20 Comments

This was very interesting and I thank you for explaining the Catholic way of partaking the Sacrament.

Expand full comment
author

Thanks Charlotte for reading. I was talking with Pug yesterday and we both agree that Transubstantiation is still a hard concept to understand. It must be taken on faith with many things on our walk with Jesus.

Expand full comment

Yes, for sure as we walk by faith not by sight with our Saviour Jesus. One of my favorite verses is Hebrews 11:1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen.

Expand full comment

Wow. That's interesting. We have parallel understandings of the Eucharist. I don't think we actually "meet" anywhere -- hence "parallel" -- but you have an understanding of transubstantiation that doesn't require you to remove your brain and set it aside, and I have an understanding of Protestant communion that spares me that pain as well.

I have a different personal interpretation of the command (e.g. Lk. 22:19 -- "do this in remembrance of Me"), the question being what exactly is the "this", and I also have to make an adjustment to keep from losing my mind. Without going into detail, I understand "this" to be something that occurred back then within a regular communal meal, most often in a home. Except I've never done that with any of my churches (nine or so different denominations -- or "non" -- where I have taken communion), with the exception of two "seder" / Last Supper re-enactments taking place in church social halls.

To make matters worse, the last three churches (including my present one) substitute grape juice for wine. The ones before that either used wine or offered a choice. This seems to have to do with church size, convenience, concerns relating to alcohol addiction, and sometimes "no alcohol" traditions leading to "no alcohol on campus" rules, but nothing biblical.

It gets even stranger when I occasionally run screens on Communion Sunday, where I'm juggling slides while all of this is going on and my participation in communion is interwoven with other necessary concentrating and hand movements and an inability to think about what we are there to do! And I'm just one member of the team that actively supports the service during the service. This is pretty far out from what Jesus or Paul probably had in mind.

I remember times the choir was on chancel during communion, once for two consecutive services in one morning ("As often as you…"). I was up there those times except the time I was watching from the screens console as the servers almost forgot about the choir. Fortunately, some of the servers are also choir members and they didn't forget their own. I wonder what Paul would have to say about all that.

So am I in big trouble for not obeying the commandment? No more than the thief on the cross, who never had the opportunity in the first place. My adjustment is, each time, to ask God to accept the spirit of what we are doing.

I have been present at RC Masses in the past, but I was either not currently a believer or was not welcomed to partake. In contrast, almost all of my churches have practiced "open communion" for believers. The closest I have come to Catholic is Lutheran communion. But if the situation warranted it and the permission was there, I think I could, and I am not entirely unfamiliar with the Mass. Latin would be another matter. (Give me ancient Greek!)

I could get into it with you about John 6:54 and what that means, but with the flawed way that I celebrate communion I'd best not. I will say in your favor that Jesus' words, in the Greek, about eating his flesh are quite emphatic. He uses an alternate word for "eat" that could be understood as a more vigorous "munch" or "chomp", and the word order for "my" is not what I am accustomed to seeing. My commentary (Klink) describes the latter as "positively and with clear first-person reference". I can begin to see more clearly why "many of his disciples turned back and no longer associated with him". Chomp. Wow.

Expand full comment
author

What a great comment CM from a Protestant perspective. I don't know much about Protestant communions but I do know Transubstantiation is not believed as true. The understanding of "this" (remembrance action) has always been vague to me. My Church has a speaker tonight - a Jewish convert who is going to give a talk about the seder and how it relates to the Last Supper. Unfortunately I cannot attend to hear him but I sure would like to know how the seder relates to Jesus' command of "do this." The whole wine thing is also the same in Catholic Churches. Some provide wine, some do not. The great thing about Transubstantiation is that you only need to partake of Jesus' body in the bread/wafer as His Blood is assumed to be in the Body as well. Solves the issue of alcohol I guess.

At my Church the Choir goes up to the Altar rail first for communion, that way they are never forgotten! Plus we get wonderful music during communion, which is great for after communion reflection. Everyone should come to a Latin Mass at an RC Church just to see it once. Bells and smells (incense) they call it! That's why I like the videos you post from your Church showing the songs with the hand bells - they are my favorite.

Expand full comment

We have three handbell choirs, children, intermediate, and adult. It's not like you can learn this in school or something. I don't know of any other churches in town that have bells anymore. I wish the recorded sound were better. It used to be.

There are features of your tradition that I admire. I'm where I am because that is where I was directed. For now. Some of my first cousins were Catholic. I think most of my first cousins are deceased now, though. That's good for a peculiar feeling.

Expand full comment
author

I've been meaning to ask you on your substack - why do the bell ringers wear gloves? Next time you post an anthem with bells I'll ask again. I always thought that was the only instrument I could actually play decently. But it is probably much harder than it looks.

