Phoenix restricts reception of communion under both kinds

Phoenix restricts reception of communion under both kinds September 22, 2011

After eliminating female altar servers at the cathedral, the Diocese of Phoenix is now eliminating something else: wide reception of communion under both species.


The Diocese of Phoenix has announced that it will issue norms specifying the conditions under which Holy Communion may be distributed under both species.

“The new norms will promote unity in the celebration of the Eucharist all around the world, and come from the revised General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 3rd Edition, together with the final edition of The Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds for the Dioceses of the United States of America,” the diocese stated in a press release.

“In the Roman Missal (1975), 14 instances were provided when the chalice could be offered to the laity,” the diocese noted. “From 1975 on, the United States, United Kingdom and Oceania were given experimental privileges for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds. These privileges expired in 2005 and were not renewed by the Holy See. The new norms issued in June 2011 are what guide the liturgical practice today and in the future.”

“These universal norms for the distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds greatly expanded those times when the chalice could be offered to the lay faithful for most of the Catholic world (since in most countries their practice was virtually non-existent),” the diocesan statement continued. “In the Diocese of Phoenix, like other places where the practice of reception from the chalice became frequent or even commonplace, the new norms call for the practice of less frequent distribution of Holy Communion under both kinds than the faithful may have been accustomed.”

Read more.

And you can find out more by visiting the Diocese of Phoenix website.

UPDATE: Comments closed.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

52 responses to “Phoenix restricts reception of communion under both kinds”

  1. I suspect some of these people will not be satisfied until the laity are duct-taped to their pews in a kneeling position with a rosary in one hand and a holy card in the other. So much for “active participation”!

  2. How about faithfulness to the tradition of the Church which has ALWAYS had communion of both SINCE THE BEGINNING.

    I’m getting tired of the Latin Church changing things later on after the Apostolic and Patristic age, and then calling these later innovations a return to traditional practice.

    The Eastern Church keeps looking more and more appealing.


  3. I am delighted at this news. I have witnessed over the last 6 or 7 years, AT LEAST that many official, stop-the-line spills of the Precious Blood, this, in parishes that seem to exercise some care for the things liturgically. And that’s just counting the spills that hit the floor. I’ve seen on ties and shirts as well. Extremely disconcerting.

    Now, if we could just get at those faux-blessing rites that have been inserted at Communion time.

  4. The Diocese of Phoenix has clearly and with great care, explained the reasons for this change. They should be praised for this. There can be no misunderstanding by the faithful.

    Now, if we can get back to kneeling while receiving Holy Communion.

  5. Ed, Joy, and the washington Catholic are all spot-on! This is precisely what the Church needs. Fully Conscious and Active participation does not mean an army of lay “ministers” milling about the altar nor the untold instances of spilling the blood of our Lord. His blood was spilled once for our salvation and that was sufficient. Anything beyond that is disgraceful. If the laity are fully conscious of what is going on in the liturgy and why it is happening, then there would be no misunderstanding. Sadly, we have lots of active and very little “conscious” in liturgical participation these days.

  6. Re Ed Peters #5

    We must live in a totally different areas of the country if your first hand experience with dual species is so negative. I have NEVER — in 33 years of being a deacon — have seen any of those accidents you describe. EVER.

    This “blessing rite” goes both ways. About 6-7 years ago, a very beloved Lutheran pastor died whose church was about a block away from the parish where I was assigned. I knew him and his wife on a first name basis.

    Both Deacon Jim and I attended the funeral wearing our alb and stole. We gathered with the 35 or so other Lutheran pastors and were seated in a common section. When it was communion time, all of us went up in a devout line. Both Deacon Jim and I used the “crossed-arms/bowed head” custom when requesting a blessing instead of communion and the Lutheran Bishop who was celebrant recognized it and respected it for what it was.

    By the way, both that Lutheran bishop and our own bishop are very good friends and the pastor of the parish where both Deacon Jim and I are assigned served as chair of the Diocesan Ecumenical Commission for many years.

  7. This is just one more change in the plaything among theologians called, “The Mass”. The modifications since the 1960’s have been numerous, and an endless tug of war. It’s growing rather tiresome.

