Does a parish pastor have authority to require communion in the hand?

[april32010]

okay,i’ve perused this thread and i can’t find anything ( please forgive if i’ve missed it) that mentions that it is neither the priest nor parents place to specify a communicants manner of accepting the sacrament .it is the communicants decision.

 

[april32010]

Does a parish pastor have the authority to require that an entire First Communion class receive their First Holy Communion in the hand? This is an issue we are running into for two of our sons. Our family receives only on the tongue, but we have been told that this is not an option at our parish for the public celebration of their First Holy Communion. However, we were told that they could receive either way after they make their First Holy Communion. The reason given for this requirement is for the pastor’s wishes of “uniformity.”

The following adaptation of GIRM 160 was approved by the Holy See for the United States.

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.

Recognized by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 17 April 2002, and, promulgated as particular law of the United States by Decree of the President of the USCCB, Bishop Wilton Gregory, 25 April 2002.

it is at the discretion of your son how he receives not you.

 

[markomalley]

That is a really good question. Why would you think this is related?

Do you really think a child, receiving his 1st Communion, would save it? Put it on his prayer table? And the way to stop this is to forbid the child from receiving in the hand?

Wouldn’t it be better, if this was a real concern, to teach, as the Church teaches, to consume the Host immediately?

(response deleted)

 

[Esrb99]

it is at the discretion of your son how he receives not you.

nor the pastor.

 

[Glennon_P]

In my parish, the children making their First Communion are required to receive on the tongue. Is it also wrong that this is mandated?

 

[Daniel_Lysinger]

It depends on where you live. If you live in a place where an exemption has been granted, then that requirement is not exactly necessary. However, if you live in Italy, they require you to receive it on the tongue, out of respect for Our Lord.

There is no excuse for requiring you to receive communion on the hands though - talk to your diocesan Bishop

 

[Brendan]

In my parish, the children making their First Communion are required to receive on the tongue. Is it also wrong that this is mandated?

If the Mass is said in the Extraordinary Form, that has it’s own liturgical rubrics; the GIRM only applies to the Ordinary Form.

If that is the case, the pastor would be correct.

Also, if the Eucharist is offered intincted by the priest ( the priest dips in the Host into the Chalice then offers it to the communicant), then Communion in the Hand if forbidden by Church Law.

Outside of those two cases, the pastor would be exceeding his authority to require a Communicant to a particular mode of reception.

 

[maryjk]

Well, OP, any more information? Going to answer any of the questions?

I only ask because you have returned, but haven’t posted.

As most everyone has said, no, the pastor can’t require Communion in the hand.

On the other hand, is this the hill you want to die on? If so, and you have verified that he this is actually his rule, I would go to the church, copy of GIRM in hand and discuss it with him. If he doesn’t change the rule, I would call the Bishop’s office and take it up with them. Then take it as far as you are willing.

If it isn’t a hill you want to die on, I would tell my child that there are two approved ways to receive. That it is up to the person receiving, but this time the pastor wants everyone to receive the same way. I might even tell him that sometimes we do what the pastor says, due to obedience, as long as the request isn’t sinful. It is really up to you what you tell your child.

 

[clem456]

Is it within the pastor’s authority to require a particular method of reception?

(sorry, couldn’t resist)

 

[PietroPaolo]

Well, OP, any more information? Going to answer any of the questions?

I only ask because you have returned, but haven’t posted.

As most everyone has said, no, the pastor can’t require Communion in the hand.

On the other hand, is this the hill you want to die on? If so, and you have verified that he this is actually his rule, I would go to the church, copy of GIRM in hand and discuss it with him. If he doesn’t change the rule, I would call the Bishop’s office and take it up with them. Then take it as far as you are willing.

If it isn’t a hill you want to die on, I would tell my child that there are two approved ways to receive. That it is up to the person receiving, but this time the pastor wants everyone to receive the same way. I might even tell him that sometimes we do what the pastor says, due to obedience, as long as the request isn’t sinful. It is really up to you what you tell your child.

We have a duty to obey *legitimate *authority, not all authority. The pastor is clearly attempting to exercise illegitimate authority in this case as the Church gives the right to decide between hand or tongue not to the pastor, but to the communicate. You could argue that with this being a child (in light of the 4th commandment) the parents have a right to decide, but certainly the pastor does not. If the Church granted the authority to decide style of reception to each pastor (which the Church could) it would be a different matter, she hasn’t and the child (or his parents) get to decide this. It would be no different than the pastor deciding all kids must take the name of his favorite saint at confirmation - he has no legitimate authority in the matter to defer to.

 

[Brendan]

Is it within the pastor’s authority to require a particular method of reception?

(sorry, couldn’t resist)

No, you can freely choose antenna, cable or dish

(sorry, couldn’t resist either)

 

[maryjk]

We have a duty to obey *legitimate *authority, not all authority.

I never said that anyone had to obey all authority.

The pastor is clearly attempting to exercise illegitimate authority in this case as the Church gives the right to decide between hand or tongue not to the pastor, but to the communicate.

We don’t know that the pastor has said anything. So there is no way to know what he is “clearly” doing. That is why I said the first step is to actually speak to the pastor.

