Friday 25 April 2014

Manners and Methods of Receiving Holy Communion

We have noticed, as we are sure many others have noticed, that there is a great variety of ‘manners’ in which Our Lord is received in Holy Communion which go beyond the norm of receiving on the tongue and the option of receiving in the hand. There is nothing in this poster of self-service manner of receiving Holy Communion as we linked to in an earlier post (though we think reception in the hand has something of the self-service dynamic to it). Rather, it is that some who receive on the tongue while standing nod the head forward (this doesn't happen with those kneeling at the rail) while those who receive in the hand may have their fingers splayed, their hands side by side or fingers cupped; others try to take it from you with their fingers and not a few hands are unclean (yes we know the cleanliness of the soul is the important factor, but as the poster indicates, why receive Our Lord on dirty dishes which we wouldn't serve up to our loved ones or our Bishop?) We spent a lot of time scouring the internet for instructions on how to receive correctly and eventually came up with this, which we thought might be interesting or even useful to readers of this blog.


We know it sort of encourages reception of Our Lord in Holy Communion on the hand, but it does note that this is limited to countries where permission to do so has been given by Rome, and that it doesn't replace the norm of reception on the tongue. Also, it rightly places the norm at the top of the list as the first and universal method. Finally, in that there are places where reception in the hand is available, we think it is better that people know how to do it with reverence. Anyway, here is the poster which we are putting out with our parish Bulletin/Newsletter this weekend...


Below is a re-worked version of the poster.


34 comments:

  1. Looking at the GIRM 160, USA, Canada, .......

    When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister.

    or
    When standing before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow of the head.

    How does one distinguish between a nod of the head and a bow of the head?

    My tongue is stuck in my cheek.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, 'Me'.
      Yes, a nod is what many folk do. It reminds us of ducks! Surely a bow is a reverent, slow action and not a quick dip?
      P.S. "Half courtesy's" as a sort of 'nod' towards genuflection are not absent from the Communion line either!
      God Bless

      Delete
  2. Receiving on the tongue or kneeling is 'forbidden' in my diocese in the name of 'local custom'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, viterbo.
      I don't understand how a universal norm can be legitimately forbidden. In Church law, it can't. I would not be willing to live by such an illicit law which surely cannot bind.

      Delete
  3. Is there not a dichotomy relating to "Communion in the Hand" and the prescribed manner in which a Celebrant is to handle the Consecrated Host?

    As to "dirty hands", why the Lavabo?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Sixupman.
      Communion in the hand for the laity makes no sense when there is a prescribed lavabo for the priest, though it is symbolic while asking that one's soul be made clean. I don't think 'in the hand' is reception anyway; it is half-way to self-serve Communion, I think.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  4. You receive the host in the hand - that's reception. It's lawful and traditional. Just because 'father is a little precious' doesn't come into it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the comment.
      It is true that receiving the host in the hand is a kind of reception –and lawful, but my information was that it is not being done in the traditional manner which was to bow the head down to receive the Host , not to pick it up with the other hand. If I can locate the reference I will post it sometimes.
      There is no need for Father to be precious –the Blessed Sacrament is Precious beyond words.
      God bless you and your ministry, Father.

      Delete
  5. Gentlemen, I hope this poster is going into your Church Porch too so that visitors receive the same education and your parishioners do not think you are criticising them... Such reminders are good for us all. Care at Holy Communion cannot be overdone if it really is God we handle.
    Ellis

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Ellis.
      Yes, it is going into the porch because we want it to be general and not 'pointed', and I agree we can't take too much care with the Blessed Sacrament.
      An incident this morning where someone with a bandaged hand received in that hand means we will delay it going into the Bulletin to make sure it does not seem a 'pointed' correction of the person concerned.
      God Bless, one all all.

      Delete
  6. There is a hypothesis that we are going through a Modernist Reformation, one I increasingly side with. It postulates that Vat II was used by Relativists within the Church to diminish and eventually deny Truth. Their strategy was principally aimed at the Mass as the re-enactment of the Sacrifice of Calvary, the Ordained Priesthood and the Real Presence.

    If so, these Reformers have been most successful. They have indeed diminished and indeed eliminated with so many Catholics, the majority now?, belief in the Real Presence.

