![o{]:)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
Summorum Pontificum does not create an ecclesiastical Jurassic Park
Under another entry, there is some debate about the reception of Communion in the hand during Holy Mass celebrated in the extraordinary form.
Some contend that Communion may not be given in the hand, because it could not be given in the hand back in 1962.
I think that is incorrect. I think that if a person participating at Mass with the Missal of Bl. John XXIII stick’s his hands out, in the right fashion, in a place where the conference of bishop’s has given permisson for Communion in the hand, and if there is no serious risk of profanation (but isn’t there nearly always?) of the Sacred Host or a particle thereof, then a priest errs in purposely not giving that person Communion in the hand.
Please understand, I am not in favor of Communion in the hand at all! I wish it was not permitted and that people didn’t choose to receive that way. Still, the law is the law. Dura lex sed lex.
Still, there is discussion of this issue, and I respect it. In a comment under that other entry a knowledgable priest chimed in saying:
Reverend and dear blogmaster: Am I mistaken in thinking that the 1962 Missale does not exist in isolation, but in organic continuity, and that it must be celebrated integrally according to all the rubrics that in fact were binding during the pontificate of Blessed John XXIII ? Otherwise, to be consistant should we not distribute Holy Communion saying “Corpus Christi.”, without any sign of the cross, and not “Corpus Domini nostri, etc.”
Seriously, Father, not just because it would be upsetting, but because it is right and just, I respectfully submit that we should not give “communion in the hand” at a Mass in the vetus ordo.
Comment by Fr. Paul McDonald
The same Fr. McDonald also writes in another comment:
Reminder:
Comment by Fr. Paul McDonald
“Communion in the hand” is contrary to the universal, present law of the Church and may only be given if about seventeen conditions are simultaneously fulfilled. Which conditions have increased over the years. It is not allowed at a “Tridentine” mass as a number of bishop’s statements have reiterated.
Now, that being said, “charity in all things.”
I respectfully respond that the Motu Proprio derestricts the use of the older form of Mass according to the Missale Romanum of 1962. Summorum Pontificum does not, however, revive all the decrees in force in 1962. The Missale Romanum did not describe how certain things were to be done. Distribution of Communion was not described in the Missal. Separate decrees covered Communion.
Also, I respectfully remind Father that when those conditions are fulfilled, the Church’s law does in fact (alas) permit Communion in the hand.
Here is my solution.
First, we take the former way of doing things as guidelines rooted in a firm tradition and practice. It is sensible and right that Communion should be received on the tongue, while kneeling when possible, and not in the hand during the older form of Mass (newer too! IMHO, but especially the older).
Second, it strikes me as reasonable to put a note in the bulletin or handout describing why Communion in the on the tongue is preferable. We need education, not on the spot surprises or confrontations.
Thus, if people come and put their hands out (in the proper fashion, etc.) then give that person Communion without making a scene about it.
Summorum Pontificum does not create an ecclesiastical Jurassic Park. Pope Benedict did not stick a needle into a 1962 traditionalist mosquito trapped in liturgical amber and then rebuild a fenced in world from another epoch. He did not revive all the decrees or canon laws in force in 1962! So, make prudent use and reference to how things were done, and even adopt the old practices properly and fruitfully. But recognize the rights people have according to present law and practice.
The eyes of many people, some very hostile to the older form of Mass, will be open, indeed peeled, scrutinizing how things are going. If there are problems we can avoid, avoid them. Do we really need some person looking to pick a fight in the first place writing nasty letters to the bishop about the priest and the older Mass because she was refused Communion in the hand? After all, it is (alas) allowed.
Dear Father,
Should the line:
“Second, it strikes me as reasonable to put a note in the bulletin or handout describing why Communion in the hand is preferable. We need education, not on the spot surprises or confrontations.”
Instead read:
“Communion on the tongue is preferable.”?
Or did I miss something?
Pater, OSB
Comment by Pater, OSB — 21 September 2007 @ 6:51 amFather Z,
A great analogy!
Forgive my ignorance here, but should we anticipate the release of a revised GIRM to clarify or make explicit some of these points?
