L
Children MUST receive in the hand at First Communion?
- Thread starter bluerose
- Start date
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Here’s how the Holy See answered a question about this very topic:
Query: Whether in dioceses where it is allowed to distribute Communion in the hands of the faithful, a priest or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may restrict communicants to receive Communion only in their hands, not on the tongue.
Response: Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.
With attention to the norms concerning the distribution of Holy Communion, ordinary and extraordinary ministers should take care in a particular way that the host is consumed at once by Christ’s faithful, so that no one goes away with the Eucharistic species in his hand.
However, let all remember that the time-honored tradition is to receive the host on the tongue. The celebrant priest, if there is a present danger of sacrilege, should not give the faithful communion in the hand, and he should make them aware of the reason for way of proceeding.
Here’s the source:
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html
We should take note that the Holy See makes no mention of an obligation of obedience to one who wants to restrict Communion on the tongue, or of a common posture.
Query: Whether in dioceses where it is allowed to distribute Communion in the hands of the faithful, a priest or extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may restrict communicants to receive Communion only in their hands, not on the tongue.
Response: Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.
With attention to the norms concerning the distribution of Holy Communion, ordinary and extraordinary ministers should take care in a particular way that the host is consumed at once by Christ’s faithful, so that no one goes away with the Eucharistic species in his hand.
However, let all remember that the time-honored tradition is to receive the host on the tongue. The celebrant priest, if there is a present danger of sacrilege, should not give the faithful communion in the hand, and he should make them aware of the reason for way of proceeding.
Here’s the source:
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html
We should take note that the Holy See makes no mention of an obligation of obedience to one who wants to restrict Communion on the tongue, or of a common posture.
M
mhazell
Guest
Ah, so now we’ve switched from arguing that one should not disobey “authority” to arguing that one should not make a commotion at Mass…
So, where has anyone advocated making a commotion at Mass? All you have to do if you wish to receive on the tongue is walk up to the priest, hands clasped together, kneel down, say “Amen” and stick your tongue out. Not wishing to sound irreligious, but it’s really not that hard. The priest cannot refuse you, and neither can anyone else. Since when did that class as “making a commotion”?
You don’t need to make a commotion in order to tell the lay catechist that they are in the wrong here. That is done outside of the Mass. Neither does instructing one’s child on how to receive Our Lord on the tongue involve making a commotion at the Mass. Instructing them is also done outside of the Mass.
So the lay catechist might be annoyed–well, let them be annoyed, and if they remained vocally obstinate, then I would politely and charitably inform them where they can get off telling my children what to do in this regard. I am the father of my children, *not *the DRE. I and their mother are ultimately responsible for bringing our children up in the faith, as per our promises at their baptism, not the DRE. If the DRE teaches contrary to the Church, then it is my responsibility to my children to correct the DRE, and then to tell my children why the DRE is wrong and when the DRE can be ignored or corrected by them.
This is partly why I have never *and will never *receive from EMHCs. It is a shame this sort of thing happens, but at the Mass you can always circumvent such things merely by the act of receiving from the priest rather than the EMHC.
I am sad about the pressure you say your grandsons are under. I also appreciate that, as you say, the Mass should not be something we fight about. But I would say that the act of exercising one’s basic rights is not fighting. The one who fights and the one who is in the wrong is the one who tries, against the laws of the Church, to prevent the exercise of these basic rights.
If you haven’t already, perhaps it is worth asking your parish priest to step in with the DRE? Failing that, make a formal complaint to your diocesan bishop. In the meantime, I would counsel your 12-year old grandson that he does not receive the Body and Blood of Our Lord in order to fit in with the other kids and that, contrary to what his DRE teaches, he is free to receive on the tongue if he so wishes. After all, what is worse–insisting on the free exercise of one’s rights, or misguided teachers indirectly making the Eucharist into a peer-pressure issue?
(I personally would also encourage them to receive Our Lord only from the priest, to avoid the sort of situation you had on Friday with the EMHC.)
- Status