    We don’t need to make the Mass relevant to people by changing its structural features. On the Eucharist alone, since my childhood we have gone from kneeling to receive on the tongue, to standing to receive on the tongue, to standing to receive either on the tongue or in the hand, to intinction cups, to full reception from the chalice, to needing to make a profound bow before receiving standing because (SURPRISE!) it adds an attitude of reverence that seems to have been lost since kneeling for reception.

    There might be more reverence on the part of the faithful if the guys running the show stopped running the show and got back to celebrating the ancient mysteries. Of course, it’s hard to convey either “ancient’ or ‘mystery’ when the liturgy is constantly in flux.

    I really don’t care about reception under both species. What I do mind is that the sacred liturgies lose something of their timelessness when they are constantly under construction.

  8. Dan, would you suggest we also drink milk and eat honey at Communion? For that too was an ancient tradition that the Church has not seen fit to restore. We must be very wary of succumbing to a mere archaeologism which suggests that whatever came earlier was always better without equal deference to the full experience of the two millenia of the Church’s life. History happens for a reason – not so that we might ignore it and point to some ephemeral “high point” when the Church was pure and true.

    Ron, I invite you to study in more depth the “participatio actuosa” called for by Vatican II. It had nothing to do with reception under one or both kinds nor did it have anything to do with the now common equating “active” with physical “activity”. Ad fontes!

  9. We’ll know more when the guideline are published. While the reception of the Eucharist under both species is a more complete symbol of the body and blood of Christ, reception of either species alone is reception of Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity granting all the graces necessary for salvation.

  10. In my experience, it’s more likely someone will fumble and drop the Body of Christ rather than spill the Precious Blood.

    But yeah: it’s problematic.

    And I’m not a fan of the “blessings,” either. It seems to be a fairly common practice among RCIA candidates. But I don’t think it should be encouraged.

    Msgr. Pope, however, had a sound solution: to tell the (non) communicant: “Receive Jesus in your heart.” Which is not a blessing, and could be spoken by anyone, and conveys the proper sentiment.

    But I’m still not a fan.

    Dcn. G.

  11. Yes, Dnc. Norb, we must. I sit in the front row, every week (so I can see the interpreter), and I have seen AT LEAST 6 flat-out spills in as many years. You know, ones where the minister stands feet apart over the spillage waiting for a towel. And our parish is pretty good about decorum, so it’s not kiddie Masses, etc.

    As for blessings at Communion time, sorry, but it’s a liturgical abuse. I’ve published about it:

    Best, edp.

  12. This past Sunday in our parish bulletin the pastor announced that he was implementing the posture of having the congregation stand from the time of the celebrant’s reception of communion until all have received Communion (and, perhaps, until the tabernacle is closed). He presented the change in a pastoral way, quoting from the 2000 GIRM.

    On a typical Sunday, the reception of Holy Communion can take up to 20 minutes. Of course, the reception of only one species, which now I see may be the next change, would decrease the time.

    I’m wondering, if this change has been or is being implemented in other parishes throughout the U.S, how it is received by the congregation.

    I noticed that at the installation Mass of Archbishop Chaput in Philadelphia the priests and deacons, who were at the right hand side of the nave, stood during that time while the laity and religious at the left hand side all knelt (until, of course, they got up to process and receive communion.)

    I thought it was strange; now I know why.

  13. A careerist Bishops attempt to ingratiate himself to the Vatican Powers and enhanced his career.
    Another way of undoing the reforms of Vatican II.
    Another way of reducing dependence upon and status of non-ordained.
    Another way of achieving Ratzinger’s vision of a smaller purer church.

  14. “I am delighted at this news.”

    Well, of course you are. You may have a grasp of the law, but seem rather untutored in the Scriptures (note: 1 Cor 12:26).

    Make no mistake, all the musings of canon law, history, liturgy, theology, and personal taste set aside, this is a most imprudent initiative. I need look no further than the comboxes of St Blog’s to tell me that yet another wedge is driven in amongst the Body.

  15. I do recognize that the Church has the authority to permit or deny the chalice to the laity, and has made changes in the past based on the needs of the time.

    While I don’t personally like the change, I would give religious assent if my own diocese made this the norm. I must admit I had never heard about the permission expiring in 2005.

  16. In my opinion we should follow the directives given by the Roman Missal and other official documents as they are set, and follow the guidelines given by the local bishop who may be following in turn the guidelines of the National Council. That is where the authority and teaching of the Church rests and derives. Any other actions and activities not in accordance with the official Magisterium is not licit and must be avoided.

