The Holy Communion Response At Mass

"On the First Sunday of Advent 2011, Catholics in the United States who attend the Ordinary Form of Mass (commonly called the Novus Ordo, or sometimes the Mass of Paul VI) experienced the first major new translation of the Mass since the Novus Ordo  was introduced on the First Sunday of Advent in 1969. ... Compared with the previous translation used in the United States, the new translation is a much more faithful rendering in English of the third edition of the Missale Romanum (the definitive Latin text of the Mass and its associated prayers), promulgated by Pope Saint John Paul II in 2001." [1]  This entry is therefore about six years late.

Before receiving Holy Communion, the response used to be "Lord, I am not worthy to receive [Y]ou, but only say the word and I shall be healed." [2]  Now, it is "Lord, I am not worthy that [Y]ou should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed." [3]

What is wrong with using "I"?   In this blogger's opinion, "I" encompasses more intuitively one's body and soul than just "soul" even though according to Fr. Ray Ryland that "[i]n this life, soul and body are joined in intimate union [and] whatever affects the soul affects the body, and vice versa," that because of "the close union between body and soul, the actions of the body necessarily affect the condition and the fate of the soul," and that "conscious bodily actions have eternal consequences." [4]

For the Catholic Church to then add these words "enter under my roof" confuses this blogger even more since they remind him of the parable The Healing of a Centurion’s Servant  in which the centurion said, "'Lord, I am not worthy to have you enter under my roof; only say the word and my servant will be healed.'" [5]  Does anyone think that the centurion was asking Christ to heal the soul of his servant as he remained paralyzed and could not do any work?  Did Christ think that the centurion wanted his servant's soul healed but not his paralysis?

To underscore the point, the centurion's words in the parable cited above were: "only say the word and my servant will be healed" not "only say the word and my servant's soul will be healed."  Thus, it can be concluded that the centurion was not looking to have his servant's soul healed but his paralysis cured.  In the centurion's mind, and Christ read it correctly, what was important was the healing of the servant's body, something that is practical, not so much the soul, something that is philosophical and theological.

How far would Christianity have gone, based on this parable alone, had Jesus claimed that He had healed the centurion's servant's soul while the servant's body remained paralyzed?   That, of course, did not happen, and Christianity did spread, but times have changed and the Catholic Church has turned away from Christ and probably has already regressed.  It is therefore likely that Catholicism would not go too much farther from the present (dating back decades), even though the Catholic Church, the one that lives in the hearts and minds of those who have faith, will continue.

The only reason that this blogger can think of (notwithstanding that fact that he could be very wrong) in having this change back to the "Ordinary of the Mass of the 1962 Roman Missal" [6], [7] was that the Catholic Church did not and does not truly believe in its heart and  soul that Christ could heal physical pains and illnesses because that would be "visible," whereas healing the soul would be "invisible" and by hiding behind "invisibility" nobody can assert with proof that these words: "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed" are ineffective since relatively few people had reported to have become healed physically in comparison to the many who had gone to Mass and had said those words before taking Holy Communion.

Based on the parable, and many other miracles Jesus had performed, there is not a doubt that Christ heals but only if He is so inclined to "say the word" and that He did not and does not say the word often.  This does not mean, however, that when He does say "the word" a healing will not take place.  It does in fact take place, provided that one has faith. How much faith?  "'Amen, I say to you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith.'" [8]

In Jesus' absence, His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary, has come to the world in the form of apparitions.  For example, in Mexico, San Juan Diego's uncle was healed miraculously [9]; in France, She had provided the world, through Sainte Bernadette Soubirous, with water of Lourdes that had led to and continues to bring miraculous healings, though not all of them became famous and recognized officially [10], [11].

It is this blogger's firm belief that if one has true humility, absolute faith in and unwavering love for the Lord and the Blessed Virgin Mary, a visible healing of the body (perhaps also an invisible healing of the soul) will occur, not when man asks, but when God says "the word."  For atheists, doubters, wishful thinkers and religious hypocrites, it may be hard to believe that "the word" is being said more often than not.



[1] https://www.thoughtco.com/new-translation-of-the-catholic-mass-542947
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] https://www.osv.com/Article/TabId/493/ArtMID/13569/ArticleID/16961/What-Is-the-Soul.aspx
[5] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/8 at 5-13.
[6] http://www.extraordinaryform.org/handmissals.html
[7] http://www.extraordinaryform.org/ExtraordinaryFormTextLandscape.pdf, at approximately three-quarters of the way down from the top of the page.
[8] http://www.usccb.org/bible/matthew/8 at 10.
[9] https://stpeterslist.com/the-5-parts-of-the-story-of-juan-diego-the-man-who-saw-our-lady-of-guadalupe
[10] http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/downloads/lourdes_cures.pdf
[11] http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/lourdes/miracles1.html