Cardinal says: Communion - On the tongue and while kneeling

  • Thread starter Thread starter prettiefly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oneofthewomen said:
From the GIRM, my emphasis added.
  1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.
The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

***When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. ***When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.
Click to expand...
The part about the catechesis to the communicant has been completely stricken out from the permanent GIRM, which is already available at the USCCB.
 
TrueLight said:
You mean like this?

Come on people. Christ in the Flesh.

:tsktsk:
Click to expand...
No, of course not. Those people are bobbing their heads not showing a bow of respect. I don’t make the rules. As someone previously quoted from the General Instruction of the Roman Missals :
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant* bows his or her head** before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood. *

This quote does not describe a profound bow.
 
Oh, this makes me so happy. I just loved the communion rail. It felt so profound to kneel before the altar to receive communion. None of the parishes in my area have communion rails any longer. Maybe, with the coming changes, we’ll get at least one church with a communion rail again.
 
benedictgal said:
Actually, intinction is a viable option, but, it can only be administered by the priest/deacon.

To receive on the tongue while kneeling is the universal norm.
Click to expand...
This was the mode in the monastery where I was received into the Church. I believe that if it became the more standard practice (it is a variation on what is done in most of the sui juris Churches, if I remember correctly), lots of problems would be solved. In our church, two priests front and center could commune everybody in slightly more time than it takes now (ours is a large church where the pews are in a half-circle facing the Altar). And the other poster who mentioned the first row is also correct: That would be an ideal place to administer, as it has a built-in rail before which the priests could pass. No changes necessary, really, architecturally.

We should be careful to note that this position is not inherently or ontollogically more reverent. The Church in ages past has administered communion in the hand AND the sui juris Churches (Churches of different rites that are in union with Rome under the Holy Father) have never knelt for Communion. But if outwards signs are helpful to developing inward dispositions, then this would be a good thing. We should remember, however, that it is always the inward disposition that matters.
 
zab said:
No, of course not. Those people are bobbing their heads not showing a bow of respect. I don’t make the rules. As someone previously quoted from the General Instruction of the Roman Missals :
When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant* bows his or her head*** before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

This quote does not describe a profound bow.
Click to expand...
😃
 
Leave it to Fr. Z to have this much posted on the revised 160:
The norm established for the Dioceses of the United States of America is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling (Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction, Redemptionis Sacramentum, March 25, 2004, no. 91).
Click to expand...
Thus, there is no longer that provision to catechize the faithful.
 
Cardinal Ranjith has taken it a step further in Sri Lanka
(kreuz.net, Vatikan) At the end of June Malcom Cardinal Ranjith of Colombo in Sri Lanka condemns the celebration of the Mass on the supper table facing the pews.
Click to expand...
The Cardinal spoke in the framework of a conference, which took place in Rome from 20th to the 24th of June in Rome, organized by the “Missionaries of the Most Holy Eucharist”.
Click to expand...
The Priest as a Boring Entertainer
Click to expand...
The Cardinal stressed that the Priest at the supper table is forced in the role of an entertainer.
Click to expand...
The Second Vatican Council never talked about a Calvin Box: “The people’s altar is not suitable for the fear inducing Mystery of the Holy Eucharist” – admonished the Cardinal.
Click to expand...
He received enormous applause for stating this truism.
Click to expand...
The Cardinal stated that the active participation in the Mass is not an external activity rather the significance interior worship.
Click to expand...
How does one reform a Diocese?
Click to expand...
At dinner during the Conference Cardinal Ranjith described, according to the US Traditionalist Website ‘rorate-caeli.blogspot.com’ that he had abolished Communion in the Hand in his Diocese.
Click to expand...
At the same time he restored communion rails in every church as well.
Click to expand...
His priests may only use certain parameters in their celebration of Holy Mass.
Click to expand...
Finally he has forbidden all of the priest, to hold syncretic Liturgies, in which elements of other religions are introduced into the Liturgy.
Click to expand...
 
Never mind, I found it.

First of all, At Trent, what you cited is NOT word-for-word what the Cardinal said. It’s the take of another person on what the Cardinal said.

No where does the Cardinal say “I condemn.”

No where does the Cardinal use the insulting term “Calvin Box.”

We need to be careful in attributing to Cardinal Ranjith something he didn’t say.

As for what he did say, well, to a degree I agree with the good Cardinal. I don’t care for wooden altars; neither, however, do I care for the altars that stand against the wall and look like baroque buffets. I think the ideal altar is a free-standing one that is made of fine stone, massive and immovable, not unlike the one in Saint Peter’s. The former seems more in keeping with the altars described in the Old Testament and would allow the priest to walk around the whole of it to incense it. Further, I agree with what appears to be his criticism of the ad populam position, though I do not assume that was ever the intent of the ad populam (and I assume that the Cardinal assumes the same). Perhaps someday, we’ll see a universal return to the ad orientum posture. These are, however, only my personal opinions. Of course, these are also only the Cardinal’s personal opinions. On one point, he is clearly wrong: There is no such thing as “the people’s altar.” That’s a derisive term, clearly intended to distinguish it from the altars used before, without accounting for the fact that altars, in our rite and in the other rites in union with Rome, have indeed looked different in different ages. It is also clearly HIS opinion that 'the people’s altar is not suitable for the fear inducing Mystery of the Holy Eucharist." It’s his opinion because he has no data on the subject, ie, he has no idea what is in people’s hearts or, if there is a problem with reverence, that it would mitigated or remediated by a altar placed against the wall. It’s impossible to quantify. And my own personal experience at Mass had generally been one of awe and awareness of What and Who is being made present there, ie, that time and place fade away and we all stand on top of Calvary again. And that’s always been with a “people’s altar.” :rolleyes:
 
Elizabeth502 said:
I wonder how that would work for parishes which offer under the species of wine as well? (Right now, some people choose not to receive under the latter, so they are able to walk past the chalice. )

So maybe the recommendation will not be implemented by such parishes.
Click to expand...
One word, intinction.
 
TrueLight said:
I really wish intinction would become standard.
Click to expand...
The challenge in the Latin Rite is where to have the Hosts and who holds the chalice. Of course parishes can invest in an intinction set. The challenge is for larger parishes with only one or two priests, what then?
 
Guys, intinction doesn’t solve the problem for those who for any reason cannot have wine. So it actually is not a one-word solution. 😉

I suppose a bifurcated communion rail could be established, so that those who partake of both species are on one side, those with one species on the other.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The challenge in the Latin Rite is where to have the Hosts and who holds the chalice. Of course parishes can invest in an intinction set. The challenge is for larger parishes with only one or two priests, what then?
Click to expand...
How about body and blood together served with a spoon?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top