Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. I am a daily witness at the Basilique du Sacr-Cur de Montmartre (Paris).. When permitted, the choice as to the form of reception falls upon the communicant and not upon the priest. The communicant should audibly respond, "Amen," indicating by that response his or her belief that this small wafer of bread, the wine in this chalice are in reality the body and blood of Christ the Lord. The debate was interrupted by lunch. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it into their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. What if our way of calling our fellow Christians to a higher way were based on loving example and not polemics? For some, however, the singing of this hymn is perceived as an intrusion on their own prayer, their private thanksgiving after Communion. Jamaica, 12 March 1970 Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. This action by Christ's body, the Church assembled for the Eucharist, is manifested and supported by the Communion Chant, a hymn in praise of Christ sung by the united voices of those who believe in him and share his life. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal takes this hymn very seriously, mandating that it should begin at the Communion of the priest and extend until the last person has received Communion. Most often when speaking of reverence, however, the Fathers emphasize two main things: 1) that every precaution should be taken lest the Eucharist fall to the ground and 2) that communicants should be from serious sin and quarrels with other Christians. This was the law of the Church for almost 14 centuries, and is still the general norm today. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Take a step or two to the side to make way for the next communicant, then receive our Lord. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Why did Christ institute the Holy Eucharist? The list obviously is not complete, for this article says that Germany and France both received permission from the Holy See on the same day in 1969: With your hand hollowed, receive the Body of Christ and answer 'Amen'. North Africa,October 15 1969 Never receive Holy Communion in the hand when your hands are impeded; e.g., carrying a cane or some other walking-assistance device, carrying a child in your arms, carrying a purse, have a tissue or handkerchief in your hand, have a cast on your hand, etc. The fire of mercy has become for us a living sacrifice That rhetorical flow and its further implicit objections (i.e., take care lest XYZ) *could* be a setup for a generous grant of indults, but given the overall negative tone I dont think it accidental or inconsequential that the prospect of permission is only mentioned in these cases where contrary practice already prevails. vehementer hortatur retention of current practice while invoking the common good of the Church. The very idea of people regularly receiving Communion (and even receiving Communion as part of the liturgy to the Eucharist itself) were relatively new ideas at the time of the Council. For example, Augustine writes, Someone might say that the Eucharist should not be received daily. What is the proper way of receiving Communion in the hand? When the bishops reassembled, Cardinal John Carberry of St. Louis, a determined opponent of Communion in the hand, was quick to get up to set things straight. Dear Patrick, 895. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Japan, 27 June 1970 Confess it and move on. The following norms must, therefore, be respected. A parish priest, or the rector of a sanctuary, might have objective reasons for not applying the permission if there is any danger of profanation or lack of respect. [19] This list is by no means exhaustive, and it would be tedious to cite all of these references as a catalog, but let us turn to a few of them to see what the Fathers have to say about the meaning of this practice. Im skeptical of the claim that collecting absentee ballots for bishops conference votes is unlawful. That the conference had voted twice but failed to approve the practice and then only won the third vote by gathering absentee votes which is the article claims was unlawful? First, Cyril: Coming up to receive, therefore, do not approach with your wrists extended or your fingers splayed, but making your left hand a throne for the right (for it is about to receive a King) and cupping your palm, so receive the Body of Christ; and answer: "Amen." [20] Here is what Theodore says: In an even more elevated tone, Ephrem the Syrian, in a stunning passage, invites the Christian communicant to feel awe at what is placed in his or her hand, since even the Seraph did not take the divine coal with his hand, nor did the prophet Isaiah eat it (see: Isa 6:6). Our worship ought to create common unity under Christ, not destroy it. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the InstructionMemoriale Dominiof 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. To continue the sacrifice of the Cross in His Church. When one receives from the chalice, the same proclamation is made by the person distributing Communion and the Communicant again responds, "Amen." After receiving Communion our bodies become holy chalices. It preserves us from mortal sin by exciting us to greater fervor and strengthening us against temptation. In North Africa (including Egypt) the practice is mentioned by Tertullian,[1] Cyprian,[2] Augustine,[3] Cyril of Alexandria,[4] and John Climacus. Bolivia, October 15 1969 When receiving in the hand, the communicant should be guided by the words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem . Fast forward to 2004, when The Congregation for Divine Worship in its new Instruction named Redemptionis Sacramentum, stated: "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 the sacred host is to be administered . The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue . Finally, ensuring the application of liturgical law is above all the responsibility of the bishop and only indirectly the religious superior. Does anyone have an explanation for why France, Germany, and the Low Countries were not quickly regularized once the opportunity was available? A perception such as this is a dreadfully inaccurate and impoverished