    This morning I was an extraordinary minister of communion at early morning mass. A lady approached me and asked me for only “half” a host, a thing she does every morning. I have great qualms about it but I am weak and do not wan to offend, so I break the host and give her half. This morning in attempting to break the host, I dropped it to the floor. I picked it up making sure there were no particles left, but the did was done and I still feel bad about it. The lady took the host that was dropped, but I will talk to the pastor about not complying with her request anymore. I do feel very uneasy about being an extraordinary minister, more so when at the morning mass there are only about 27 persons attending, but since both the blood and body are distributed, the priests want extraordinary ministers, it has become a custom. May God have mercy on me for dropping his body, It was not my in intention.

    On regular masses there are probably about 15 to 20 extraordinary ministers to give communion on both species to about 400-500 parishioners. On Sundays I go to a Latin Mass, where the priests distribute communion always, and it takes one priest about 10 minutes to give communion in the mouth to about 100 persons.

    I am ambivalent about the whole thing and the only way to solve my dilemma is by following the directives of the bishop in obedience.

  17. If it reduces the amont of a lay Eucharistic Ministers, that will be a good thing, as there is much abuse in this area.

    Honestly, Jesus is 100% in even a speck of the Eucharist.

    It’s beyond me as to why not receving the blood is some kind of punishment, unless of course, it’s not about the Eucharist at all.

    For all who oppose, I ask in sincerity, what are you/we “giving up?”

    If the answer is “Lay participation”, my 2nd quesiton is how could we particpate more than receiving the Jesus Christ in the Real Presence, in commuion with the church militant, the church suffering, and the church triumphant? That’s prettty FULL participation!

  18. Re spills: Sometimes these things happen; there are ways to handle them respectfully. Even if handling the chalice is restricted to priests and deacons, sometimes there are accidents. I launder my husband’s albs (he is a deacon). Once or twice it has happened that he has had a spill on his alb. Per instructions of our pastor, I took it home and soaked it in a basin for 24 hours. The logic was that by then the appearance of wine would be gone. I then wrung it out, emptied the basin on the grass outside, and laundered the alb as usual. Once it happened to me when I was EmHC on Holy Thursday, that a drop fell to the floor from someone’s lips as they were receiving from the cup. I placed a purificator cloth on the spot, and the deacon handled it from there. One just needs to communicate at EMHC training, what is our plan if there is a spill? It’s not that complicated to show proper respect.

  19. I agree with Gerard. The constant tinkering since the 60s is beyond tiresome. I could not care less if both species are available since Jesus is fully present in either. The both species fad started I think in order to reduce and/or eliminate the emphasis on the sacrifice that is occurring with a communal meal, a la a protestant service.

  20. People are always telling me how untutored in Scripture I am (usually someone who uses a Bible verse as a shiv.) That, and I am Pharisee. Oh well, I plead guilty to the former charge long, long ago; as for the second, yes, lawyers are inherently prone to confuse knowledge with virtue, so I do try to watch out for that, but I also remember Jesus saying to his people something about those cranky Pharisees, basically along the lines of, “Yes, do what they tell you,” just don’t do what they do. Or words to that effect. Anyway, I’m pretty sure it’s a Bible quote.

    Best, edp.

  21. I am 35 years old. I spent seven years as an altar server and 12 years as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

    I nearly always sit at the front of any Church when I go to Mass.

    I have never once witnessed anyone spill the Precious Blood or treat it with any disrespect.

  22. “Take and eat; this is my body.”
    “Take and drink; this is my blood — BUT NOT YOU!!! I only meant for them to drink.”

  23. IF we follow Jesus’ command in giving us this Holy Sacrament then yes…it is TAKE;EAT…TAKE;DRINK. Even saints such as Alphonsus Liguori taught that one receives more grace (not more “Jesus”) under both form because as a fuller sign one is potentially more disposed as to the meaning and purpose of Holy Communion.

    Rather than remove the chalice from all who are invited by Jesus to receive sacramental grace, the response should be catechesis and a proper application of the norms allowing for Extraordinary Ministers. Yes this is the more challenging path so it is easier to just legislate against it.

    This bishop’s action seems like a parent who, instead of explaining and teaching his children WHY something is done, he just says “Because I said so!”

