Last week I attended a nuptial Mass in the Extraordinary Form in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. It was a gorgeous liturgy in a beautiful historic church and every bit as splendid as one might imagine.
When it came time for Holy Communion, only the bride and groom received the Eucharist; Communion was not distributed to the congregation. I could not help but think how antithetical to the spirit of the Novus Ordo this practice was. I am not even sure whether the rubrics of the NO allow for limited distribution of Communion to the bride and groom alone during a nuptial Mass. From what I recall, the two options in the Novus Ordo are wedding during Mass and wedding outside of Mass—and in every single NO wedding during Mass I've ever attended, Holy Communion has been distributed to the entire congregation. If the option exists to distribute Communion to the bride and groom exclusively, I have never seen it exercised in the Novus Ordo.
If you've spent any time reading the litugrical reformers of the 60s and 70s (as I sadly have), you may recall that one of the hallmarks of their liturgical vision is subsumption of everything under the Eucharist. The reformers scorned any type of liturgical ritual existing outside of Mass. This scorn even extended to private devotions, like Eucharistic Adoration and the Rosary, two pious customs that were deemed too individualistic and given the heave-ho. For the reformers, the Eucharistic celebration was the apex point of Christian community; everything meaningul for the Catholic had to take place within this community in a very literal sense.
In the progressive paradigm, it makes zero sense to celebrate a nuptial Mass where distribution of Holy Communion is limited to the bride and groom. A man and woman are being sacramentally united before God and the Church; should not this be the occasion of Communion for everyone? For progressives, it would actually be insulting to limited Communion to the couple on their wedding day, as it would constitute a deliberate slight to the Christian community, reflecting an hyper-individualistic perversion of the sacrament of matrimony.
Of course, this is all nonsesnse. The idea that literally every ritual must be communal is a modern error born of the progressives' idolization of the Christian community. Distributing Communion exclusively to the bride and groom on the day of their wedding does not diminish the importance of the community of the faithful. Rather, it focuses the gaze of the community where it ought to be: on the sacramental mystery unfolding before it, wherein a man and a woman, through their consent before God, "become one flesh." The community is present and engaged, but through their witness and their prayers. The progressive attitude, on the other hand, reflects the stupid crass activism of modernity whereby someone is not participating unless they are physically walking around doing something.
One final point: Novus Ordo weddings are perhaps the greatest occasions of Eucharistic sacrilege, as they are often filled with non-Catholics who are seldom told to refrain from receiving Communion (and sometimes they are even encouraged!) Could this problem not be solved in an instant by distributing Communion to the bride and groom alone?
By the way, because I know there will always be some who miss the point, let me make it clear:
I am not suggesting it is "progressive" to distribute Holy Communion to an entire congregation, nor that it is wrong or progressive for Catholics who are properly disposed to desire to receive the Eucharist when it is available. It is progressive, however, to think that (a) every Catholic ritual ought to take place within the context of a Mass, and that (b) the Eucharist must be distributed universally at every Mass, and that (c) the congregation is deprived of engagement if they are not "doing" something or "receiving" something tangibly. And I am not just calling things I don't like "progressive"; this is literally what they argue for, as they see the community itself gathered together to receive the Eucharist as the apotheosis of the entire religion.
For a more thorough take on this question, I recommend Peter Kwasniewski's "Should Communion Sometimes Be Eliminated to Avoid Sacrilege?" at New Liturgical Movement.
If you've spent any time reading the litugrical reformers of the 60s and 70s (as I sadly have), you may recall that one of the hallmarks of their liturgical vision is subsumption of everything under the Eucharist. The reformers scorned any type of liturgical ritual existing outside of Mass. This scorn even extended to private devotions, like Eucharistic Adoration and the Rosary, two pious customs that were deemed too individualistic and given the heave-ho. For the reformers, the Eucharistic celebration was the apex point of Christian community; everything meaningul for the Catholic had to take place within this community in a very literal sense.
In the progressive paradigm, it makes zero sense to celebrate a nuptial Mass where distribution of Holy Communion is limited to the bride and groom. A man and woman are being sacramentally united before God and the Church; should not this be the occasion of Communion for everyone? For progressives, it would actually be insulting to limited Communion to the couple on their wedding day, as it would constitute a deliberate slight to the Christian community, reflecting an hyper-individualistic perversion of the sacrament of matrimony.
Of course, this is all nonsesnse. The idea that literally every ritual must be communal is a modern error born of the progressives' idolization of the Christian community. Distributing Communion exclusively to the bride and groom on the day of their wedding does not diminish the importance of the community of the faithful. Rather, it focuses the gaze of the community where it ought to be: on the sacramental mystery unfolding before it, wherein a man and a woman, through their consent before God, "become one flesh." The community is present and engaged, but through their witness and their prayers. The progressive attitude, on the other hand, reflects the stupid crass activism of modernity whereby someone is not participating unless they are physically walking around doing something.
One final point: Novus Ordo weddings are perhaps the greatest occasions of Eucharistic sacrilege, as they are often filled with non-Catholics who are seldom told to refrain from receiving Communion (and sometimes they are even encouraged!) Could this problem not be solved in an instant by distributing Communion to the bride and groom alone?
By the way, because I know there will always be some who miss the point, let me make it clear:
I am not suggesting it is "progressive" to distribute Holy Communion to an entire congregation, nor that it is wrong or progressive for Catholics who are properly disposed to desire to receive the Eucharist when it is available. It is progressive, however, to think that (a) every Catholic ritual ought to take place within the context of a Mass, and that (b) the Eucharist must be distributed universally at every Mass, and that (c) the congregation is deprived of engagement if they are not "doing" something or "receiving" something tangibly. And I am not just calling things I don't like "progressive"; this is literally what they argue for, as they see the community itself gathered together to receive the Eucharist as the apotheosis of the entire religion.
For a more thorough take on this question, I recommend Peter Kwasniewski's "Should Communion Sometimes Be Eliminated to Avoid Sacrilege?" at New Liturgical Movement.
4 comments:
I agree with your thought, but this is a Catholic opinion and you are applying it to Synodal Church. They are not the same. Synodal Church is in opposition to actual Catholicism. It takes what was sacred and distributes it like crackers at snack time. Don't complain, or youre being exclusionary. Two entirely incompatible belief systems, with one replacing the other. Catholics have an obvious choice to make.
I see the point, but I also think weddings and funerals are an opportunity for evangelization that’s often lost.
I’d like to see more priests use weddings and funerals as a pastoral opportunity to gently welcome back those lost sheep. Not to turn attention away from the bride/groom or deceased but offer some message directly to those who have fallen away.
I was at a TLM funeral for instance— church packed to the rafters with mourners for this 90 year old patriarch of a big family who had many relatives who had fallen away and many members of his community that no longer practiced their faith. After the homily, the very orthodox priest says, “State of Grace. If you don’t know what it is or you’re not it in it, don’t approach the altar for communion.” Hard stop.
Wouldn’t it have been better to remind the people what was required and let them know that if they were unable to receive today, he’d be in the confessional this weekend and would love to welcome them at the altar on Sunday?
I have been to TLM funerals where the priest restricts communion to immediate relatives and that’s fine.
But again, let’s do this in a way that is charitable to others rather than coming off as exclusionary.
That is a fair point. However, nothing I saw was exclusionary.
Let the Sacrament of Marriage be about that and that alone
Why take that as an opportunity to do something additional?
Post a Comment