understanding of what is a significant religious action. As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. The way we communicate the Gospel message is almost as important as the Gospel itself. On the one hand, I think this evidence precludes describing communion in the hand as intrinsically irreverent. Bishops who have been permitted to introduce the new rite of communion are asked to send a report to the congregation, six months hence, on the outcome. Communion on the tongue is recommended and considered the most consonant way to receive the Eucharist, while Communion on the hand is permitted, provided that certain precautions are observed, such as checking to see if any fragments of the Host remain on the palm of the hand. Later that year approval was given to Luxembourg, Scandinavia (Scandia), North Africa, Bolivia, Uruguay, and Monaco (see Notitiae v. 7 (1970), no. These considerations can perhaps help balance our perspective (whether in favor or against the practice of communion in the hand), and alert us to the fact that reverence is a complex phenomenon that, of course, does involve postures of the body, but most importantly, the attitude of the heart. cites vote tallies to defend a claim that a large majority (longe plurimos) of bishops not only oppose introducing Communion in the hand but consider it tum sensui tum spirituali cultui [] offensioni But to us our Lord has given both . All of us are only grasping a hint of it. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples. [16] Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, 4.24. Aaron, this describes what the countries are to do where Communion in the hand was being practiced. So Indian Bishop conference have not got any Indult for communion in hand? With your hand hollowed, receive the Body of Christ and answer Amen. Ruff, I think we both agree that internal reverence is the most important aspect of this discussion (and therefore the ways each manner serves that) and I know many reverent people who do both. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist. From a hygienic point of view, the hand carries a huge amount of bacteria. The following norms must therefore be respected. 21. Pope Benedict was asked why he chose to distribute Communion only to those kneeling and on the tongue and he responded, because it highlights "the truth of the real presence [of Christ] in the Eucharist, helps the devotion . It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful has the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. Because those vessels are made so for our sakes. Eccl., VII, ix). Christ himself at the Last Supper pleaded with his Father: "Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us" (John 17:11, 21).Baptism has joined us to Christ and to one another as the vine and its branches. South Africa, 1971 It is adoration of Christ, meal of fellowship, union with other communicants (hence the Church wants us to sing during reception), sharing in Christs self-sacrifice, mystical union with angels & saints, sharing even now in the heavenly banquet, having the life of the Risen Christ in oneself, a call to charity and works of justice and making real on earth the peace foreshadowed in Communion, etc. At Christ's invitation, extended by the priest acting in Christ's person: "Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb," the members of the community move forward to share in the sacred meal, to receive the Body and Blood of Christ which is the sign and the source of their unity. This is more a question of moral theology than of liturgy. 1. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.. Therefore I stand by what I wrote in the original: In this context I think it is fair to say that the present practice of Communion in the hand is not a simple restoration of a historical custom but rather introduced a new practice in new circumstances which, while it has some historical justification, is essentially motivated by current pastoral concerns in some parts of the world.. The oldest reference to the Eucharist in the New Testament occurs in chapters 11 and 12 of the First Letter to the Corinthians, which has no reference to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. [15] See the council of Auxerre, canon 36 (it directs women not to receive on their bare hands, but with their hand covered by a cloth). What is the proper way of receiving Communion in the hand? The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it into their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. If one is right handed the left hand should rest upon the right. (Original Latin text here, see pp. 91). Indonesia, 27 March 1971 These practices have wide evidence of use and in some ways never died out completely. The large numbers of faithful and the general hustle and bustle at the moment of communion make it quite easy for a host to fall to the ground. The practice of communion on the tongue with the use of patens in the West, and in both kinds on a spoon with a drop cloth in the East, moreover, are natural developments from the concern of the Early Church to prevent Eucharistic mishaps. In each of the Eucharistic Prayers, though the petition is worded in slightly different ways, God is asked to send his Holy Spirit to make us one body, one spirit in Christ; the General Instruction admonishes the faithful that "they are to form one body, whether in hearing the Word of God, or in taking part in the prayers and in the singing" (no. To be a pledge of everlasting life. Can you direct me to where you obtained this list? But whatever the case, it is the Pope who decides to authorize it for countries, and it is indisputable that he did so. It is clear that this mode of reception was considered reverent and was to be carried out in a reverent manner. Permission for administering Communion in the hand was granted by the Holy See to the United States on June 17, 1977 and has since become almost the universal norm in the Ordinary Form. I mean WHAT SPECIFIC REASONS were given for requesting it in the first place? 3. I quite deliberately eschewed entering the historical argument as it would have digressed from the main point of that article.
Who Makes Snaktastic Crisps For Lidl, Chris Hyams Net Worth, Anderson County Accident Reports, Articles OTHER