God bless,
Gordo
PS: BTW, it appears that Holy Apostles in Cromwell, CT does not celebrate the Extraordinary Form every Saturday as previously reported. I drove over to the chapel last Saturday and there was no Mass. I even brought my camera to take a few pictures – with their permission – and send them to you, Abouna. I plan to contact the seminary today to find out when it is being offered. As an Eastern Catholic, I want to support this wonderful development for my Latin brothers and sisters by attending periodically and worshipping with them. After all, it’s not just the Latins that need to learn to breathe with both lungs!
Comment by Gordo the Byzantine — 21 September 2007 @ 6:51 am“Do we really need some person looking to pick a fight in the first place writing nasty letters to the bishop about the priest and the older Mass because she was refused Communion in the hand?”
And, sad to say, it’s going to be a “she”, isn’t it?
Comment by Michael R. — 21 September 2007 @ 6:52 amI hate to admit my ignorance, but what are the “conditions” for communion in the hand? I vaguely thought only permission of the bishop was necessary. For the record, I have never received in the hand, though I’m one of only about a half dozen in my parish (that I’ve seen) who receive on the tongue. (A couple of them look to be only in their 20s.)
Comment by Mary — 21 September 2007 @ 7:01 amAs a priest, my solution to this would be to give communion in the hand to anyone who requests it at the altar rail. However, I would also mention from the pulpit or the bulletin that it is a laudable and long-standing custom and tradition to receive communion in the Extraordinary Form on the tongue. Will that ensure that everyone receives on the tongue? No, but it will mean that most will, particularly after observing the discontinuity between reception of communion in the hand and the priest’s reverence with regard to touching the host (fingers closed after the consecration). Furthermore, it will respect both people’s right to receive in the hand, as well as the tradition of the Church. Just my thoughts…
Comment by Fr. E — 21 September 2007 @ 7:29 amI too would like to know what those conditions are for receiving Communion in hand. As a convert I was taught only the ‘in hand’ version and never told there were conditions. Almost a year ago I changed over to receiving on the tongue, and wish I’d done so sooner. But I agree with Fr. Z that people need to be coaxed along in these changes rather than forced. Perhaps just knowing that there isn’t a ‘blanket’, condition-less permission for communion in hand, will sway a number of people into changing how they receive, regardless of which form of Mass they are at.
Comment by Janet — 21 September 2007 @ 7:30 amThank you, Father, for this judicious and wise analysis. It does stimulate some questions.
Personally, as much as my poor priestly soul loves not having to give Communion in the hand at a vetus ordo Mass, I would never refuse it if that would hurt one of Christ’s little lambs.
Comment by Fr. Paul McDonald — 21 September 2007 @ 7:34 amDoes the vetus Rituale Romanum, in the section on Communion outside of Mass say how to give Communion?
Comment by Fr. Paul McDonald — 21 September 2007 @ 7:40 amI want to express my agreement with Fr. Z. on the question of Communion in the hand at old rite Masses. If after an announcement as to mode of Communion, an individual presents him or herself at the rail with the hand extended, the best pastoral choice is to administer the Sacrament using the new form and in the hand. The alternative is to treat Communicants the way his exellency of Orange has treated those who kneel. This kind of act creates “admiratio.”
When I have distributed Communion at Dominican Rite Masses in Portland and San Francisco, someone almost always appears who presents him or herself in the new manner. Contrary to what one might expect these people have generally not been trying to make a political statement. They are usually elderly, cannot kneel, and often seem to be partly deaf. The pastoral way to deal with this is not to “correct” the individual in public at the rail. Catechesis should be done after Mass for those who have had a problem understanding.
I do think that as the Extraordinary use becomes come common and in some places even a regularly scheduled Sunday event, there will be more people showing up for the Masses who don’t understand the old form (or have been brain-washed—sorry to use the term but it fits—against it in CCD or RCIA programs). We need to treat those people better than kneelers have been treated in too many places.
Comment by Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P. — 21 September 2007 @ 7:41 amFr Z:
First of all, my most sincere thanks for your rationality, kindness and hard work at this crucial moment.
You made a very good point about the ignorance of most modern Catholics about the Mass and the need to treat these people courteously and patiently. I think this is crucial, because many of them are genuinely confused and afraid and are hostile based on their fear. Certainly, those who come to a Tridentine Rite mass should be treated with special consideration, and we should avoid scandalizing them by insisting on what may be “correct” but is not required and is something totally unfamiliar to them.
