thank you again for the Charity.

    With the assurance of my Holy Rosary prayers for all your good work in the vineyard of the Divine Master, I remain yours truly in Jesus and Mary Immaculate.

    pablo

    *

    ReplyDelete
  12. I pray this letter is read in the Diocese of Fresno,CA and all diocese in the Unites States.

    ReplyDelete
  13. \\As Michael Davis called it,Communion in the hand was nothing but a fraud imposed on the laity. \\

    Is it worth pointing out that the first Anglican Book of Common Prayer of 1559, designed to give liturgical expression of the Real Absence of Christ From the Eucharist, called for the bread to be given on the people's tongues?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Ohh... he prefers the beautiful simbology of the Pelikan to the not so beautiful words of Jesus: «Take it ["labete" in greek],' he said, 'this is my body.'»... wonderful, indeed...

    ReplyDelete
  15. «Take it ["labete" in greek],' he said, 'this is my body.'»

    To "take" doesn't necessarily mean using one's hands, reaching out and grabbing something. The word doesn't necessarily imply anything about the precise manner by which one "takes" (or "receives") that which is offered.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous2:28 PM

    A couple of points that I think are worth making:
    * Fr Lankeit is relatively new to his position as cathedral rector. His predesessor - seemingly equally as orthodox and fervent in his faith - was assigned by our bishop to right the ship in our diocese's largest Newman Center. With these two men, good things have been happening at our cathedral.
    * Fr Lankeit is recently ordained. His first assignment, though far too short in my selfish opinion - was to my family's parish. Statements such as these come as no surprise to us.
    * Mass from the cathedral, usually said by the rector, are broadcast on local TV for shut-ins. These broadcast Masses can only inspire similar through the diocese.
    Our holy bishop continues to work wonders here.

    -DT

    ReplyDelete
  17. And strictly speaking, the Liturgies of Addai and Mari and Byzantine St. James direct the faithful to receive Communion in the hand.

    Assuming that what you write here is true, we are talking about the Latin Rite here and not one of the Eastern Rites. What other Rites do might be interesting, but it is not really relevant when discussing our own Rite.

    Is it worth pointing out that the first Anglican Book of Common Prayer of 1559, designed to give liturgical expression of the Real Absence of Christ From the Eucharist, called for the bread to be given on the people's tongues?

    I'm not sure I see the point in this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. We have many serious problems here in the Phoenix Diocese.

    There is a small handful of Priests here that are fighting valiantly against those who meet together against God and His Christ. And they are made to suffer greatly.

    Please pray for them.

    Some of us don’t believe the return to tradition is genuine. We believe it is a trick of Satan.

    The Priest does not make the Mass; the Mass makes the Priest.

    Those who say the True Mass will be converted by it. This will take time. In that time, we should pray for their conversion.

    I entrust this whole matter in the hands of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, “Mother of the Priest par excellence, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and through Him, of all priests in whom she forms her Son”.

    *

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous3:26 PM

    Truly this is so true..
    the fact that so many people have no perfect notion of what the communion really is about, it is truly a symbolic love from God's side to be sacrificed and then to feed people rather then people feeding themselves. It shows the love of God and the vulnerability of the faithful.

    ReplyDelete
  20. \\And strictly speaking, the Liturgies of Addai and Mari and Byzantine St. James direct the faithful to receive Communion in the hand.

    Assuming that what you write here is true, we are talking about the Latin Rite here and not one of the Eastern Rites. What other Rites do might be interesting, but it is not really relevant when discussing our own Rite.\\

    My point is that not ALL Catholics are of the Latin Rite.

    And trust me, what I'm saying here is true.

    \\Is it worth pointing out that the first Anglican Book of Common Prayer of 1559, designed to give liturgical expression of the Real Absence of Christ From the Eucharist, called for the bread to be given on the people's tongues?

    I'm not sure I see the point in this.\\

    My point is that belief in the Real Presence does not go hand-in-hand with receiving on the tongue.

    ReplyDelete
  21. My point is that not ALL Catholics are of the Latin Rite.

    It's good to know that you too have figured that out.

    And trust me, what I'm saying here is true.

    No, Jack. We absolutely will not trust you and simply take your word for it. Prove it, or else withdraw your assertion.

    My point is that belief in the Real Presence does not go hand-in-hand with receiving on the tongue.

    That's true, but it's also irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  22. My point is that belief in the Real Presence does not go hand-in-hand with receiving on the tongue.

    No, but in the context of a very liberalized western liturgy, there's considerable evidence that disbelief in the Real Presence seems to go hand in hand with receiving standing and in the hand.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It demonstrates the lamentable state of the modernist catholic church when the media and clergy talk of promoting communion on the tongue. This is appalling. Just how low has the new catholic church sunk to have to commend a cleric for this type of statement as though it is not normal and the alternative practice is somehow legitimate nonetheless. In the hand is illicit and non-Catholic. It is not the norm, if it ever was.

    ReplyDelete
  24. My point is that belief in the Real Presence does not go hand-in-hand with receiving on the tongue.

    And yet disbelief in the Real Presence -- or at least a loss of reverence for sacred things -- seems to go hand-in-hand with receiving in the hand. Go figure! People aren't dumb; they know that one's prized possession should be guarded jealously. And if it isn't so guarded, well, maybe it wasn't so important in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  25. My point is that not ALL Catholics are of the Latin Rite.

    Of course not. And because I think that the Eastern Rites should be preserved in all their fullness, I don't go around telling Eastern Catholics that they should do X and Y in their Liturgy because that is what the Roman Rite does.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "As a native Phoenician..."

    Cordelia, from what city? Tyre or Sidon? :)

    Just kidding!

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Just how low has the new catholic church sunk to have to commend a cleric for this type of statement as though it is not normal and the alternative practice is somehow legitimate nonetheless. In the hand is illicit and non-Catholic. It is not the norm, if it ever was."

    Leong:

    Nice. So if I commend this priest for promoting communion in the tongue, it is because I consider communion in the tongue to be not normal, and I consider communion in the hand to be "okay"? Were did you get that twisted logic of yours?

    We all want an end to communion in the hand here. Fantasize all you want about how we will end it, but it's not going to come about by thumbing down priests like Fr. Lankeit.

    ReplyDelete
  28. \\I don't go around telling Eastern Catholics that they should do X and Y in their Liturgy because that is what the Roman Rite does.\\

    But there was a time that many Latin priests did.

    **And yet disbelief in the Real Presence -- or at least a loss of reverence for sacred things -- seems to go hand-in-hand with receiving in the hand.**

    As I have said, not necessarily, as the example of the Assyrian Church of the East (which John Paul II called a Church of Marytrs) shows.

    ReplyDelete
  29. But there was a time that many Latin priests did.

    Be that as it may (I think there was also a measure of self-latinization among certain Rites), the Popes have called for the Eastern Rites to be true to their traditions. Similarly, the Latin Rite should be true to its own tradition and not "byzantinized."

    As I have said, not necessarily, as the example of the Assyrian Church of the East (which John Paul II called a Church of Marytrs) shows.

    There is a difference between a Rite where the faithful have always received in the hand, and one in which they have always received on the tongue, only to be told later that receiving in the hand is just fine, maybe even preferable.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous3:43 PM

    Sensible and decent priest!

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!