    Their tactic has been to change the method of reception. Treat the Body and Blood of Christ as ordinary bread and wine and in no time people will come to accept it as that. It’s really quite simple!

    And yet the Hierarchy continues to look the other way!

    jacobi, NB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Jacobi.
      I do think reception in the hand has damaged belief in the Eucharist and all that goes with it. The Protestant Reformers introduced it into their communion services for that very reason. But if we are going to do it, lets do it well: no grubby hands and a well-formed 'throne'.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  7. Good luck putting that in your newsletter. I think you'll find that you'll soon receive a call from the VG for a little chat. It appears rather blunt with a slightly insulting tone to me - ''this will necessitate an instruction to change''. You appear to have unresolved power and control issue Father, perhaps you should reflect and pray on that with your spiritual advisor. It's quite transparent that your intention is to brow-beat your poor congregation into receiving on the tongue. Haven't you got anything better to do with your time, like pastoral work?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Father.
      I take note of how harsh the poster has come across to you and will have it re-worked by its original designer –my reply to a previous comment notes an issue with a bandaged hand requires that distribution be delayed for fear of causing offence, so the delay will be used well. That said, your assumption the poster was designed by me would be a wrong assumption.
      As to the intention, it is not one of having people receive on the tongue: “this will necessitate an instruction to change” only implies (to me) that a communicant will be instructed to hold the hands correctly and present them in a fitting state –you can’t “browbeat” folk into doing ‘A’ by showing them how to do ‘B’ correctly.
      Finally, we are obliged to instruct folk on how to receive correctly, so I doubt the VG could have a cause for concern.
      God Bless you and your ministry.

      Delete
    2. Fr John. If you are a priest. I think your remarks are uncharitable.

      Delete
    3. Thank you, brandsma.
      We don't usually publish remarks that sound as though they lack charity, but I felt that if the poster was harsh, I should seek to have it re-worked and put that re-working into the context in which it need for reworking cam to my attention.
      God Bless you and yours.

      Delete
  8. Splendid poster, guys! If we can't get how we treat the Body of the Lord right, then what are we about? Even the dead Body of Jesus was treated with the utmost reverence before His burial - if people are lead to treat His Living Body with reverence, their faith will be strengthened. It's actually quite a simple 'spiritual physics': reverence expressed via the body >>> inward growth in faith. Rather than being about 'control', it's about nurturing faith and therefore the salvation of souls. I think the poster is fine as it is. Gaudia Paschalia!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Father.
      The concept of 'spiritual physics' is sound. We are trying to nurture faith (fostered by bodily postures ) but it really was simply about correct manner.
      Easter blessings to you and yours, Father.

      Delete
  9. Great poster, great initiative. Real heros.

    Happy (belated) Easter Fr Dickson and Andrew.

    (Really sad about some of the priestly remarks.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Damask Rose.
      We are still having the poster reworked a bit in case we offend sensitive souls.
      All the blessing of Easter to you too.
      Andrew.

      Delete
  10. The concept of spiritual physics is nonsense - there is no such thing. Interestingly Jesus didn't have any objections with people touching him with their hands or otherwise when he was alive so I don't have huge hang-ups with reception by hand.

    Interestingly, what is your position on someone with a prosthetic hand receiving communion by hand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Father Mark.
      I think the idea of ‘spiritual physics’ is simply a way of expressing that what we do with our body impacts upon the soul because of the unity of the human person. In that sense, it is quite sound. It is true Our Lord had no problem being touched post-resurrection; He was allowing His physical reality to be confirmed. But to believe in His Real Presence in the Eucharist where appearance, taste and touch deceive the senses all but necessitates some bodily act that conveys the reality of what is not seen; an act which helps to internalise that belief for the person.
      Blessings of the Season to you and yours.
      Fr GD

      Delete
  11. I think that if anyone takes offence at anyone carrying out their duties to guide and instruct the flock has a bit of a problem they need to deal with. More so if that person is a priest, Fr John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for this, SallyAnne.
      Blessings of the season to you!
      Fr GD

      Delete
  12. Sorry Father but Jesus had no objection to being 'handled' pre-resurrection either, did he not? I note you haven't responded to my direct question about someone with a prosthetic hand receiving communion by hand - which actually happens in my parish. what's your reply and reasoning please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you again, Father.
      I don’t see how Our Lord not having a problem being touched pre or post resurrection has anything to do with receiving Holy Communion in the hand. We are talking about a substantial yet sacramental Presence in the Holy Eucharist which is beyond sight and touch; a belief which is about walking in faith, not sight (or touch, or taste...). Faith in the Sacramental Presence is demonstrated, sustained and fed by the way we handle the sacred.
      I have no problems with the prosthetic hand. My reasoning? A hand is a hand. It is holding the hands apart, or splayed or cupped so that it is hard to get the Host in there, and presenting dirty hands, that is less than appropriate for the Lord.
      Blessings of the season to you and yours.

