My comment is at the end of this humorous post by Fr. Z on the conundrum of accidentally inserting the Host in someone's mouth who desires to receive our Lord and Savior on the hand:
From a reader:
I tend not to be legalistic but when visiting that church the priest pressed my hand quite rudely and hissed “We do not take it in the hand here”. I wonder if I should send him a note. God bless you.
Brief, but I think we get the idea.
I strongly doubt that the priest hissed. What is this, Harry Potter?
However, the choice of the word “hissed” underscores how sensitive people are to liturgical moments. Communion is… should be… a vulnerable moment.
I loathe Communion in the hand. On the first full day of my pontificate as Pius the Tenth the Second, or maybe Clement XV, or perhaps John XXIII… I will abolish it by means of a Bull, which I shall also read from the central loggia of St. John Lateran… with full social media coverage and live internet streaming.
Priests should not deny people Holy Communion in the hand if they are in a place where the bishop has given permission for Communion in the hand.
It can happen that, in the course of distribution, the altar boy may be holding the paten in such a way that the priest doesn’t see the hands, the surprised tongue pops out, BAM, on we go. That happened to me at least once this morning, but it was pretty clear that this was just a mechanical thing, and not Father-denied-Communion, etc.
However, from the better readings of Summorum Pontificum and Universae Ecclesiae it seems that during celebrations of Holy Mass with the Extraordinary Form, communicants are not to receive in the hand, even where it is permitted. That said, I think that even in EF celebrations, priests should be very careful not to bruise the sensibilities of newcomers, who, by the time of Communion, probably think they are on another planet.
They are right. They are on another planet is some sense.
But let’s be careful and gentle with them.
And may we also review how PROPERLY to receive in the hand?
We do NOT receive one-handed.
We do NOT use pintcher fingers.
We do NOT cup hands next to each other.
We do NOT lick the Host up.
We do NOT swap the Host back and forth.
We do NOT rattle Jesus around in the hand before popping Him.
In the meantime… dear readers…
… please please please just STOP receiving Communion in the hand.
Please? You are making me sad.
MY COMMENTS NOW: At three of our Sunday Masses we offer the receiving the Most Precious Blood of our Lord through intinction with the option of receiving Holy Communion kneeling if one so desires at all of our Masses. We have made it abundantly clear that if one wishes to receive Holy Communion on the palm of the hand, then they should make that abundantly clear to the minister or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion prior to the Host being intincted. At the "intinction" Masses more people are now receiving from the chalice than ever before as so many refuse to go and place their mouth on the rim of a chalice to drink the Precious Blood and so by-pass the chalice altogether. But with intinction they are able to eat and drink the Most Precious Body and Blood of the Lord and without the fear of contagion by directly placing their mouth on the rim of a chalice that contains salivic bacteria on it, the bacteria being life threatening rather than life saving.
Those who wish to receive in the hand still do and some receive on the palm by kneeling.
At our weekly school Mass, we have taught the children to receive the intincted host by kneeling although we make clear that if a child chooses to stand they may do so and also receive on the palm by making that clear prior to the Host being intincted.
To say that this has slowed the children down and made their receiving of Holy Communion much more reverent and solemn is an understatement. I know that this experience will increase their reverence and awe for the Lord whom they receive under the sacramental signs of bread and wine.
I have been concerned for years at the manner in which our children casually and unthinkingly receive the host on the palm of their hand which is a moving target or try to snatch it or cup their hand and walk off with the host as they pop Jesus in their mouth no matter how often we catechized them to do so more deliberately and reverently. They are children after all and do not intentionally act irreverently, but that's exactly how it looks, but no more with intinction, reverence in its external form rules the liturgical day!
Kneeling and intinction are no-brainers.
8 comments:
26 The way I see it, intinction is a means to an end. It serves a purpose insofar as it begins people thinking about the sacrality of the Sacrament. But, there is no real need for the distribution of the Precious Blood.
If the faithful truly do receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus in the Sacred Host, why then is there a "need" to have a fuller sign? What purpose does it serve? And is it really "fuller?"
It is widely known that the inclusion of the Precious Blood as distributed is a Protestant ideal. It was put forth by Luther himself as an alternative to the Catholic practice of reception of the Host only. Before someone goes on and on about the East and their practices, we are not the East. We are the West. We have our own practices.
So, the question remains, if we do truly receive the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Jesus, why must we look for a "fuller sign?" AND... How can that possibly exist.
