Norms for receiving Communion

[FightingFat]

My youngest son is about to embark on his FHC course!

All of my children receive on the tongue and genuflect before receiving. I understand this to be the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concillium. I am contemplating contacting the catechist in charge to explain my wishes, and that she might encourage my son to receive this way. Can anyone point me to doctrinal documents that demonstrate what the norms for the reception of Holy Communion are please?

 

[tee_eff_em]

My youngest son is about to embark on his FHC course!

All of my children receive on the tongue and genuflect before receiving. I understand this to be the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concillium. I am contemplating contacting the catechist in charge to explain my wishes, and that she might encourage my son to receive this way. Can anyone point me to doctrinal documents that demonstrate what the norms for the reception of Holy Communion are please?

Can you point to the specific teaching in Sacrosanctum Concilium?

My own understanding of the norms for posture and method of receiving holy communion are (and which are enumerated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal):

• 
  *]The faithful receive either kneeling or standing, according to the decision of the local episcopal conference.
  *]When they receive standing, they should make a sign of reverence, which is likewise to be specified by the episcopal conference.
  *]Communion may be received on the tongue or, in those places where it has been permitted, in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.
  
  tee

 

[BrotherPaulMary]

That is not in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The Vatican 2 Document says nothing about the reception of Holy Communion in the tongue or the hand.

I would probably point to the Holy Father giving Holy Communion on the Tongue only at the papal ceremonies as a reason for your son to receive COTT.

This is a very difficult subject because it is not actually illicit to receive on the Hand.

However looking at the trends - it does seem that CITH will eventually die out.

God Bless

 

[JReducation]

A Brother has correctly said, the norms for receiving Holy Communion in the Latin Rite are not In SC. I would also like to add that there are no doctrines on how to receive Holy Communion. Allow me to explain.

If the method for receiving Holy Communion were a doctrine, it would be the same for the 23 Catholic Churches and probably for their Orthodox Counterparts too. The method for receiving Holy Communion fall under rubrics. The rubrics in the Roman Missal allow for the local bishop to decide. In the USA, the agreement between the bishops is that the faithful may receive either on the hand or the tongue, either standing or kneeling, though the American bishops prefer standing. However, that’s a preference, not a law, as far as I know.

There is a sticky issue here, which does affect parents. Parents have a duty to form their children in the faith and to prepare their children for the reception of the sacraments. However, outside of Baptism in the Latin Church and Chrismation in the other Catholic Churches, the parents may not choose for their children.

I’ll offer a simple example. One cannot demand that one’s child go to confession, receive Holy Communion or accept to be confirmed once he has reach the age of reason.

Pius X made it very clear that every child who has reached the age of reason, which we arbitrarilly say it’s 7, may receive Holy Communion. He also said that parents must be part of the formation process. However, to the best of my knowledge, there is no law that allows a parent to choose for the child how he or she receives Holy Communion.

This makes sense. To impose this on the child would be contrary to the Church’s wishes. If the local bishop wants the faithful to have the option, then his wishes cannot be overruled by the parent. In other words, the parent cannot deny the option, because it’s your child. The child has canonical rights.

It is appropriate for the parent to explain to the child the options, COTH and CITH. It is approprate for the parent to share his preference with the child. This is part of sharing your faith.

But parents must be careful to avoid making the child feel that he or she has to comply wit the parent’s preference, when the Church does not require this of the child.

I realize that it’s a fine line. How much do we tell our children and at the same time allow them the freedom of choice that the Church allows? It’s certainly wrong for the parent to say something that can lead the child to believe that there is a conflict between the parent and the Church. This puts children in an uncomfortable situation. That’s not what we want for our children.

I would suggest that parents, not just the OP, but any parent, ask the DRE or the individual catechist to explain the options to the children and teach them the proper posture for both. From that point forward, we have to allow our children the freedom to exercise their choice as any other member of the faithful.

In the end, it begs the question. If the child cannot be considered mature enough to choose CITH or COTT, is he or she mature enough to receive the Sacrament at all? We do our best to share our faith and preferences with our children, without coming between them and what the Church allows them to do.

The conversation can go something like, "You can receive Holy Communion on the hand or on the tongue, kneeling or standing. Mom and Dad do it this way, because . . . . " But avoid leading the child to believe that the Church allows us to do something that is wrong. That would not be true. The Church does not allow us to do something wrong. We don’t want our children thinking that way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thistle]

My youngest son is about to embark on his FHC course!

All of my children receive on the tongue and genuflect before receiving. I understand this to be the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concillium. I am contemplating contacting the catechist in charge to explain my wishes, and that she might encourage my son to receive this way. Can anyone point me to doctrinal documents that demonstrate what the norms for the reception of Holy Communion are please?

There is nothing in Sacrosanctum Concillium to that effect.
How to receive is NOT a doctrine.
The GIRM determines how Communion should be received. Although the quoted section below is from the US the GIRM for the UK is the same with regard to receiving Communion.

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.

 

[JReducation]

There is nothing in Sacrosanctum Concillium to that effect.
How to receive is NOT a doctrine.
The GIRM determines how Communion should be received. Although the quoted section below is from the US the GIRM for the UK is the same with regard to receiving Communion.

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.

The bold is mine.

This is what I mean. I believe that even though he’s a child, it’s up to him how he receives Holy Communion. I still say that parents have the right to explain why they receive COTT or CITH, but they must make it clear to the child that he can choose and that either way is acceptable. At some point, we can find ourselves violating our children’s rights. We don’t want to go there, much less confuse them. Give them the options and the reasons for them, if they ask. Most kids do not ask.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[thistle]

The bold is mine.

