Reverence

[johnquinn39]

So too, he seems to be encouraging greater reverence for our Lord and his real presence through kneeling at communion and reception on the tongue (Fr. Pierre) [See NT's link in 'Papal Masses...']

I'm not sure that receiving this way will encourage greater reverence. Of course, as my parish priest said a number of weeks ago, we must all receive reverently, whatever way we do this.

However, is there a danger of making communion rather idividualistic, thus actually playing down the real presence of Christ in the congregation receiving a communal meal?

[monty]

A church I sometimes go to when not singing at my own has the communion rails and people kneel.

It is absolute bedlam at communion time. There is nothing dignified about it. Some people could enter for the Olympics in that walking race - mad dash to the rails to be the first. Unseemly queue behind that runs to the first gap. Awful, awful, awful and shocking.

But on the other hand, they sing plainchant there so obviously this is what everyone else should be doing.

On paper, they would seem to be doing everything the pope would wish but there is a detachment - an us and them atmosphere. It is heartbreaking as I knew the church before Vatican II and it was never like that, it was a real parish. Now it is a collection of mal-contents who are convinced they are the only ones who know what is pleasing to God. I feel quite biblical when I say "fools!".

[Sonoqui]

So too, he seems to be encouraging greater reverence for our Lord and his real presence through kneeling at communion and reception on the tongue

If we knelt to receive communion in our church, our priest would have to bend double to reach the tongues of any parishioner under about eight feet tall - thereby risking toppling over on top of them.

Also, any reverence shown by me in kneeling to receive would be immediately and spectacularly cancelled out by all the grunting and groaning and cracking of joints that would occur when I tried getting to my feet again without anything to hold on to - unless of course a couple of (strong) altar servers were standing by to assist old wrecks like me!

We are fortunate that we still have our Altar rails (parishioner power having prevailed over the wishes of a previous PP to remove them after they fell into disuse). I still believe that Communion was a much more reverent affair when they were still in use and would love to see their use return. Not so sure about tongue rather than hands though!

[gwyn]

Is it still the case that we receive holy communion in the hand only as a result of an indult? I believe that this is the case with mass in the venacular too.

[Southern Comfort]

Is it still the case that we receive holy communion in the hand only as a result of an indult? I believe that this is the case with mass in the venacular too.

No, it's not. The indult myth for Communion in the hand has been perpetrated by some of the traditionalist groups, not to mention Malcolm Ranjith, now happily departed to Colombo. Communion in the hand was permitted by one of Paul VI's documents (not in my office, so can't remember which one), and another of his documents (ditto) specifically mentions the need for reverence in the case of Communion in the Hand, which he would hardly have done if folk weren't normally allowed to do it. It has been particular law in this country since the mid-1970s, authorised by our Bishops' Conference.

Neither was there any need for an indult for celebrations in the vernacular, whether Mass or any other liturgy.

What there was, however, was an indult for the continued celebration of Mass according to the 1962 Missal. Both the USA and England and Wales had such an indult (frequently ignored by groups who preferred to celebrate according to previous editions of the Missale Romanum and not the 1962 version). Despite B XVI's claim in Summorum Pontificum that the so-called Tridentine Rite had never been abrogated, it clearly was, as many historians and Canon law experts have demonstrated. The clinching factor, of course, is that no indult would ever have been necessary had the Rite not been abrogated.

There are some groups of people in this country who seem prepared to twist historical and other facts to suit their own ends. The most frequently used words when this happens are "you can only do this as a result of an indult" or "it says in the Code of Canon Law". And people believe them.

[musicus]

A skilful swerve into offtopic-land in your second half, SC

Let's not get diverted, folks.

[Lakelark]

An Instruction, Memoriale Domini, issued in May 1969, declared that the Holy Father had decided against a change in the traditional rite for the distribution of HC - that is, it should continue to be administered on the tongue. This decision was based in part on a survey of all bishops, about 60 per cent of whom were opposed to any change. However, because a considerable number of people had already begun to administer into the hand, instructions were issued as to how this was to be done, and how it was justified. Individual Bishops' Conferences and individual bishops were to seek permission if they wished to adopt the change. It appears that once this permission was given it would not be necessary for it ever to be reviewed if after a six-month trial period no problems had been identified. This is all incredibly convoluted, it seems to me.

