Posted on 11/04/2011 8:23:23 AM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
The manner of receiving holy Communion
This column continues the Denver Catholic Register’s New Roman Missal series.
Nov. 2 2011 - How we handle objects says a lot about how we regard them. When looking at fine jewelry, for example, we are mindful to handle the gems carefully. When observing fine works of art, we don’t even touch them at all. When we hold a baby or hug a loved one, we do so gently and with care. The things we handle carefully are usually the things we hold in high esteem.
When it comes to the holy Eucharist, the living sacramental presence of Jesus Christ, this should be true all the more. Because we believe that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist—body, blood, soul and divinity—we reserve the Eucharist in a secure tabernacle, constructed of the finest materials available. We situate the tabernacle in a place of honor in the Church, usually in the center of the sanctuary, and we genuflect before it.
To reverence our Lord’s sacramental presence, we use chalices and patens for the celebration of the Eucharist, not ordinary dishes. We call these “sacred vessels.” Made of precious metal, they are set aside for sacred use only. Priests and deacons wear beautiful vestments during the celebration of the Eucharist and most of us, out of respect for our Lord, put on our “Sunday best” when we head to Mass.
When we receive our Lord in holy Communion, we should receive him in the way we encounter a loved one: with reverence, care, gentleness and humility. For in the holy Eucharist, the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, “Christ, God and man, makes Himself wholly and entirely present” (1374).
Recently, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, prefect for the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, encouraged Catholics to consider receiving holy Communion on the tongue as a “sign of adoration that needs to be recovered.” When we do so, he said, we “know that we are before God himself and that he came to us and that we are undeserving.” To receive the Eucharist on our tongue, he said, is to signify our humility before the Lord and to recognize that it is God himself who feeds us.
For this reason, some Catholics choose to receive the Eucharist not in their hands, but directly on their tongues. Receiving the sacred host on our tongue ensures that we do not treat Christ’s presence as an ordinary piece of bread.
Reception of holy Communion on the tongue has been a tradition of the Church for more than 15 centuries. It began, largely, as an effort to affirm that the Eucharist was not a symbol or a ritual, but the living presence of Jesus Christ. In recent years I have observed that a growing number of young Catholics, particularly seminarians, choose now to receive holy Communion on the tongue.
To be sure, the Church permits Catholics to receive the Eucharist either on the tongue or in their hands, at the discretion of the one receiving holy Communion. Both modes of receiving holy Communion have their own value and their own beauty.
Some Catholics feel more comfortable receiving the Eucharist in their hands. For some, touching the Eucharist makes them feel more connected to Jesus Christ himself. It takes humility to accept the Lord, present and visible, in our own hands. Many of the Fathers of the early Church recognized that our hands could be a “throne” for receiving holy Communion—the Lord, the King of Kings. To make a throne for the Lord with our hands is to signify our total commitment to worship and to Christian service.
Catholics who receive in the hand should ensure, above all, that their hands are clean as they prepare to literally touch the presence of Christ. When they receive, St. John Damascene counseled that they should put their hands “in the form of a cross.” They should receive right away, not when they return to their seat. To pluck, grab or pull the Eucharist into their hands is a sign of great disrespect and could lead to accidentally dropping the sacred host. An even greater danger and sacrilege is the possibility of someone stealing a host for trivial or even evil purposes. Sadly, this actually happens.
As we prepare to receive the new English translation of the Roman Missal on the first Sunday of Advent, let us take this opportunity to reflect on the manner in which we receive our Lord in holy Communion. It is my hope and prayer that we not only use this historic moment in the liturgical life of the Church to celebrate a new English text of the Roman Missal, but that we also make this a time of true liturgical renewal in every aspect of our worship and communion with the Lord.
Some may choose to receive the Lord on the tongue while others choose to receive in the hand. All of us should receive with great reverence and respect. And to demonstrate reverence and respect, the Church asks us to offer a slight bow of the head immediately before receiving holy Communion. For to receive our Lord in holy Communion is, indeed, the most profound union we can have with God this side of eternity.
Bishop James D. Conley is apostolic administrator of the Denver Archdiocese. Father Daniel Cardo and Father Marcus Mallick, members of the archdiocese’s Implementation Committee for the New Roman Missal, contributed to this column.
Once I was at Mass, and there was a friar in sandals picking his toes during Mass. I was not getting in his communion line.
Exactly!
Parishioners need to fold their hands and pray. There is great grace in being humble like this.
>>Parishioners need to fold their hands and pray. There is great grace in being humble like this.<<
Amen! I wish more people would remember this.
No so. Perhaps it is according to Latin rite custom. It’s common in the Eastern rites of Middle Eastern origin such as the Melkite usage of the Byzantine rite, the Syriac rite, and the Coptic rite from my experience.