You could argue that with this being a child (in light of the 4th commandment) the parents have a right to decide, but certainly the pastor does not. If the Church granted the authority to decide style of reception to each pastor (which the Church could) it would be a different matter, she hasn’t and the child (or his parents) get to decide this. It would be no different than the pastor deciding all kids must take the name of his favorite saint at confirmation - he has no legitimate authority in the matter to defer to.

Again, we don’t know what the pastor has said. And the OP, although returns, doesn’t seem interested in letting us know.

Also, I didn’t ever say the pastor, IF he said it, had the right to do so. So I am not sure why you are even going into the fact that the pastor doesn’t have the right.

Finally, as I said.

On the other hand, is this the hill you want to die on? If so, and you have verified that he this is actually his rule, I would go to the church, copy of GIRM in hand and discuss it with him. If he doesn’t change the rule, I would call the Bishop’s office and take it up with them. Then take it as far as you are willing.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I might even tell him that sometimes we do what the pastor says, due to obedience, as long as the request isn’t sinful. It is really up to you what you tell your child.

We don’t owe obedience to illegitimately exercised authority such as the OP is suggesting the pastor is exercising here. I do agree however that speaking with the pastor is the way to go.

 

[ProVobis]

Outside of those two cases, the pastor would be exceeding his authority to require a Communicant to a particular mode of reception.

The way the conditions are laid out, I’m not too sure about this.

If there is any danger to profanity, for example, the CITH indult would not exist. I suppose that this would extend to any pastor or bishop who feels that there might be a danger to profanity.

At least this is the way I read the conditions.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

 

[zab]

it is at the discretion of your son how he receives not you.

For the past few years our pastor has required the First Communicants to receive kneeling (a prie dieu was provided) and on the tongue from the priest. He wanted them to have this experience for their First Holy Communion and said that after they have made their First Communion they could choose to receive on the tongue or in the hand.

 

[otjm]

We don’t owe obedience to illegitimately exercised authority such as the OP is suggesting the pastor is exercising here. I do agree however that speaking with the pastor is the way to go.

There have also been comments which would suggest that the parent may not have the right to dictate to the child how the child receives. Some have made reference to the 4th Commandment and it would take perhaps a Canon lawyer to sort that one out. On the other hand, if a child is old enough to understand sufficiently what they are doing in receiving Communion, are they then old enough to determine by what method they wish to receive?

As maryjk noted, it is not clear if the pastor a) demands all receive CITH, or b) even “wants” all to do so (this could be his position, or the position of the DRE or the person in charge of teaching these children about Communion, so it could be one of three individuals).

left almost out of this discussion entirely is the question - where is the child in all of this? What has been said in his/her presence a0 by the teacher preparing the children; and b) by the parent(s)?

Some children are easy going and don’t seem too impacted by conflicting directions; another way of saying it is they seem to be able to go with the flow. Others can be very sensitive to the matters. So now we have the potential of a child being caught up in an argument among adults; the child has (at least two)opposing adult figures plus the potential that the child will be subject to peer pressure and peer reaction (and let’s not kid ourselves; 1st and 2nd grade children can be quick to turn on one they see as not part of the group).

I don’t wish to make light of the rule in the GIRM. Nor do I wish to make light of the parents right to teach their children, and part of that is teaching their children reverence towards God.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible that we can put form over substance. To a child, it is entirely possible that how we do something can be more important than what we do. This is a First Communion. Impliedly, there will be more; potentially hundreds more if not thousands. I am inclined towards maryjk’s comment - is this a hill worth dying for? Is this putting form (CITH/COTT) over substance? I may not be able to guarantee, but my bet is that as long as the child is in grade school and going to church with parents, the child most likely will receive COTT.

Yes, someone (priest, DRE, teacher) is wrong to insist on CITH. I don’t question that in the least. But unless the child himself or herself is clearly set on COTT, which is more important - that the parent’s wish be fulfilled, or that the child have a positive memorable First Communion? Whose First Communion is this?

 

[Elizium23]

The way the conditions are laid out, I’m not too sure about this.

If there is any danger to profanity, for example, the CITH indult would not exist. I suppose that this would extend to any pastor or bishop who feels that there might be a danger to profanity.

At least this is the way I read the conditions.

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Your link points to old documents. CITH is no longer an indult but is liturgical law for the USA, of equal standing with COTT.

 

[Brendan]

Your link points to old documents. CITH is no longer an indult but is liturgical law for the USA, of equal standing with COTT.

Actually no. It is part of the liturgical law and equal in standing because it was requested by the bishops and subsequently approved by Rome.

The fact that the bishops conference had to request permission to so in the first place (unlike COTT), and that permission can be withdrawn, is pretty much the definition of an indult.

 

[Greg_N]

Your link points to old documents. CITH is no longer an indult but is liturgical law for the USA, of equal standing with COTT.

As Brendan Pointed out, this is downright false.
[Redemptionis Sacramentum](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...0423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter IV) which was introduced by John Paul II in April 23 2004 clearly states:

If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

This is at the discretion of the Priest celebrant.

 

[mcrts]

Cardinal Arinze touched on this topic. “Those who want to receive on the tongue are free to do so, and should be left in peace, and not in pieces!”