At most EF Masses I have attended the priest reminds people that Communion may only be received on the tongue (the time to do this is at the notices which in the EF precede the homily). Three years ago I served a Low Mass at the London Oratory (it was for my brother who had recently died in Canada but who had a lot of friends in England). I recall a woman kneeling with her palms uppermost but when I stuck the communion plate under her chin she got the message!
I've noticed at the English Oratories where kneeling for Communion was never abandoned that the number receiving in the hand at OF Masses has declined greatly over the last twenty years.
First Communion children are usually catechised by liberals who don't even mention receiving on the tongue as being an option. The standard of catechesis is summed up by one the pupils at a London school who commented in the school's newsletter: "We all went up to get the bread and wine. It was great fun".
John, that communion story makes me laugh. My daughter made the mistake of sticking out her hands once and the plate was thrust under her chin and to here her tell it, the Host pressed onto her tongue. She was so embarrassed to have forgotten! I have not taken by hand in a long time. Yesterday we attended in a liberal parish and the EMHC was clearly unbalanced when I had my hands together in prayer and would not part them.
One good thing about offering the chalice to the laity is that it gives the extraordinary monsters something to do which does not involve their handling the Body of Christ. I received in the hand once, in Germany in 1967 when I was 16, because everyone else was doing it. I only ever receive from a priest or deacon, and the nearest Latin OF Mass (Oxford Oratory) has kneeling Communion and of course no EMs.
The English and Welsh bishops discourage intinction (they can't actually ban it) and their liturgy office some years ago freely admitted that the reason for this was that its use might make EMs surplus to requirements. Recently their Lordships inserted into the GIRM a paragraph saying that receiving standing and in the hand was the 'norm' which is simply stating the obvious, and the Archdiocese of Westminster ruled that altar rails were not to be replaced in churches where they had been removed. What is their problem?
I had a similar experience receiving communion. I was in line and a civilian, for want of a better word, was standing in front of me holding the Host. I had no idea what to do and just stared at him. I could not mentally process the sight. I, too, intentionally line up in the queue in front of the priest. I have heard a priest announce that it was OK to receive from the Extraordinary (monsters, I will steal that, if you don't mind). I expect we all know people who seem to feel being a EMHC is their calling, and are very aggressive about doing it. That is exactly the sort of person who should not.
At an ad orientem, largely Latin OF Mass at (Mother Angelica's) Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Alabama, where most of the visitors are mainstream Catholics but communion is received on the tongue while kneeling at the altar rail, I notice an inconspicuous and non-confrontational solution.
When the server holds the paten over the occasional outstretched hands and the priest proffers the Host at head level, almost all communicants get the message and immediately receive on the tongue. However, in one case it appeared to me that there was a moment of hesitation, whence the priest without any word or gesture, simply moved on to the next communicant. The communicant stayed at the rail, and on the priest's next pass appeared to receive without hesitation on the tongue. (I was trying to mind my own business, but thought this was what I accidentally observed in two separate glances in the same direction.)
John:
"What is their problem?"
Obviously, to maintain the need for flocks of largely female EMHCs, with the typically condescending attitude that giving the little woman something more or less innocuous to do near the altar will keep her pacified.
John,
Regarding First Communion children being catechised by liberals who don't even mention receiving on the tongue as an option:
About seven years back (in pre-Summorum Pontificum days), when my now 14 year old daughter was to receive her First Communion, we went out and bought her the customary special white dress, veil and accessories. As a part of this outfit, I even bought her a special pair of white gloves (made especially for First Communion with Crosses on them). At that time, we had a an unhabited nun Director of Religious Education. When little seven year old Sara showed up with her white dress, veil, and gloves Sister quickly informed me that she shouldn't be wearing gloves and she wanted her to receive in the hand. This was after I had carefully instructed Sara of the option to receive in either manner but that I personally preferred to receive on the tongue and the reasons for doing so. I didn't argue with Sister and my daughter made her First Communion sans gloves and in the hand. I was saddened by this but she now (and has for some time now because our current pastor graciously has a kneeler brought out at Communion time) receives kneeling and on the tongue. Sara has grown up going to occasional EF Masses in churches in other cities which have Communion rails.
Sara informed me last week that, as a part of her high school PRE class (wherein they've all been asked to pose a question they have about our Faith) she plans to ask why we don't have a Communion rail in our parish church and why reception on the tongue and kneeling is not the norm given that we are receiving the Lord. There is hope in this world!
Joseph, you must be very proud of your daughter!!! Give YOURSELF a pat on the back too.
When I see my daughter choose to kneel for Holy Communion, when she could choose otherwise, it makes my heart leap...which is an understatement...so I imagine you must feel the same.
~SL
Post a Comment