In spite of this, I have seen pockets of resistance on both sides: places where only Communion in the hand or only Communion on the tongue is permitted.
Cultural variations in the reception of Communion are influenced by many factors, particularly how the relationship between clergy and laity is understood. But here in the United States, Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue has become a dividing line for very different articulations of what it means not only to receive Communion, but also what it means to be part of the Church. Advocates of Communion in the hand would point to its consistency with ancient Christian practice.
For example, St. But in addition to recalling ancient practices, Communion in the hand evokes conceptions of the Church prevalent in the years following the Second Vatican Council: the laity as active participants in the life of the Church, inextricably part of the body of Christ in their own right. Advocates of Communion on the tongue point to the reverence with which the Body of Christ should be received.
The practice of Communion on the tongue developed alongside increasing focus on the sanctity of consecrated Host and unworthiness of the recipient. Instead, she adored him and contemplated him silently, she remained at length on her knees and prostrated herself before Jesus in the Eucharist. Moreover, she received Holy Communion in her mouth, like a little child who has humbly allowed herself to be fed by her God. In number 11 he reflects on the subject of touching the Blessed Sacrament in the context of priestly spirituality, lay Eucharistic ministers and Communion in the hand.
However, there is also photographic evidence that shows Mother Theresa received Communion in the hand. The photograph can be found in the beautifully illustrated portrait of Mother Theresa by photojournalist Linda Schaefer. Hopefully these points can lead to a more mature reflection on the practice of receiving Communion in the hand and an acceptance that different manners of being Catholic and different liturgical spiritualities can and must coexist within the Church.
It is obvious that any danger of disrespect towards the Blessed Sacrament must be avoided. However, the current practice of most who receive Communion in the hand ought not to be portrayed as Satanic but as being in continuity with the beautiful description of St. He currently ministers in the Archdiocese of Armagh, Ireland, where he serves as vice rector at Redemptoris Mater Seminary. He holds a Doctorate in Theology from St. Francis A. Brunner, trans.
New York: Benziger, , Matthew J. Collegeville, MI: Liturgical Press, , Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catechesis 5. Johnson, trans. It is allowed, but not an order, … as M. Thank you for your work and for this clarification. The truth will set us free! The love and humility of Jesus still scandalizes many people.
Repent and believe in the Gospel! Is this really not evident to all? But in the West, for a millennium, laymen knelt and received on the tongue. Yes, all that. Father, would you say that folks like Peter, people who did not have the experience of the pre-council church, have a romanticized view of the church. I am always amazed that Peter will make a comment and challenge things, which of course is fine as we always need to be challenged for our own good, but when he is challenged will never respond, especially to you.
Thank you for Pray Tell and all the work you and os many other do. Now, at a year remove, I can see that whatever posture becomes default can more readily become rote.
This was true when we lined up and moved forward to kneel at the rail while the priests and servers quickly administered Holy Communion like rows on a corn cob, as it is today in places where the speed is clearly the summum bonum of administering Holy Communion in processional line. Intentionally gathered communities that have chosen a particular liturgical praxis seem to have some greater insulation against default roteness, but with the cost of increased risk of strife over differences in details.
Personal disclosure: While I normally receive the Most Blessed Sacrament in the hand while standing, there are occasions when I receive on the tongue; my ability to kneel without certain secure supports is greatly impaired by injuries and resulting scar tissue years ago — what I say is that those of you in physical shape to kneel easily should never take it for granted but savor the ability while you may.
Peter, yes I agree with you. Liturgical renewal is not simply an archaeological recreation. It has to be more than that. Some radical changes in liturgical practice including Communion in the hand were introduced after Vatican II.
But these were done in order to allow people to better live their faith. The details of this can and indeed should be argued in a million ways and details. Christianity is facing many serious challenges today and there must be serious debate in the Church about liturgical practice. But now we are in an analogous situation, I am 46 years old and since my First Communion have been receiving Communion in the hand. I believe that we can we talk about the merits of one form of reception of the Eucharist over another which is why I am hoping that the book Cardinal Sarah is a serious contribution to the debate.
Correction to my last post. The book I am hoping will be a serious contribution to the debate is the actual book for which Cardinal Sarah wrote his now famous preface: Federico Bortoli, La distribuzione della Comunione sulla mano: Profili storici, giuridici e pastorali Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, ISBN: pp Dear Peter I just wanted to menton what would you do if Jesus actually appeared in front of you would you stand or kneel before him.
I would kneel. God bless you. I believe in the Real Presence. The Church is clear that this is a sacramental presence. That is problematic. I believe in reverence, and I try to be reverent when I receive on the hand. It is his real presence, it is nourishment, it is union with him, it is union with all who receive, with the entire church, with the angels and saints, and a sign of the final banquet when are all united to God in Christ.
This is a side point, but it is interesting how strongly the Church urges congregational singing during communion in the GIRM. This is not despite the Real Presence but because of it. The Eucharist is a mystery beyond all our comprehension. Much like how an evaluation or critique of the design of a new church is ordinarily almost entirely about the visual aesthetics and how well they harmonize with our faith — while neglecting the equally important aural and experiential aesthetics, because those other dimensions are not as easy to discuss.
Not even close. As traditionalists often feel this way about rhetoric point about them or their practices. And my point here being not one of equivalence or mere empathy — but of an opportunity for solidarity a grittier thing than mere empathy in my book as fellow disciples and members of the same Most Sacred Body.
In response to Emily Bodwick, I agree with you and I would kneel as well. I think our body would do it naturally, without thought or planning. I was taught He is as fully present in the Eucharist as He will be to us in Heaven.
I long to kneel and receive Him on the tongue as in my youth, but I am obedient to the Bishops as I know Jesus asks for our obedience. I also know that the Eucharist was first received in the hand in the earliest days of the Church, I am not sure when that first changed, but obviously it must be a small t tradition or it would never have changed in the first place. To increase the distance between communicants, side-by-side lines have given way to one-way single lines and tape along the aisle marks the required six-feet distance.
As expected, the chalice has been withdrawn from the laity. The celebrant, however, MUST commune under both species. But what has been retained in many parishes is the option of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue. We can safely assume that they took it with their hands. Many early descriptions of the Eucharist outside the Bible describe receiving Communion in the hand:.
No, I suppose, not. But you would rather choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and thus dare to touch it?
And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely. And although the men are not one who take in hand the sacrament of God worthily or unworthily, yet that which is taken in hand, whether worthily or unworthily, is the same; so that it does not become better or worse in itself, but only turns to the life or death of those who handle it in either case.
Even though the early Church received Communion in the hand, beginning in the early Middle Ages, receiving the Eucharist on the tongue grew in popularity in the Latin Rite. In his Dialogues, St. Gregory the Great, Dialogues, Book 3, Ch. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant. But after all this, Memoriale Domini then added a surprising disclaimer, leaving an avenue open to those bishops currently in disobedience over this issue.
And these countries requested exactly that — and the indults were given — I am sure much to the sadness of St. Paul VI. A flood of requests then followed from countries, including Canada, where Communion on the hand did not prevail. But ask they did. Many insist that they feel equal reverence when receiving in the hand, and that the key is the attitude of the heart. There is truth in this too. With bodily signs we show interior beliefs. John Paul II, he gave Communion to the faithful on the tongue while they knelt.
Many faithful Catholics are unaware of all of this background, as I was. Justin Martyr, AD Pope Francis prepares for Canadian journey of reconciliation. Lewis, Tolkien, and Chesterton in a personally significant faith journey. Catholic video series picks up where religious education left off. You Might Also Like. Father Deacon Andrew Bennett in his Oct.
0コメント