The Italian news site Petrus carries interview with Archbishop Ranjith recently conducted by Bruno Volpe. Gregor Kollmorgen at NLM has a translation of the interview
Here are two key points that the Archbishop makes regarding the manner of receiving Holy Communion, first regarding Holy Communion on the hand:
We need to recover the sense of the sacred. I speak only for myself, but I am convinced of the urgency of reviewing the practice of Communion given in the hand, returning to giving the particle to the faithful directly in the mouth, without them touching it, reinforcing thereby that in the Eucharist there is really Jesus and that everyone must receive Him with devotion, love and respect.and secondly regarding kneeling for Holy Communion.
Beyond the office I occupy in the Vatican, as a Catholic I ask myself and wonder: why be ashamed of God? Kneeling at Communion would be an act of humility and recognition of our nature as children of God.
20 comments:
Any reasonable suggestion that leads us to appreciate more fully the eucharist should be implemented
Yes!!
I LOVE Archbishop Ranjith! He's totally my hero!
Father, I wish the communion rails were back because it's SO difficult to kneel for communion when you have a bad leg like I do! But even without a bad leg it's dreadful trying to get back up with long skirts! I have to take communion in the hand because I can't get down and up again very easily at all. Kneeling at an altar rail totally solves all of the bad leg/long skirt problems. WHY (WhyWhyWhyWHY!!) did the altar rails get removed?? Didn't anyone ever think of the Disabled like me who have limitations that the altar rail addressed? **Sigh**
I totally agree with this.
To receive kneeling and on the tongue is the most obvious act of reverence to Christ in the Eucharistic species.
This is not to say Communion in the hand is in itself irreverent.
But there is an undeniable correlation between this practice and the massive decline in reverence for the Eucharist.
However, Communion in the hand has been habitual for so many years now, I wonder if the old practice can ever be revived widely.
I would like to think so, but I rather doubt it.
Priests have the opportunity to catechise from the puplit.
People have the opportunity to receive reverently in reparation for those who do not.
We all should have the opportunity to make reparation in the practice of Eucharistic adoration.
When I went through the dreaded RCIA two years ago we were told that to kneel for Comunion was a sign of disobedience. The parish priest refused people Communion until they stood up.
Well we all kneel at the Oratory & many receive on the tongue & all first communicants..
David - it is the priest in that case who is being disobedient (as well as dictatorial). Rome has made it quite clear that nobody should be refused Holy Communion simply because they kneel. In this sort of case, if the appeal to the priest's sense of reason does not work, the quickest solution is to post a video on YouTube of someone being refused communion. The blogs will do the rest.
This whole issue irritates me no end. I am not sure why "coffee" is not able to stick her tongue out when she is standing. She seems to be able to do so if she is kneeling. [ does she think she *has* to put her hands out if she is standing? And honey, on the long skirt issue, REAL simple: when you kneel, you make sure that your hem of the dress doesn't reach over the heels. If you want to wear a long skirt, go for it, but please, you should have figured this out by now, assuming you are over age 11.
Any priest could have told you that much as they had to figure out how to kneel in a cassock and not kill themselves getting up and tripping.
2nd I'd like to give the idiot priest who said you couldn't kneel a good swat across the head...I don't care how much purgatory time I get, it's idiots like him that RUIN it for people who, like me, overall prefer to receive in the hand.
#3 if A.Ranjith would like to heal my knees with a laying on of the hands, I'd be happy to kneel, but still prefer to receive in the hand, and if he's that clairvoyant he can give me some winning lottery numbers because I could use them.
Why he thinks "the people don't touch the Eucharist" when they receive on the tongue is a mystery to me, as it seems clearly the tongue is part of the body, and you touch the Eucharist. If it were leavened bread with crumbs, I'd agree, in that case the Eastern rite way makes sense. Western Rites who use leavened bread are insane, and also screw it up for everyone wanting to receive respectfully in the hand without crumbs flying all over.
If he thinks people don't respect the Eucharist because they CAN receive in the hand, I suggest he's forgotten a few things like:
#1 if people really think that somehow the Host magically becomes more holy because they receive on the tongue, there is something intellectually wrong with them. The Eucharist is the Eucharist is The Real Presence no matter what. There's something wrong with their instruction, and frankly, I'm tired of having to accommodate the dullest knife in the drawer, because they are intellectually dim.