Expand full comment

That's a good question. Each ringer has a set of bells and chimes, and they have strikers as well. I can imagine a couple of reasons for the gloves. First, they need to be able to switch instruments quickly and securely. Hands sticking to handles would not be good, and dropping something would be worse. Second, it might be to protect the instrument handles.

The man on the far right that plays those giant bells also tapes his wrists. I think we can guess why.

And by the way, the padding on the table tops is used in playing too.

Now I could ask this question of one of the ringers, if I could somehow remember to do that, or I could do a web search, in which case I might come up with something like this (no, I did not search for or read it before writing the above): https://www.artofhandbellringing.com/equipment-supplies/why-do-handbell-ringers-wear-gloves/

The bell ringers also appear to be using their feet. Their music is on tablets, iPads probably, and it looks like they have foot switches for turning the pages.

These are things a person can notice while standing behind the bells rather than sitting comfortably in the congregation.

Expand full comment

This is wonderful work you have done here, Napoleon! I am blessed -- thank you!

Expand full comment
author

Thank you Perplexity for reading! Most times I write things and think "geesh that's heavy, I wouldn't read that myself." Then I just write it and tell God "here you go Lord." I'm always amazed anyone reads anything I write.

Expand full comment

Thank you, Napoleon! Very important discourse.

Having been excommunicated by my Trad Latin Mass community because my first brief marriage ended in divorce. My second wife of 20 years and I are refused communion as a result. Annulment is not an option I would pursue. I made a mistake and acknowledged that. The rainbow church appears more tolerant, but I have no wish to participate there. I sometimes muse around the exclamation of, 'let no man put asunder'. ... Is this always interpreted in a generic fashion ... ie. 'mankind'. What happens when a woman declares she no longer wishes to be married?

Expand full comment
author

I hear you Dr. as I am also divorced, but did obtain an annulment since the previous marriage was not in the Church. Even if you can't partake in communion, there is also just Eucharistic Adoration. I've actually found Eucharistic Adoration much more satisfying to my soul and I feel closer to Jesus than in communion, which seems muddied by human interaction too much. If I could never take communion again, just being able to sit in front of the Real Presence of Jesus in the consecrated host is enough for me.

Expand full comment

Thank you Napoleon! I'd overlooked exposition and benediction. It is difficult to find that here, but it is valuable and the thought is much appreciated. I shall search about. Laus Deo Semper.

Expand full comment
Mar 17·edited Mar 17Liked by Napoleon

As a person who was granted an annulment of a previous civil 'marriage', I am very grateful that the Church granted it. My prvious 'husband' had not informed me that he had been Baptized and Confirmed in the church in his youth. At the time of my first 'marriage' I was 19, and neither he nor I even mentioned God. I had never yet been Baptized!

Shockingly (ha!) that first 'marriage' only lasted a scant 3 years.

When I remarried later, I was still un-Baptized.

My husband and I both began feeling a yearning toward God. After attending several types of protestant churches, we were Baptized and joined the Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod), two years into our civil 'marriage'.

Eventually we began attending Mass occasionally at our grandchild's school, and we both knew this was The Church.

We were civilly 'married' for 27 years before we were blessed by Convalidation of the civil union between my husband and myself, at Easter vigil Mass in 2021.

At that same Mass both my husband and I were brought into the Holy Catholic Church.

I know there has been controversy about many things that have changed since Vatican II convened, but I, for one, am deeply grateful for this particular change.

Expand full comment
author

I agree with you on that Perplexity. I was civilly married for 17 years before my divorce and annulment. Since I wasn't married in the Church the first time, the annulment process was basically rubber-stamped with one just one form filled out. I have heard that if you or your current spouse were married in the Church the first time it is a much more arduous process. Interestingly, my next post sometime I will be writing about my ex-spouse and divorce. God put it on my heart that it is time for me to do that. I'm thinking NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but I'll try to slog through it.

Expand full comment

What have I done?

I didn't mean to drag you through the muck with me.

Sorry about that!

Expand full comment
author

Absolutely no need to apologize! The thought that I must address my divorce came before I ever read your comment. I think God just confirmed it to me to get working on it someday. I'm quite the procrastinator until I keep seeing signs for me to "get it done." This is one of those times. But you watch, I'll take months before you ever see that post.

Expand full comment

I tend to do that as well, especially when it's a difficult issue. Praise be to God that He persists in his merciful nudgings.

Expand full comment
Mar 16Liked by Napoleon

I do too. Thank you for this. God bless.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you max for reading! I truly do appreciate it.

Expand full comment