I also think we have to give some consideration to the way in which we are going to welcome people to this Mass, introduce it to them in a positive, non-conflict driven manner, and gradually instruct them in its general standards of behavior, which, of course, are all based on its spiritual orientation. I really think people will come to love it once they come to understand it, and we have to be careful not to drive them away before they get to that point.
Comment by EDG — 21 September 2007 @ 7:46 amAs someone who was raised with communion in the hand and then switched to communion on the tongue, I am familiar with the trepidation that can come with the switch. Having never received that way before, you worry about opening your mouth the right way,etc., etc…. Those of you who have consistently received on the tongue may not be aware of this anxiety. A word of encouragement from the pulpit may help tremendously in encouraging a switch over.
Comment by Lourdes — 21 September 2007 @ 7:56 amEWTN has a document from the Congregation of Divine Worship which addresses communion in the hand http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWREPON.HTM I hope that this helps :)
Comment by Fr. Leo — 21 September 2007 @ 7:57 amThe norms concerning Communion on the hand don’t really seem to mesh well with the forma extraordinaria anyway since the communicant does not say “amen” after the words of the priest. I once forgot to say “amen” when I went to a forma ordinaria Mass and the priest was prepared to refuse me Communion.
It does make sense to me that the various indults applicable to the forma ordinaria would by default apply to the forma extraordinaria. There should at least be an authoritative discussion of their applicability in light of the spirit and letter of the forma extraordinaria as well as various pastoral considerations. If the mainstream celebration of the forma extraordinaria involved altar girls, Communion on the hand (self-communication really), Haugen-Haas ditties, EM’s etc., I doubt that those groups who have been estranged from the Church over the issue of right worship (among other things) would be reconciled to the Church.
I realize it is more complicated than this and that the analogy is inaccurate on many levels, but I see it as somewhat analogous to Latinizations in the Eastern rites. Why not insist upon a fully traditional celebration of the extraordinary form? What is there to be ashamed of? Is it because the laudable practice of receiving Communion from the priest on the tongue may make some people “uncomfortable” or perhaps even cause some people to refrain from partaking of the meal? It the Mass incomplete if everyone does not drink from the blessing cup and join in the supper of the table of the Lord?
I am sure I am not the only one who fails to receive Holy Communion at times because I am uncomfortable receiving from an EM, standing up, etc.
In spite of the many historical arguments that people make to justify Communion on the hand, and even to assert that it is “more traditional”, it is quite simply a profanation of the sacred in the modern context as well as being an expression of Protestant ideas.
I am not saying this because I have read a little too much Michael Davies; I am saying this because I have been reading literature from the 1970’s which admits this agenda.
I am talking about articles from people who served as periti at the Council and/or on the Consilium. This research has done far more to convince me of the errors of the post-conciliar reforms than any traditionalist literature.
In the opinion of many influential scholars of that time the distinction between the sacred and profane is obsolete and a truly Christian worship service will be rooted in the profane (put another way the liturgical reform will be a program of profaning the sacred). The supper motif is what defines the communal celebration of the Mass. There is no such thing as “sacred” music, we should speak only of “church” music, and this could include jazz, folk tunes, anti-war ballads, etc., so long as it expresses the worldly spirit of the gathered assembly. It actually gets much worse than this. People may think I am making this up but all of these ideas and more are explicitly laid out in the “scholarly” literature of the 1960’s and 1970’s. As a start I would recommend volumes 51, 61, 71 and 91 of the series “The New Concilium: Religion the Seventies”. The first edition of “La riforma liturgica†of Annibale Bugnini is also pretty informative although only the tip of the iceberg. The later editions which were toned down a bit and the sometimes inaccurate English translations are good enough if that is all one has access to.
I am putting together a thematically arranged anthology of writings on the Liturgy from scholars who participated in a notable way in the implementation of the Council for personal use in future studies. My hope is to use this anthology as a point of reference in studying the liturgical documents of the key years of the reform as well as the materials in Notitiae from that time period. If anyone would be interested in helping me please feel free to speak up. There are many details that are extremely ambiguous to me right now. One area that I have been unable to probe at all is the precise role played by Cardinal Karol Wojtyla in the Congregation of Rites in the earl