#2 Perhaps A. Ranjith forgets that there was a lot more to do with the decline for the belief in the Real Presence than a NO Mass. How many people went out of social pressure or because they were superstitious?
Most people in the Catholic blogdom are pretty sharp and this last doesn't apply to them -- but I have met in my lifetime people who were allegedly brought up Catholic who say "well, I don't like the form of the Mass, so I'm not going..." BE that as it may, and they have some legitimate gripes all right...but how does that keep you from a validly said Mass?
Absolutely aesthetically pleasing Masses have a lot to recommend them...but these are the people who don't seem to "get" that in a Mass validly said the Real Presence is there whether in St. Peter's or under battlefield conditions. NO lack of "niceties" would keep me away from the Eucharist if the Mass is validly said. How strong can you faith in the Real Presence be if they won't go to Mass because it isn't aesthetically pleasing? [I'd go but bitch about it!]
Maybe if they took a look at what was going on in some seminaries, and root out the gay blades, we'd have a better army of men to follow. A clique of light in the loafers types can ruin any seminary---and they frankly ought to get rid of all that psychological testing because it's more than obvious more than a few good and decent men were kept from pursuing the priest because there were some feminazi nuns on the so called "formation" teams, and more than a few aging hippy priests in positions of power that would terrorize any young or middle or even older aged man with traditionalist leanings towards Eucharistic adoration, Benediction, rosary, etc. It's hard to build an army when it's led by men who aren't perceived as men. Too many times priests don't preach the fullness of the faith because of a lack of decent seminary training. The decent ones sometimes have to keep their mouths shut and do the best they can so they can answer the call and not get hounded out of a legitimate call to the priesthood. Even the decent ones can be scarred.
Karen
And Fr. Tim has an EXCELLENT idea of video. Just. Do. It. Then this crap will be knocked off.
Karen
While i can appreciate the drive toward increasing reverence, part of me can't help thinking that the founding act of the eucharist as recorded (and as reiterated during the mass itself) does not mention receiving the bread on the tongue, but that He broke the bread and gave it to his disciples. What seems to me to be of primary importance in the last supper is that He transforms a normal, fundamentally human act of sharing a meal into full participation in the divine. I fear that the whole communion-on-the-tongue thing can come across as a bit creepy, especially to those who maybe don't quite understand the importance and significance of the eucharist. I think catechism about what actually occurs during the mass is what will increase reverence, and in this event communion on the tongue as an outward sign of that reverence will occur spontaneously, without prompting. But to expect exhortations to a change in one's outward behaviour to transform one's understanding ... well, it is putting the cart before the horse.
This is merely my humble opinion, offered with all due respect.
A YouTube video?? Father!!! .... I like how you think hahahahaha!
Grim reader - I fear that you have been taken in by the idea that the Last Supper was a friendly family meal. It was a solemn ritual from beginning to end: every element was sacred and filled with meaning. Christ changed the ritual so that he did not say "this is the bread of affliction" but "this is my body". In fact, some have suggested that it is quite possible that he did in fact place the bread into the mouths of the disciples as a sacred act, rather than handing it round.
Karen - nobody said that the Eucharist becomes more holy when received on the tongue. Straw man. It's our reverence for the Eucharist that is the issue here.
But when I have finished giving Communion, there are often some visible particles on the communion plate. The older rite emphasised this by making the priest hold his fingers together after the consecration and purify the vessels carefully. The purification is sometimes done carefully in the NO but can be done in a rather nondescript way without transgressing the rubrics. I believe that if the purification were always visible and explained properly, it would seem more obviously safe and right to receive on the tongue. yes, we "touch" the sacred host but there is no danger of any of it not being consumed.
A beautiful idea, Archbishop! On a related point, if indeed it was never the intention of Vatican II to toss Latin entirely out the window, why hasn't a subsequent Pope simply asked the universal Church to, for example, recite the Lord's Prayer in Latin?
Father, i'm aware the last supper was an instance of the passover meal and thus had special meaning. As for 'family friendly', i always assumed it is celebrated in family households, though will admit i dont know that much about it. I will of course bow to your superior knowledge.
Any gaps in my own knowledge, however, only serve to reinforce my belief that efforts ought to be focussed on catechism, rather than a kind of peer pressure to kneel and receive communion on the tongue. What got me back to Church on a Sunday (complete with kneeling before joining the pew, and even taking communion on the tongue at times) was a change of heart upon hearing true church teaching thru you and your lot within the Faith Movement. Maybe I'm talking slightly at cross purposes, because I don't think you are wrong, but i think catechism will lead to the change you are after, whereas emphasising the externals too much may discourage folk.
