A friend sent me this photo last night. It was taken in a church somewhere in the UK - I'm not going to say more than that.
It really is wonderful to see signs like this appearing in our churches. Although it is also sad to note that more priests are having to make such requests, as many people continue to show a lack proper reverence towards the Eucharist.
Let's hope and pray that more of our clergy will soon find the courage and wisdom to display posters like this in their parishes. Maybe then the day will dawn when all our churches will begin to have their altar rails restored, too!
[Image: Thanks to my anonymous friend for sending in this photo. The parish priest's name / signature was deleted by me, so as not to intrude on him or his parish]
18 comments:
I find the picture of the notice you have displayed offensive, totally lacking in charity and sensitivity.
I recieve communion in the hand Dylan. Are you saying that I and so many like me, are showing a lack of proper reverence towards the Eucharist?
Ann
I find people carrying the precious Body of Our Lord out of our churches in order that He should be desecrated more than offensive - it is heinous. If all people received communion in the hand in a reverent way, signs like this would not be needed. The sad reality of the matter, though, is that many abuses occur when the Eucharist is received in the hand.
I can assure you, Ann, that many many liberal "spirit of Vatican II" priests are now accepting the fact that serious measures sometimes need to be taken in order to render proper and due reverence to Our Lord in Holy Communion.
If you ever found yourself invited to receive Communion from the Pope, I can assure you that you would a) have to kneel and b) receive the Host on your tongue. Do you think the Pope's instructions on receiving Holy Communion are offensive or lacking in charity? Let our love be for the Lord, and then we might learn to love others with due respect and truth.
By the way, here is what the Vatican has to say concerning the reception of Holy Communion from the Holy Father: -
"From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
"Saint Thomas Aquinas also refers to the practice of receiving Holy Communion only on the tongue. He affirms that touching the Body of the Lord is proper only to the ordained priest.
"From this perspective, the then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that: "Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration" [The Spirit of the Liturgy (Ignatius Press, 2000), p. 90]. For this reason, Cardinal Ratzinger maintained that “the practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species” [cited in the Letter "This Congregation" of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 1 July 1, 2002].
...
"In continuity with the teaching of his Predecessor, starting with the Solemnity of Corpus Christi in the year 2008, the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, began to distribute to the faithful the Body of the Lord, by placing it directly on the tongue of the faithful as they remain kneeling."
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20100526_communion_en.html
The Church also teaches that the universal and more reverential way of receiving Holy Communion is on the tongue, whilst kneeling. It is only by special permission that lay people are allowed to receive in the hand.
If, though, there might be the slightest chance that the Eucharist could be desecrated or abused in any way, it is always necessary for priests to give communion on the tongue only.
I will finish with these few quotes.
Blessed Theresa of Calcutta's words, when she was asked what the worst problem in the modern world was: "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."
Blessed John Paul II said: "There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it."
Pope Paul VI said: "Holy Communion received on the tongue "signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist ... provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence ... is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility.... It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."
So, it is not "me" saying this - far greater and more worthy people have said it before me.
We should, I believe, always strive to let our primary love be towards God, even above our own petty sensitivities and our all to childish belief that "if this thing offends me, it must be wrong." Our egos are not the be all and end all of truth and love. Christ the Lord is truly present in the Eucharist - the Host should therefore be approached with fear and trembling, not in the manner (as even the liberal Anglican priest R S Thomas said) of someone going to buy sweets in a shop.
Great post and very encouraging Dylan. We also need to strive to regain the loss of respect shown by those who no longer genuflect, cross themselves upon entering a church, and who dress inappropriately or chew gum at Mass.
Reception of the host by mouth is a large step in the right direction.
"The Church also teaches that the universal and more reverential way of receiving Holy Communion is on the tongue, whilst kneeling. It is only by special permission that lay people are allowed to receive in the hand."
If it is more reverential to kneel and receive on the tongue, why would the Church be so illogical as to allow a less reverential way of receiving communion? This would be saying it was ok not to be as reverential as possible.
The sign is questionable because it fails to explain the reasons for the "rule" and therefore shows a lack of charity and understanding to those who habitually receive communion in the hand in accordance with what the Church herself permits. You will notice that the Pope has explained why he distributes communion the way he does. The priest in charge of the parish should do the same.
The Pope has the power to remove the permission to receive in the hand if he choses to. The fact that he has not done so means all we can say is that he has a preference. You can't claim it as part of a reform unless and until he does so.