    Is he within his shepherd rights? YES. Is he to be obeyed? ABSOLUTELY. But he seems to have taken the lesser road, and who among us doesn’t do that at least once in a while?

  24. I don’t think in the Oriental Rites and the Orthodox Church lay people distribute the blood and body. The blood is given in a kind of spoon in certain Eastern Rites. The nature of the Oriental and Orthodox Churches is very clerical and its rites very much set in the old ways.

    Only Priests and Deacons distribute communion in those rites, but I could be mistaken, if someone cares to correct.


  25. Gracious, but there’s a lot of fuzzy Eucharistic theology scattered around above, and some poor attitudes toward the authority that Christ left to his Church in general and to his bishops in particular. Which is odd, because the com-boxes here are consistently a cut above what I see on some other sites. Not that I have time to sort through it, just thought I’d mention it.

    As for the incessant liturgical tinkering that I, too, have lived with my whole life, Amen to Nadal’s comment, with a friendly amendment: serious mistakes/anomalies cannot be left in place, they should be eliminated, even at the risk of seeming to perpetuate the tinkering. Same kind of thing happens in common law: a case like Roe v. Wade was horrible violation of, among things, stare decisis, but we don’t leave it in place out of respect for stare decisis.

    Best, edp.

  26. Peter, RE#11

    It isn’t succumbing to “mere archaeologism” to practice the constant tradition of the Church. With the rare exception of other Churches (the Maronites, i believe), it has been the unchanging tradition to receive the holy mysteries under both species.

    We do have two millenia of the full experience of the Church. It is called the Eastern Churches; Melkite, Ukrainian, Greek, Coptic, Ruthenian, etc. The Latin Church is but one Church that has changed her tradition over time, while the other Churches see the benefit of keeping and retaining what was handed down, in something so fundamental to our liturgical experience.

    When I receive communion at the Ruthenian parish near me, there is no spilling, no taking of the host from the minister, there is none of the silliness we see in the Latin Rite parishes (my own included).

    The Church had reasons for changing its custom to meet the needs of the times. Those needs are no longer present. Since the other Eastern Churches are able to maintain the old tradition and have been able to avoid the problems we Romans have, it’s time for the Bishops to look to the East for the model to follow, instead of a liturgical practice which is still a novelty when compared to the Apostolic Church.

  27. Rudy,

    In the Eastern Churches, the priest gives communion from a spoon to the communicants.
    The old ways aren’t old ways because they are older. The Eastern Churches jealously guard the Apostolic Tradition. Even something a thousand years old is a novelty. The Latin Church needs to return to that, where the only constant is change.

    Dr. Peters,
    I don’t think anyone is questioning the authority of the Bishops and the Church. We simply want the Bishops to be faithful to the Tradition. The Bishops are called to be faithful to that Tradition and are stewards of it, not innovators (and yes, i do believe that 14th century customs constitute innovation on at least some issues). Churches grow organically and there is always a tension involved. However, there are other various ways to address the problems you cited.

  28. I agree with Gerald that the sacred liturgies lose something of their timelessness when they are constantly under construction or as Kevin said, constantly tinkered with. In addition, I have never seen a spill at Mass and except for a couple of times, both species have been offered. The blessings for those who are not Catholic make visitors feel included. I think that is important especially today when it is not uncommon for one to have family members who are not Catholic. I don’t think anyone has mentioned it yet, but holding hands during the Our Father is also something that the laity obviously like and a very welcoming gesture for those who are visiting a parish. They may feel so welcome that they want to BE Catholic!

  29. Elaine, re “holding hands during the Our Father is also something that the laity obviously like and a very welcoming gesture for those who are visiting a parish”, well, a lot of laity don’t like it, they feel pushed into doing it, and even as a “welcoming gesture”, the Pater occurs pretty late in the sequence of Mass to really serve as a welcome.

    Anyway, this hand-holding, too, springs, I suggest, from a liturgical anomaly, but this time, for a change, it’s an oddity of the Roman rubrics themselves. I set it all out here:

    Best, edp.

  30. Deacon Norb, I wonder if it is wise for Catholic deacons to accept blessings from non-Catholic clergy. Just what is a blessing, anyway? In what sense does a Lutheran bishop have a blessing he can give you?

  31. Re: non-Catholic blessings.

    I know this isn’t exactly the same, but…

    On more than one occasion — most recently during his trip to England last year — the pope has offered a joint blessing with the Anglican Archbishop.