I love Abp. Ranjith. Communion kneeling is a good idea and should receive on the tounge.
Karen: You have your rites confused: In the West, we use unleavened bread. In the East, they use leavened bread (and don't receieve on the hand)
Back to Abp. Ranjinth. I totally agree with him, and would defintely put it back into practice. Priests should catchize against it on the pulpit.
Fr. Tim, believe me I very much appreciate what you are saying regards the purification.
Frankly, I give myself higher marks on "persnicketiness" [most people would call this being correct!] regards particles from the Hosts.
Personally, I remember from childhood the bit about keeping thumb and forefinger together, so I have always done so when giving Communion and through until the ablution cup. If my "communion hand" (I give Communion left-handed) "at rest" it is "at rest" OVER the ciborium and the thumb and fore finger stays together.
The supply priest I assist (and I) shake our heads at the pastor who sometimes breaks one of those big Hosts in pieces. We both HATE that...because that's where 99% of th crumbs come from, although you can get fine particulate Matter, depending on the manufacturer. [With the ones we used the round altar breads are not prone to this.)
For what it's worth, I try and avoid using those broken Hosts AT ALL, and if I do find it necessary to use them because there are, say, too many of them on top, then I do give those to people who receive on the tongue. [FWIW, I'd say our parish breaks about 50-50 on tongue vs. mouth.) Later when we come back to the altar after Communion Fr. S. picks out the broken ones and eats them personally and he's very meticulous re: purification. About a month or two ago I'd noticed before Mass (when checking to see how many altar breads were needed) I noticed one of our big ciboriums was almost empty but there were a TON of crumbs on the bottom. I knew that what would be brought up by the people would go on top of those Particles when the contents were added to this big one...so I did draw it to Fr. S's attention that that particular vessel really needed a good purification and he thanked me for catching that. (It was the biggest one, which usually sits in the tabernacle when all the ciboriums are combined.)
Our pastor should be half as persnickity. He's a semi-hippy. It's very seldom he does the Mass I assist at, and, trust me, I am grateful.
Karen
On the issue of kneeling for communion, a few years ago there were proposals to remove the altar rails at a listed church in Preston. The proposals were controversial and the necessary permission for the physical removal of the rails was refused - they are still there, although no longer used.
I mention it here because at a public meeting to discuss the plans one woman who was in favour said that she always kneeled "in her heart" at communion, even though standing. What nonsense! When my heart says "kneel", my knees generally obey. When my heart is proud and disobedient, the act of kneeling reminds it of its proper place.
God bless Archbishop Ranjith!
Karen - that problem with the ciborium sitting in the tabernacle is common. It is always better to "circulate" the ciboria. If two are to be combined, it is best to put the older hosts on top of the newer ones. If one ciborium is left in the tabernacle, there is a danger that the hosts will begin to get stale - as well as the build up of crumbs that you noticed.
Grim reader - I think it is a question of both catechesis and external actions. The problem is, paradoxically, that people don't like change. But when they can be gently persuaded, it can have an impact on their spiritual life. Very glad the Faith movement was helpful and thank you for mentioning it.
You bet, Father, on the "stale" business. Somewhere along the line, our parish acquired a few small Communion ciboriums which have no covers. They are made of good materials (gold on the inside, heavy silver on the outside) but I can't stand them, because they don't have a longer stem to hold them, and I'm not that crazy about the design. It ticks me off when I check the tabernacle and find that for whatever reason the priest had a brain lapse by giving the EMs one of those to put back in the tabernacle. That or whomever set up the Mass only set out the "dumpy" ciboriums and too many altar breads, so the Excess Hosts "had to" go in one of them. Bad planning, I say. It's not like we don't have enough with covers to prevent the Hosts from getting stale. I can still remember one time after one of our school Masses when I was a girl, one of my friends saying to me: "Karen, did Jesus taste a little stale to you today?" And, yes, He did!
The last pastor we had was very meticulous re: trying not to leave more than one half ciborium of consecrated Hosts in the tabernacle. I hate it when there are 2 or three HALF filled ciboriums in the tabernacle. I always wonder if the priest at the last Mass was either:
a) lazy
b) really had to go to the washroom
The latter I can easily forgive, the former not so!
Good practice is like you say, to "rotate your Stock." ;-D
Post a Comment