Receiving on the tongue is rather awkward from a standing position. Perhaps we could have our altar rails back!
@ Part-time Pilgrim
a) It is true to say that the Pope has the power to remove universal permission to receive communion in the hand (although, it seems that only bishops from western nations have asked for it). But the fact that he hasn't prohibited this practice does not mean that receiving communion in the tongue is not part of his reform of the liturgy. He himself has often said, as Cardinal and Pope, that the liturgy cannot be "imposed from above" (as was the liturgy of Pope Paul VI). In fact, one of the great marks of Pope Benedict XVI's reform of the liturgy is that is is a subtle one, one in which the Church is invited to follow the Holy Father's example. As the Vatican document I have quoted shows, the Pope's example is to give communion on the tongue only. I guess he is wise enough to know that in today's Church, if he insisted on stopping the practice of giving communion in the hand, lots of angry and disobedient people would cry "it's insensitive" or "uncharitable" as a means of hiding their own problems with Catholic tradition.
b) You say: "The sign is questionable because it fails to explain the reasons for the "rule" and therefore shows a lack of charity and understanding to those who habitually receive communion in the hand in accordance with what the Church herself permits. You will notice that the Pope has explained why he distributes communion the way he does. The priest in charge of the parish should do the same." But it is a sign, not a 5 page document! I am sure that the priest has given his parish proper instruction on how best to receive communion, in light of the Church's tradition and current rules. Also, since the 2 or 3rd century (possibly) until the 1970s (ie 1,800 years) all Catholics received on the tongue and knew why they did so. Surely, people in the West cannot have forgotten their Catholic heritage that quickly? Receiving on the hand en masse has only been a reality in the Church for the past 30 - 40 years. It is the novelty, not receiving on the tongue!
I really don't like the tendency in those who secretly seem to loathe our ancient Catholic traditions to call any attempt to re-establish our older ways of worshipping "uncharitable", etc. It really does seem quite "Soviet", the kind of way the PC brigade tries to stop others from expressing their private views on such matters as the true nature of homosexuality, etc. People really need to stop thinking that the truth depends on their own individual feelings - objective truth and love is bound to "offend" many. Tough. These hurt feelings should be used as an opportunity to change, not dig our heels in.
I was offended when someone first suggested that I am a sinner and felt it "insensitive" and "lacking in charity" that they had the cheek to say this to "me"! I was 14 years old. I thank God that at the time the wisdom was given to me to realise that this person might actually be speaking the truth, and, if so, he was far from being uncharitable and insensitive - he was actually helping to save my soul and change my life for the better. He was showing real love, which is always wedded to the truth - and which can therefore be uncomfortable for those who assume the world revolves around them.
Reluctant Sinner,Thanks very much for the quotes above. They are pretty powerful. I wonder if you- or indeed anyone reading- can give references for them.
@ Patricius
Many thanks. I also agree that it's time to bring back the altar rails... In fact, it seems that lots of churches and parishes are already doing this.
If you mean the quotes from Blessed Theresa of Calcutta, etc, then I found them here: http://www.tldm.org/news6/holy-ones.htm I think some of the website's content is odd, but the qoutes have links and explanations.
Redemptionis Sacramentum and Cardinal Ratzinger's Spirit of the Liturgy are well worth reading, too.
Priest's Housekeeper:
Why do you receive the Blessed sacrament in the hand?
...and in regard to your question: YES!!!
Reluctant Sinner
There is plenty of room on the sign for an explanation - he does not need 5 pages - just a few sentences to explain why he (or his parish if he discussed it with them first) has decided that Holy Communion should be received this way. Older people like me who were trained to receive Holy Communion on the tongue will recognise this is a return to the older practice. Yes, receiving in the hand is new, but for many people under 30 people who have converted to Catholicism in the last few decades, it is the normal practice. These people are entitled to an explanation of why that is not the way things are done in that parish. The sign must be aimed at visitors as parishioners will know the rules so the priest in charge of the parish has erred in not explaining his decision. Surely even you must agree he has missed an opportunity for catechesis about reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.
You say: ‘I really don't like the tendency in those who secretly seem to loathe our ancient Catholic traditions to call any attempt to re-establish our older ways of worshipping "uncharitable", etc.’ and yes, this is an argument that some people use, but I am not offended by the idea of not being allowed to receive Communion in the hand. The Church has both the right and the responsibility to lay down how the faithful should worship and she has a duty to ensure that reverence for the Blessed Sacrament is promoted and understanding of the Real Presence is preserved. If she decides that the best way of doing this is to remove the permission to receive in the hand then I will gladly and obediently change the way I receive communion. I would even be happy to do this at the request of the priest in charge of my parish (although the question about whether he had overstepped his authority in doing so would lurk in the back of my mind.) However I do find the notice uncharitable and defective in the pastoral care that a priest should provide to the faithful.
