Is this right?
  • TLMlover
    Posts: 112
    Hi all,

    Today our two altar servers received Holy Communion by entering the Communion line and receiving after everyone else. I have never, ever seen this done before. When I commented about this to the one of the servers (68 years old), he said he was trained that way since he started serving as a child in the mid 1960s.

    This strikes me as very odd, especially because he was trained and started serving before the N.O. was invented.

    Am I wrong?

  • davido
    Posts: 1,186
    You’re not
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 12,064
    I have never seen that before. You are not wrong.
  • TLMlover
    Posts: 112
    Thank goodness. Just another N.O. insanity then. Sigh.
  • igneusigneus
    Posts: 440
    Mid 1960s wasn't before the N.O. was invented, it was a period of liturgical transformations.

    Regarding this particular sign I admit I pretty much like it. It communicates a vision of the church I can relate to. A church which is intentionally flat and doesn't introduce unnecessary symbolic distinctions. No special place or time of communion separating the altar servers from the rest of the community, just the same single communion line for everyone.
    Thanked by 1PaxMelodious
  • TLMlover
    Posts: 112
    Ummm...
    Thanked by 1Chant_Supremacist
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 488
    Wuest, Matters Liturgical, 1959:

    image

    But of course there is the (to put it mildly...) unfortunate principle in the novus ordo that things aren't necessarily to be done the same way as in the old rite unless specifically stated.
    Screenshot 2026-03-15 214628.png
    1036 x 520 - 130K
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • TLMlover
    Posts: 112
    Thank you FSSP!!
  • irishtenoririshtenor
    Posts: 1,431
    Now I'm curious: would a king who is present receive before anyone serving or in any degree of Holy Orders? Or just the first among the laity?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,570
    If memory serves, the HRE was a special instance of subdeacon and Catholic kings were typically canons of Roman pontifical basilicas with precedence as if they were clerics.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,437
    Emmanuel Macron is an honorary canon of the Lateran…
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 488
    And Co-prince of Andorra! I know that king is sometimes interpreted rather broadly to refer to heads of state, along with their spouses, and sometimes to their delegates. I read somewhere that the First Lady of Kentucky was the only woman ever permitted inside the enclosure at Gethsemani. Historically, it has been claimed that the Emperor was regarded as a deacon and the King of France as a bishop. Hani discusses it in some detail in Sacred Royalty: From the Pharaoh to the Most Christian King.

    Fortescue discusses the place of kings and civil dignitaries in church, when they are incensed, and the kiss of peace given to them, but not the order for Communion. I have never seen Communion given to the bridal couple before the servers, although I'm certain that's the correct procedure.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,437
    Well also the Caeremoniale says to give communion to the sacred ministers before the Confiteor but no one does this

    We just don’t give communion to the servers; well maybe one or two ask and therefore receive, but I think that this is bad and we should only commune the couple; the faithful don’t commune at weddings or funerals. Parish Requiems yes but to my consternation.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 694
    We just don’t give communion to the servers; well maybe one or two ask and therefore receive, but I think that this is bad and we should only commune the couple; the faithful don’t commune at weddings or funerals. Parish Requiems yes but to my consternation.

    This is the most absurd thing I’ve heard. Why do you think it is bad for people to receive communion? You’re robbing people of graces. Every single Mass I attend I receive communion and of the graces up for a particular intention. Funerals, it’s for the repose of the soul of the one who died, marriages, for the couple, all other communions are offered for a particular long term intention.

    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,437
    Bahaha I’m not arguing this with you
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,668
    There is, surely, nothing to argue about. The position was set out clearly at the 22nd session of the Council of Trent: Chapter 6, and Canon VIII
    https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.v.i.i.ix.html
    Mass where only the celebrant receives is valid and the benefits the whole church, "pro omnibus fidelibus, qui ad corpus Christi pertinent", but it is desirable in singulis missis that "the faithful who are present should communicate, not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived to them" (quod ad eos sanctissimi hujus sacrificii fructus uberior proveniret).

  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,945
    1 Corinthians 11.
    "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink of the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and the Blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself; and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord."


    Now how many times during Nuptial and Requiem Masses with large numbers of non-Catholics in attendance have we had people bringing Judgment onto themselves?
    Thanked by 1irishtenor
  • AriasitaAriasita
    Posts: 42
    Was anyone physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually harmed?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,437
    tomjaw once again understands this, and I am mystified as to why the point about unworthy communion is ordinarily something that Catholics agree about when it comes to our favorite hated public figures but not when it maybe makes our day a little bit more complicated.


    but not therefore, if this be not always done, does it condemn, as private and unlawful, but approves of and therefore commends, those masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally; since those masses also ought to be considered as truly common; partly because the people communicate spiritually thereat; partly also because they are celebrated by a public minister of the Church, not for himself only, but for all the faithful, who belong to the body of Christ.


    I don’t ever receive at requiems even if they are our parish Requiems or for a specific person and only our faithful attend. These Masses are for the dead. There is no need for the living to benefit by a full sacramental communion when all of the blessings etc. of the rites are transferred to the dead’s benefit. We do not program music other than the printed proper: no motet. No psalms. It doesn’t actually discourage anyone but silence like that is for their benefit and maybe makes them think.

    Frankly we should seriously reconsider general communions on Sundays
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,570
    On the other hand, communion is required for offering plenary indulgences under the usual conditions, and funeral Masses offer a pointed occasion to offer them for the dead, which is a spiritual work of mercy for the dead that is not redundant to the Mass itself. But that topic is far afield of the OP.
    Thanked by 4davido CHGiffen hilluminar SponsaChristi
  • francis
    Posts: 11,303
    yea, @Liam is right about us wandering down a RH... however, it is an interesting topic... particularly the reception of HC at funerals and weddings... The OP is definitely right about it being weird to have servers getting in line however.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
Add a Comment