"Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See"The Instruction admitted that this was an ancient practice but underlined the reverence that was always shown to the Eucharist. It also recognised that at one time, people had taken communion home for those who were sick. It then summarised the historical development that took place:
"Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant."Then comes the principal conclusion of the document:
"This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord."The point is made that this reverence shows that it is not bread and wine that is being shared but the body and blood of Christ, and underlines the effectiveness of the practice of communion on the tongue:
"Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which "in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually." Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended"Because "a small number" of episcopal conferences had asked for communion in the hand, Pope Paul VI thought that it would be good to consult all of the Bishops. A large majority were opposed to the introduction of communion in the hand; the document gives the figures and then says:
"From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.It would have been fine if the document had ended there. Unfortunately, the concession was granted that if communion in the hand had come to prevail in a particular country (illegally, as the document had already noted), the bishops should weigh matters carefully
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over" the Churches, in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.
The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church."
"taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow."If they then reached a two-thirds majority, they could apply to the Holy See which would "examine each case carefully etc" for permission.
Bishop Ranjith is not therefore contradicting anything of Memoriale Domini when he says that the outcome of allowing communion in the hand has led to "a certain loss of faith in the real presence" and reduced the "sense of profound adoration". Indeed it was the risk of this happening which led Pope Paul VI to determine that "the present discipline should not be changed".
10 comments:
Even Cardinal Hume in his latter months, apparently, questioned its wisdom too.
Does anybody have a reference to the date of the Holy See's rescript granting permission to the England & Wales hierarchy for communion in the hand?
I have also attempted to find out if there is any rescript or indult granted to E&W permitting Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to purify the vessels at Mass. It seems to be a subject nobody wants to talk about. As in so many other ways our hierarchy appear to be a law unto themselves.
The rescript was granted for communion in the hand in England and Wales on 6 March 1976. I remember it well - I was 17 at the time. There was a pamphlet produced saying how wonderful it all was. Me and my mates used to go round taking them out of Churches and binning them. I don't do that sort of thing now.
And no, there is no "indult" granting permission for the laity in England and Wales to purify the sacred vessels. Permission was denied in the USA. Where it happens in England, it is an abuse. If you see it happening, you can do the following:
1. Complain to the parish priest. If he does not correct it...
2. Complain to the local ordinary. If he does not correct it...
3. Complain to the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, enclosing copies of all correspondence. (You did all this in writing, of course, and kept copies.)
Fr. Tim,
I remember as a child the stepwise (and underhand?) process by which communion in the hand was introduced.
It was as if a decision had been taken -- by the bishops, presumably -- to make it compulsory. First, the instruction was given that everyone was to receive Communion standing up in line, and not kneeling. I can't remember any explanation being given (at least you had a pamphlet!) The parish priest instructed us not to fan out at the altar rails any more, just queue and receive from the two priests (I'm showing my age, aren't I) who stood at the entrance to the sanctuary. The altar boys (it's my age again) still held out patens, and everyone still received on the tongue.
After several months of this, there was a new announcement: please hold out your hands to receive. The altar boys with patens remained on station for a while for the die-hards who continued to receive on the tongue, but were gradually phased out.
Everyone just obeyed and I think the main reasons were:
(a) There had been so much liturgical upheaval with the introduction of the Novus Ordo that lay Catholics just took this in their stride as another part of the "renewal;"
(b) In the 1970s there was a much higher degree of respect for priests and "Father says..." still counted for a lot. So to a large extent, lay Catholics were led like lambs to the slaughter.
By the way, I did a double-take when I read your comment "Me and my mates used to go round taking them out of Churches and binning them," because for a split second I thought you were talking about the hosts, not the pamphlets! The fact that the thought of desecration crossed my mind is due entirely to the fact that I have seen so many sacrileges (hosts left on the floor, mothers giving them to toddlers...) that the unthinkable has become all-too thinkable -- and all thanks to Communion in the hand.
Why are ill thought-out/ doctrinally unsound changes like this are bulldozed through, whereas sensible corrective measures (e.g. Summorum Pontificum or the new ICEL translations) require years of patient diplomacy to implement?
Imagine an experiment; a person,(in casual dress), distributes 50p coins to a large queue of people.He/she dips into a dish and hands a coin to each recipient.I guarantee you will see no difference in the way the coin is received and the way the average communicant in a Catholic church receives.When, O When, will the traditional practice be restored?
Memoriale Domini is a very strange document.Pope Paul V1 utterly rejects the new proposal,even including the evidence that 2/3 of the world's bishops support him.And yet the last paragraph suddenly reverts all he wrote previously and allows the fatal loophole for progressivists to get their way.
Communion in the hand - BAN IT!
It is irreverant and reduces the Holy of Holys to a mere 'sweetie or biscuit'.
When our pastor realizes that someone who has received communion in the hand has travelled about ten feet without consuming it, he will rapidly follow him up the aisle, call for his attention, and tell him to consume it on the spot. It's a very stunning break with routine that reminds everyone what we're about. He then returns to his station and with obvious vigilance continues to distribute Communion.
A few years ago, I was given a blessing by an Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist instead of communion, as (I suppose) she was so unused to communicants receiving on the tongue. Next time I was in that situation (it was the parish I taught in, so it wasn't frequent), I received in my hands from the EMotE. I didn't like it. In my new parish, the altar-rails are used, as are patens. Huzzah!
La Mamma: Isn't that funny? In my experience, Extraordinary Ministers are so unused to giving on the tongue that they often look like deer caught in headlights when they see the communicant's hands folded. This is why I prefer to receive directly from the priest.
Here in Dijon, France, most people receive in the hands, and in most churches, the kneelers have been removed. Still, there are a good number who kneel on the stone floors during the consecration.
Communion in the Hand must be an aberration - as it is in contradiction to the Rubric imposed upon The Celebrant with regard to the handling of The Host [i.e. between cleansed forefinger and thumb]. The communicants hands are far from cleansed. Also, The Celebrant, where he exchanges The Kiss of Peace [handshake] renders the Lavabo broken and his hands now uncleansed.
Post a Comment