In fact the arguments in your last two paragraphs seem to me to suffer from a similar defect to the one they are challenging in that they seem to assume that any defence of recent innovations must be both disloyal to the Church and based on subjective reactions to the matter being discussed. (Of course, in reality, arguments may be both of these things or neither). In dismissing my comments on these grounds when I have not spoken about my emotions and given that the practice of receiving Communion in the hand is permitted by the Church are you not being a little “Soviet” yourself?
As regards http://www.tldm.org/news6/holy-ones.htm “a little odd” is putting it mildly. They promote the “private messages of Veronica Lueken” which have been discredited. I presume the papal quotes are correct as they are properly referenced, but Blessed Mother Teresa’s quote is unreliable (although it is clear she favoured Communion on the tongue). Here is what the Sisters of Charity say about it.
http://www.motherteresa.org/08_info/ReceivingC.html
Two words: Bravissimo, Grazie!
Reluctant Sinner, Thanks for the references. The website quoted IS odd! I note Pt. Pilgrim's latest observations with interest too. The notice is abrupt but my main concern is with the issue of hand versus tongue.
I vaguely remember the introduction of communion in the hand in England but it was not something I embraced in any hurry -which partly accounts for my difficulty of recall. There WAS choice and I do recall hearing clear instruction about the manner to be adopted when receiving on the hand. I would add, too, that the priest from whom I heard it was pretty solid- no raging modernist or liberal he! In the instruction he quoted a description by one of the early fathers. It may have been St John Chrysostom or St Cyril of Jerusalem. (It would be helpful if anyone could help with a reference here.)
Now it is clear from Redemptionis Sacramentum that where it is permitted -it is permitted and it IS possible to receive reverently and carefully in the hand. Nevertheless, and here I think I understand what Blessed Teresa of Calcutta meant- one cannot avoid seeing many instances of people receiving in an off-hand casual manner. On one occasion, in the Cathedral at Liverpool, I saw a priest, ciborium in hand, chase almost half way down the aisle after a man who had walked off with the sacred host still in his hand- in order to get him to consume the host. On another occasion I saw a priest having to insist on a communicant opening his mouth when said individual had proffered a pair of gloved hands. In both instances the disturbance was such as to cause a distraction.Now, as we all know, it is quite possible for someone receiving on the tongue do so unworthily, however, the traditional method at least reduces the likelihood of scandal being added to sacrilege.
I recall reading somewhere that Communion in the hand began as an abuse which was only subsequently endorsed by Rome- again, I should be grateful for any solid (i.e. referenced) information on the history.
I agree with the sign, however, I would be satisfied with a smaller start. I'd like to see a sign outside the church door which says: "Silence! This is the House of the Lord."
Anonymous makes a very good point.
@ Dafydd John
Thank you for pointing out that I had mistakenly published an anonymous comment - I have now removed it; not because of its content, but because no anonymous comments are allowed on this blog.
Fair enough, 'rules is rules' as they say. However, the point he made deserves an answer.
@ Dafydd John
I can't remember what the point s/he made was, bar that he said there was a danger that some priests might place signs up requiring Communion only "in the hand whilst standing". But, the universal laws of the Church (Roman Rite) are that no Catholic can be compelled to receive the Eucharist standing and in the hand - for it is the norm to receive kneeling and on the tongue - see Redemptionis Sacramentum: -
"92. 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."
Only certain Dioceses and national conferences have the permission necessary to allow the faithful to receive in the hand, though it is always better to receive on the tongue (even were permission has been granted to receive in the hand, in the Roman Rite). A priest has every right to enforce the universal rules of the Church, even in those parts of the world where Communion is allowed to be received in the hand, if there is "any risk of profanation" (which could mean all sorts of things, from deliberate sacrilege, irreverence, or dropping the host onto the floor).
So in answer to anonymous, each minister of the Eucharist (i.e. priest) has a right to stop the practice of giving Communion in the hand. No priest (or bishop), though, has the right to put a stop to giving Communion on the tongue - it is an universal right given to all Catholics in a state of grace and able to receive Holy Communion.
Post a Comment