    It was a powerful and poignant image: the two men offering the same blessing with the same gestures at the same moment, side by side.

    Dcn. G.

  32. Dan, Re: #29

    It is archaeologism from the context of the Latin Rite. One cannot say that because Rite A does something Rite B ought to do it – that is a non sequitur. I have great appreciation for how our Eastern brethren approach the sacraments and indeed believe we could learn much from them.

    That said, the current practice in this country leaves an incredible amount to desire. In the many parishes I’ve assisted at Mass I’d estimate at least 80% of those receiving Communion do not receive the Precious Blood. Worse, the great many of those make no sign of reverence at all as they walk past. In these cases instead of it being a “fuller sign” it instead undercuts proper reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament.

    If we could find a way – consistent with the experience of the Latin Rite – to distribute under both kinds without such risks then perhaps it would make sense to make it more widely available. The current practice is just too fraught with risks both practical and theological to be considered even a remote analogue to that of the Eastern Churches.

    To those who argue for the proliferation of EMHCs as a way to improve the active participation of the laity in the Mass, I ask you to find such suggestions in any of the documents of Vatican II – I have looked and failed to find them. For the argument that this is somehow about clericalism and “power” – I ask you to replace this straw man with an explanation of how receiving under both kinds offers anyone any kind of power or control. This is an issue of Liturgy and Sacramental Theology, not an area in which to wedge Nietzschean theories.

  33. As an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, I am happy to say that I neither “mill nor spill” as Anthony above would have us do.

    I have never experienced anything but the utmost reverence for the Precious Blood and the Body of Christ demonstrated by the Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion at our parish. Also, some communicants receive directly on the tongue and do not receive the Precious Blood. Some kneel to receive the Blessed Sacrament, and some receive under both species. All methods of receiving are acceptable (except intinction).

    My complaint is with those communicants who do not receive the Precious Blood, but who push past those in line to do so, and with those who do not acknowledge, never mind reverence, the Precious Blood as they go by. A simple nod of the head would do.

  34. Prof. Peters beat me to the punch re: hand-holding during the Our Father. A “welcoming gesture” is one thing; a scripted, compulsory, you’re-going-to-do-this-whether-you-want-to-or-not “welcoming gesture” is something else entirely.

    Thomas Day, in Why Catholics Can’t Sing, argues that the Church used to practice the stick and the carrot — the stick was the Sunday Mass obligation; the carrot was the once you got your body to church, you were pretty much left alone. Now, he says, we have the stick and the stick: not only are you required to come to Mass, but you are barely given a moment’s peace with your own thoughts and prayers when you are at Mass. Someone is constantly telling you or expecting you to speak, sing, or do something. A bit of silence after Communion is all too often regarded as a void that *must* be filled with musical dreck rather than an opportunity for individual silent reflection and prayer. The nigh-compulsory hand-holding during the Our Father, as well as the near-physical assault by the “Greeters’ Ministry” when one tries to enter the building at many parishes, are other example of this constant liturgical harassment.

    As for limiting Communion under both Species, we can only hope and pray that limiting the (ab)use of EMHC’s comes next.

    This also touches on the matter of coming up for a “blessing” if one isn’t receiving Communion: what if one wants to come up for a blessing but finds oneself in the line of an EMCH? Unless I am mistaken, they aren’t authorized to “bless” anyone. And even if one initially positions oneself in a priest’s Communion line, I have often seen EMCH’s come and take over part of the priest’s line part-way through Communion.

  35. Dan, Yes. No one is questioning the authority of our Bishops.We just wish that they would adhere to the Tradition of the Church. Pray for our Priests and Bishops. Recently, 3 more priests have been moved by their Bishops because of their Traditional, orthodox teachings. WDTPRS and Spiritdaily link stories about 2 priests. The other Priest is from Linz and is posted at Linen on the Hedgerow)Sad when a priest cannot speak the Truth.

  36. “It was a powerful and poignant image: the two men offering the same blessing with the same gestures at the same moment, side by side.”

    But, Dcn. Greg, it’s NOT the same blessing. Unless the Anglican minister took Orders outside the Anglican line, then, his sacramental charisms are (as we know from Leo XIII, and as then Cdl. Ratzinger himself recalled in his superb commentary of the Professio Fidei) those of baptized layman. Period.

