Communion Protocol

[roadsend]

…
With regard to #1, I support the celebrants position in not administering Holy Communion to someone who does not know, or will not provide the proper response according to the Rubrics.

Since the rubrics also call for “a gesture of reverence” prior to receiving Communion, would you also support a celebrant not administering Holy Communion to someone who does not follow this rubric?
A clear majority of the folks in my parish do not even make a bow before receiving the Sacrament.

 

[CDNowak]

In actuality, we are dealing with two separate issues here.

1. An able bodied person who can say or communicate “Amen.”, and doesn’t.
2. An individual who for whatever reason cannot.

With regard to #2, please see post #14.

With regard to #1, I support the celebrants position in not administering Holy Communion to someone who does not know, or will not provide the proper response according to the Rubrics.

The fact of the matter is that nowhere in law (Canon or liturgical) does it indicate that lack of proper posture or vocal response prohibits one from receiving. The celebrant only has the authority to refuse communion in the cases spelled out in Canon 915: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” To do otherwise violates Canon 213 (“The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.”), Canon 843 ("§1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.")as well as canon 912 already cited.

Beyond that it would be prejudicial against those who approach for communion from other Rites and usages where such a response is not given (Byzantine and EF of the Latin Rite at least). (see Canon 844).

With all respect to your opinion, it runs gravely afoul of canon law.

 

[dconklin]

There’s a girl who comes to my Church who is unable to receive the Body of Christ due to the ingredients found within the Host (severe allergies).
Solution; the guest Priest is informed ahead of time and she receives the Blood instead.

I am actually surprised this works for her. Unless she is the first person to receive from the cup, the Precious Blood is contaminated by the Precious Body because we take the Bread into our mouths immediately before consuming the Wine.

I run our First Communion program and this a concern for many families. We order special low-gluten hosts. One of the parents places the special host into a pix, puts it on the altar and then serves the kid when they come through the line. Of course letting the visiting priest know is key. We have a Sacristan that helps with all of the details.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Can your relative make the ASL sign for “Amen”?

tee

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Who wants to be the judge if an “Amen” is loud enough. Might the person judging be a little deaf. Might the person judging has missed the stated Amen. Some people arenot loud people and may never say it loud enough. Lastly was their intent to say Amen? Those are matters left up to God.

Cruly cool there is not conflict of COTT and saying amen as the stating Amen comes before you open your mouth to receive.

 

[roadsend]

The fact of the matter is that nowhere in law (Canon or liturgical) does it indicate that lack of proper posture or vocal response prohibits one from receiving. The celebrant only has the authority to refuse communion in the cases spelled out in Canon 915: “Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.” To do otherwise violates Canon 213 (“The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.”), Canon 843 ("§1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.")as well as canon 912 already cited.

Beyond that it would be prejudicial against those who approach for communion from other Rites and usages where such a response is not given (Byzantine and EF of the Latin Rite at least). (see Canon 844).

With all respect to your opinion, it runs gravely afoul of canon law.

Yup
+1

 

[fjacks]

Seems to me what is needed here is not a TLM (whatever that is), but a little common sense.

There are people who come in the communion procession who are not Catholic. I can usually tell because they not only don’t look like they know what they’re doing, but they don’t respond Amen. When that occurs (and with the mike off), I simply whisper the question: “Are you a Catholic”? When they respond “no”, I mention that we are only able to offer communion to Catholics and I say something like “God bless your day”. They usually smile as they return to their places.

As for someone who cannot speak, of course they cannot be expected to say “Amen”, but this should be well known. The individual might be capable of nodding their head instead, but if the minister knows that they are Catholic no response should be expected.

There are some Catholics–well known to me as such–who simply exempt themselves from responding “Amen”. I find it a little annoying, but its something I can live with. For the rubricists, it clearly states that the communicant responds “Amen” as they are being offered the Body (or Blood) of Christ.

 

[curlycool89]

Cruly cool there is not conflict of COTT and saying amen as the stating Amen comes before you open your mouth to receive.

My bad. I have seen people receive COTT before and maybe I just didn’t hear them say Amen.

 

[roadsend]

Seems to me what is needed here is not a TLM (whatever that is), but a little common sense.

…

TLM is an abbreviation for Traditional Latin Mass aka Extraordinary Form, Mass of Pope St. Pius V, the Tridentine Mass; the Traditional Mass, The Mass of the Ages, and in its present edition it is sometimes called the Mass of Blessed John XXIII.
Since common sense is obviously lacking, the point of suggesting the TLM was that the rubrics for that Mass do not require the Communicant to reply with an Amen, thus avoiding the speech problem from the get-go.

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Reall it stands for Tridentine Latin Mass.