When I visit a Melkite (etc.) Church, I attempt to participate in the Divine Liturgy with them, according to their customs. I would hope that they return the favor.
You missed my point. But I always omit reciting the filioque when I attend Latin-rite Masses.
What was the point?
The point was that the Latin-rite perspective on the Orans position didn’t apply to all Catholic traditions.
IMO, this practice of lay folks adopting the "orans" position is not getting in to the Latin Rite from the East, but rather from the pentecostal movement. And I am referring specifically to Catholics, not folks from some other than Catholic religious tradition. In the Latin Rite it is a novelty, a violation of rubrics, and (IMO) not a good thing.
“IMO, this practice of lay folks adopting the “orans” position is not getting in to the Latin Rite from the East, but rather from the pentecostal movement. And I am referring specifically to Catholics, not folks from some other than Catholic religious tradition. In the Latin Rite it is a novelty, a violation of rubrics, and (IMO) not a good thing.”
Perhaps the solution would be to suppress the Charismatic movement.
On the tongue, preferably while kneeling at an altar rail.
God gave me a brain. I use it. Christ is complete in the host. He isn’t splintered. No need to take a risk of infection.
I'm sorry, but I don't follow you here. What do you mean "isn't splintered" and what would it have to do with the suggestion that the Sacrament can be a disease vector? I fear I am missing your point on this.
I’m not really sure “one” knew about germs in Christ’s time. Perhaps Christ washed his hands. The Priest does.
I think you have misunderstood what I mean. What they knew doesn't really matter. And washing his hands means little as I doubt they had Dial soap or chlorhexadine. We are talking about a man who touched the sick constantly in his ministry of healing. Could the same germs which were destroyed throughout a person's body by his mere touch, or even word, then continue to live on his actual person? If so, then his Body and Blood can in fact be a disease vector. However, if we accept this idea we naturally have to follow up with the obvious question. How many people died because they touched Jesus some time after he was with lepers and the sick? Given the desire people had to touch him it is possible that for every person he healed he infected ten by contact during the day. This would mean that our Lord might actually have killed thousands more people than he cured. Interesting concept, but I don't buy it. In my opinion the Sacrament is Christ, and Christ was not and cannot be a disease vector. He cured, and did not cause disease.
And, as to the priest washing his hands I fear you are overstating things. Pouring tepid water over your fingers is not really washing. This merely results in having wet germs. I would hate to ever be in a hospital which uses this form of hand washing before treating patients. Nosocomial infections would be through the roof.
>>What do you mean “isn’t splintered” <<
I mean that Christ is complete in the host. It’s that simple. You don’t have to go to that cup to receive Christ.
>>In my opinion the Sacrament is Christ, and Christ was not and cannot be a disease vector.<<
Christ is not in the lipstick of the woman in front of you. I’ll put more faith in the “wet germs” of the Priest than the swipe of a dry cloth on lipstick and backwash in a cup. Barney taught me never to share a cup and it’s a smart move.
You can believe what you like, but many diocese refrain from a cup during cold and flu season so they are not agreeing with your “Jesus doesn’t pass germs” theory.
>>Well, I’m a convert and no one EVER told me ‘orans’ or ‘orantes’ was ONLY for the Priest.<<
Just because no one told you, doesn’t mean that it is right. And all the research on “The Early Church”, favorite phrase of the libs who love the “Electric Church” (every time you walk in you get a shock - Mother Angelica), does not overcome that the GIRM does not direct the laity to use the “hands extended” position. Only the priest and deacon.
NO orans for the laity in the Holy Mass. You want to pray at home using it, cool. Not in the Mass. No laying prostrate, no bowing over and over and no orans. Don’t give in to the “Catholic Calisthenics” crowd and be waving, bowing and free throwing all through the mass. There are gestures that we are to use. Period.
Here, read this...
http://www.adoremus.org/1103OransPosture.html
And no, a “modified orans” is not acceptable either. That also is the more liberal Bishops trying to be more than they should be.
Rather than removing the "caucus" label and making this thread "open" I will remove your post. If you need to see the post to repost it without the first paragraph let me know by Freepmail.
I mean that Christ is complete in the host. It’s that simple. You don’t have to go to that cup to receive Christ.
Yes, of course, but what does that have to do with anything? My comments relate to the suggestion that Christ's Body and Blood can be disease vectors.
Christ is not in the lipstick of the woman in front of you.
I fear you have misunderstood the actual question. Your initial comment was that "receiving by intinction gives one that bit of alcohol that kills germs". This is what I take exception to, not questions about lipstick. What you have said here applies to the actual contents of the chalice, i.e. the Blood of Christ, and so it means that without alcohol diseases would actually live within the substance of the Sacrament. Think about the implications of that suggestion and what they mean about Christ himself and his real presence in the Sacrament.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.