      Delete
    2. I am unable to comprehend the vehement antipathy which sometimes manifests itself too practices which have stood us in good stead for the eons prior to Vatican II - a period of full churches.

      We now have innovations from parish to parish; we have diocesan know-alls who dictate as to liturgies and re-ordering; etc. But we have empty churches and presbyteries.

      A church in the South of Scotland, an ex Protestant chapel, did not have an altar, but tables connected elongatedly around which the smallish congregation sat. This at the whim of a now ex-priest, but his bishop, who approved the design, decried the Consecrated Priesthood for that of the laity and an iconoclast to boot. His diocese now on the edge of extinction.

      Another, as a quid pro quo, for re-ordering, with the tabernacle returned to the place of prominence, banned the Cruxifix remaining on the back wall of the pulpit.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for this, Sixupman.
      There seems to be an attitude in the Church today that all that went before 1970 was wrong and that anything new, any innovation, must be good since "to live is to change". Sadly, some change is malignant, and that is not always recognised. We have not seen all good fruits we were promised, and those that are good (laity taking responsibility for running the parish books, giving catechesis etc) have sometimes been expanded beyond their authentic application.
      It was Paul VI who said the Church had entered a period of self-destruction, but so few want to admit to the problems that the self-destruction is likely to continue for some time yet. And indeed, parishes, seminaries and convents continue to close.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  13. Sixupman - I don't think anyone has any objection to receiving communion on the hand as such. What is being objected to is brow-beating parishioners to receive that way when canon law / GIRM clearly states that the faithful may chose which option they prefer (assuming they live somewhere where the indult is in place).

    If there is an attitude that all that went before V2 was wrong, there is also a segment with an attitude that any innovation is wrong. Communion in the hand is permitted - accept what Rome has allowed and get used to it! The smoke of Satan that Paul VI referred to was the division, bickering and in-fighting that erupted after the council. Yet we know from history that there is always a segment of the church that resist any reform and lawful conciliar decrees. This will pass as the council is embedded into church praxis. long live the council!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joseph Bracewell30 April 2014 at 22:10

    I am confused here are Fr John and Fr Mark one and the same person. From the vituperative language I suspect so. It would also appear that he is the same person who leaves similar comments on other blogs. Who ever he is the poor man deserves our prayers that he may find peace.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think I agree Joseph I will keep him in my prayers perhaps he is just lost or misguided

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for commenting.
      Prayers are offered for you, too.
      God Bless.

      Delete
  16. The Doctrine of the Church Tells Us ....

    Communion on the Tongue Is an Apostolic Tradition

    Statements from Popes, Saints and Church Councils:

    St. Sixtus 1 (circa 115): "The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord."

    St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

    The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

    The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

    6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
    threatening transgressors with excommunication.

    St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): "Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this Sacrament." (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8.)

    The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."

    Pope Paul VI (1963-1978): "This method [on the tongue] must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)

    Pope John Paul II: "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

    Pope St. Leo the Great is less well known for something very important to liturgical studies. He is one of the most ancient witnesses to the practice of Communion on the tongue. Notably, Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John's Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says:

    "Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur" (Serm. 91.3).

    This is translated strictly as: “This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith. "Ore" is here in the ablative and in the context it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.

    The Council of Rouen (650):
    “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Michael, for this splendid collation of teaching and positive ecclesiastical laws. I hope many reflect on the reverence and wisdom presented by the Church here.
      God Bless.

      Delete

Please comment using a pseudonym, not as 'anonymous'.
If you challenge the Magisterium, please do so respectfully.
We reserve the right to delete from comments any inflammatory remarks.
If we do not reply to your comment it is through lack of time rather than interest.