But the norm remains to administer on the tongue - chiefly to avoid irreverence or sacrilege. It had not been unknown for communicants to secrete the host in their hands and to take it away, for whatever alternative purpose they had in mind. The problem is not completely restricted to the medieval period with all its supposed superstitions. I have personally seen, more than once, a person walk away from the altar without actually consuming the host that had been put into his hands. On one such occasion another communicant was able to persuade the miscreant to consume the host there and then. I don't say that such experiences have turned me into a hard-liner on this matter, but I think it's worth remembering that such problems can occur. If such alternative purposes remain in the minds of any who present themselves for communion, it would seem advisable to retain the "traditional" rite: it's going to be a matter of judgment of people's intentions and of the possibility of sacrilege. Who is to make this judgment? Should we err on the side of caution?

[festivaltrumpet]

It is also my impression that there is less reverence than was the case in the past, although I would wonder whether we may be viewing the past in an overly positive light. A sense of reverence needs to be restored primarily by catechesis, this may, or may not, be accompanied by a change of distribution practice. It is possible to receive most reverently in the hand, and most irreverently on the tongue, standing or kneeling.

But the norm remains to administer on the tongue - chiefly to avoid irreverence or sacrilege. It had not been unknown for communicants to secrete the host in their hands and to take it away, [...] it's going to be a matter of judgment of people's intentions and of the possibility of sacrilege. Who is to make this judgment? Should we err on the side of caution?

The logical conclusion to erring on the side of caution is to deny communion to the laity altogether. One could remove a host from the tongue for sacrilegious purposes with almost the same ease as from the hand.

[NorthernTenor]

As a convert, I try to guard against the Faber Fallacy - trying to be more Roman than the Romans. I am therefore glad to sense the quiet reverence about me when I kneel at the Anglican alter rail for a blessing, as others receive in the palm of one hand crossed over the other, then bow the head as they consume the wafer. Whatever we think of their sacramental theology and the validity or otherwise of their orders, I believe there is a living lesson here for us, and that if we paid attention to it, there would be fewer calls for reversion to receiving on the tongue.

[NorthernTenor]

However, is there a danger of making communion rather idividualistic, thus actually playing down the real presence of Christ in the congregation receiving a communal meal?

I don't believe so, John.

The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend. In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained. This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present.

In this real presence, and repeated yet once-for-all miracle, it is the most natural of things to bow the knee (should our aging joints permit it!).

[Southern Comfort]

But the norm remains to administer on the tongue

Not in England and Wales it doesn't. The choice of whether to receive in the hand or on the tongue is up to the communicant.

When people are aware that communion in the hand was the norm for the first nine centuries of the Church's life, and as they delight in Cyril of Jerusalem's "beautiful fourth-century description" (the then-Cardinal Ratzingers' own words), they realise just how reverent this form of receving is. In the same book Ratzinger also said that it is impossible that the church could have received communion unworthily for nine hundred years.

I have personally seen, more than once, a person walk away from the altar without actually consuming the host that had been put into his hands.

These days, you'll normally only see that when the person is intending to intinct (which is a breach of liturgical law ─ cf. Inaestimabile Donum 9 and Redemptionis Sacramentum 92), though occasionally little boys have been known to put a host in their pocket to show their friends later.

As far as posture is concerned, whether or not it is the most natural thing to bow the knee, in England and Wales the posture for receiving communion laid down by the Bishops is standing.

[Southern Comfort]

A skilful swerve into offtopic-land in your second half, SC

Let's not get diverted, folks.

Sorry. Thought that the selective observance of indults might be pertinent to those who claim indults exist where they don't. I won't mention it again! Please resume your normal programming, everyone.

[NorthernTenor]

As far as posture is concerned, whether or not it is the most natural thing to bow the knee, in England and Wales the posture for receiving communion laid down by the Bishops is standing.

Oh, that's alright, then.

I wasn't aware it was compulsory, though

[NorthernTenor]

As to the issue of the indult, SC, as recently as 2004, the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments issued this very strong instruction:

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.

(Redemptionis Sacramentum [92]).

This indicates that the faithful always have the right to receive on the the tongue, but they only have the right to receive in the hand where this has been localy indulged, with the permission of Rome.

ps I write this as one who is happiest to receive in the hand, albeit I wish I could do so kneeling without drawing attention to myself. I just feel you do your general direction of argument no good by pushing particular cases beyond the point at which the facts support them. I also believe there's an issue of tolerance here. You may feel that a virtue that traditionalists don't seem to value, but it's worth setting an example, and seeking to understand their underlying concerns about reverence, which I believe have some reasonable basis. So too, it seems, does the Pope, but that's a matter for the other thread