    Popes perform gestures of sincere respect all the time. But that must not be allowed drift into confusion about underlying spiritual realities.

    Best, edp.

  37. So, why don’t bishops just instruct priests to tell the laity not to hold hands and that there will be no blessings?

  38. After reading all the information on the internet from the Phoenix diocese it doesn’t strike me as the “Oh my God!” change some are making it out to be–unless you believe in radical “American exceptionalism” (to borrow a political phrase). I didn’t realize that most of the rest of the Catholic world was still normally receiving under one species.
    As our parish is an Italian parish with very traditional roots, we have only distributed communion under both species on very special occasions .
    Our biggest problem has been finding hosts with saliva tucked into our parish missals at times. Apparently some don’t like the taste of the hosts we use–and it is hard to carefully watch a sometimes fast moving line to be sure people properly consume the host.
    As for the 80% who don’t receive Christ’s Blood when it is offered—that is the biggest reason for stopping it. It seems so disrespectful for so many people to tool on by as the Precious Blood is offered. Better to not offer it to the congregation at all.
    As for the holding hands for the Our Father as mentioned above. I recently read a book about what drives men from church. Way up on the list of what drives men away is the demand they hold hands.

  39. In the past 5 years serving in the Diocese of Phoenix there has been a concerted effort to clean up the practices allowed by the previous Bishop in a range of areas from administration to liturgy. These have not been done on a whim but to address real abuses of the Eucharist, finances and the faithful. Some people see these efforts as an attempt to turn back the clock on Church reforms, yet on the ground in the Diocese I see the steady movement to a more complete implementation of the work of Vatican II.

    Who unites us is stronger than the attitudes of those who seek to divide us as Church. This too shall pass.

  40. I cringe and/or stifle a laugh whenever people do that upturned palm thing during the Our Father. Where the heck did that start? There should be a “No Upturned Palms during the Our Father” section in the nave somewhere. Like a no smoking section.

  41. This is a good example of a move that will, in the long run, undermine the goals of its mover. The Reform of the Reform movement is having a bit too much of epistemic closure, and is starting to behave like certain progressives once did 40 years ago, in believing too much of its own rationalizations.

  42. A thought occurs to me on the apparently widely disparate experiences of spillage (at least six times in six years, vs. none in 30 years somewhere else). One thought is right out of evidence class: five people who saw John Doe rob the bank trump 500 people who never saw anybody rob any bank. But there’s more to it than that.

    I sit upfront, as in the very first pew, every week, with few distractions and no duties. I see what happens. But even so, at least once, my son (who was a server) mentioned a spillage, and I never saw it. Sitting right there, I never saw it. Maybe I was tending to child for a few seconds, maybe I closed my eyes in in prayer for half a minute, maybe the line blocked my view, but I never saw it. And I’m in the prime location to see it. I have to wonder whether some of the people who have never seen a spillage, simply missed it, being lost in prayer, or serving as a minister elsewhere round the sanctuary, I dunno. But even I missed one. And I watch for such things.

    Just a thought. Best, edp.

  43. Uhhhh….

    Communion under either species – body, blood, soul and divinity – fully and complete. Am I correct?! So next, maybe we will be arguing about the size of the host – St Mary’s Church receives larger hosts than St James Church – they get more “Jesus”, right?!

  44. If I were the moderator, this would be the thread that would make me close comments for a while because I am so disturbed by the approach to Catholic worship underlying much of what has been said here. I suppose that’s because the liturgy at my own parish is so dynamic. “Active participation” means all the items listed by the Council Fathers: “acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes.” People sing robustly, greet one another heartily, and link hands with everyone in church for the Lord’s Prayer. As a result–more than in any other parish I have experienced–the people are “fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects” not just during masstime but throughout the week of Christian living that follows our Sunday worship.

    From the comments on this thread, I’m afraid the question many of my fellow Catholics here would ask when I say that is not “How does your parish do it?” but something more like, “But do you follow all the RULES?” And the question would be asked with an arched brow. Is that really what it takes to be “orthodox” these days?

    [Actully, Ron, I think I’ll close down the thread because people are chasing their own tails. People are repeating themselves and it’s getting nowhere. The law of diminishing returns is setting in and, soon enough, the knives will come out. And after that, the guns. Dcn. G]