This is what I mean. I believe that even though he’s a child, it’s up to him how he receives Holy Communion. I still say that parents have the right to explain why they receive COTT or CITH, but they must make it clear to the child that he can choose and that either way is acceptable. At some point, we can find ourselves violating our children’s rights. We don’t want to go there, much less confuse them. Give them the options and the reasons for them, if they ask. Most kids do not ask.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

It is certainly up to the communicant to decide how they receive but that applies to whether its on the tongue or in the hand. It does not apply to standing or kneeling.
As the GIRM states the norm is standing but Communion is not to be refused if a person kneels. However, it is then up to the priest after Mass to explain to that person they should receive standing and we then should obey the priest.

 

[puzzleannie]

My youngest son is about to embark on his FHC course!

All of my children receive on the tongue and genuflect before receiving. I understand this to be the teaching of Sacrosanctum Concillium. I am contemplating contacting the catechist in charge to explain my wishes, and that she might encourage my son to receive this way. Can anyone point me to doctrinal documents that demonstrate what the norms for the reception of Holy Communion are please?

the person to speak to is not the catechist, it is the priest who is presiding over first communion, or who is the pastor of the parish where your children attend Mass. YOu follow his instructions, which come from your bishop. Obedience is a far greater reverence and spiritual need than insisting on your way or the highway.

 

[FightingFat]

Sorry guys I should have recognised what a hot topic communion on the tongue actually is!

I really wanted to brief myself before I discuss the issue with anyone. I would like my son to to learn to receive the way the rest of the family do; genuflection and on the tongue, from the priest! I want to get my facts straight before I say anything!!

Having hunted around a little more, the post-Conciliar documents on the liturgy, ie, Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, Memoriale Domini, of 29 May, 1969, (in Flannery if anyone has it, p.148 and go to bottom of p 140 starting ‘Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant’ and go from there). It clearly states:

At the same time in recent years a fuller sharing in the eucharistic celebration through sacramental communion has here and there evoked the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] “For it is the Body of Christ.”[4]

Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: “When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent.”[5]

Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

You can also find it here. Makes you stand up and think doesn’t it?? It basically says that Communion in the hand is very scary, and should be accompanied by a great deal of Catechises!

Sacramentum Caritatis has a bit on it as well. The Pope hasn’t stated categorically that receiving on the tongue is now the norm, but that practise is certainly the case at Papal Masses and that gives us some indication, surely, of his feelings on the matter? Look at his book ‘God is Near Us’ bottom of p 69 onwards.

With regards genuflection before Communion: Look at the Instruction Redemptoris Sacramentum, 90 “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognition of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”. My emphasis. Here’s the link
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#ChapterV

 

[FightingFat]

the person to speak to is not the catechist, it is the priest who is presiding over first communion, or who is the pastor of the parish where your children attend Mass. YOu follow his instructions, which come from your bishop. Obedience is a far greater reverence and spiritual need than insisting on your way or the highway.

Thank you Annie for reminding me of my obligation in this respect. I do struggle a little with this, I don’t know how much you know about my part of England, but we do struggle with Bishops and some priests…I have been to confession on many occasions with respect to my relationship with this particular priest who, whilst he is someone who undoubtedly has a genuine vocation, doesn’t seem particularly worried about the teaching of the Magisterium. I would not contradict him or cause an argument, but as someone responsible for teaching my children, for being the first teacher of my children, I want them to hold to an orthodox Catholicism and not someone’s “version” of it, if that makes any sense?

 

[FightingFat]

It is certainly up to the communicant to decide how they receive but that applies to whether its on the tongue or in the hand. It does not apply to standing or kneeling.
As the GIRM states the norm is standing but Communion is not to be refused if a person kneels. However, it is then up to the priest after Mass to explain to that person they should receive standing and we then should obey the priest.

That doesn’t seem to correspond with the links to the documents I’ve just posted thistle. Can you tell me where you read this please?

 

[FightingFat]

Can you point to the specific teaching in Sacrosanctum Concilium?

My own understanding of the norms for posture and method of receiving holy communion are (and which are enumerated in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal):

• 
  *]The faithful receive either kneeling or standing, according to the decision of the local episcopal conference.
  *]When they receive standing, they should make a sign of reverence, which is likewise to be specified by the episcopal conference.
  *]Communion may be received on the tongue or, in those places where it has been permitted, in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.
  
  tee

• 
  That seems to gel pretty well with the documents I have investigated and linked to above!

 

[FightingFat]

That is not in Sacrosanctum Concilium.

The Vatican 2 Document says nothing about the reception of Holy Communion in the tongue or the hand.

I would probably point to the Holy Father giving Holy Communion on the Tongue only at the papal ceremonies as a reason for your son to receive COTT.

This is a very difficult subject because it is not actually illicit to receive on the Hand.

However looking at the trends - it does seem that CITH will eventually die out.

God Bless

Thank you Brother, I agree that the practise at Papal Masses gives us clear indication of what we should be doing. Following Vatican II and my own study into the teaching on the Sacraments, I have recognised the emphasis on a fullness of sign. Before VII the emphasis seems to be on what the minimum requirements for valid reception of the Sacraments is and afterwards, the emphasis seems to be more on the fullest, most efficacious celebration, in order to reap the maximum benefits from reception. This has led us to communicate under both species, which has brought the contradiction of regular EMHC. Fullness of sign indicates that Communion should consist of the priest, in persona Christi, feeding His flock (surely?).

Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s little book Dominus Est was also instrumental in my own developing a greater understanding and reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. This and my work as a youth Catechist, where I discovered we need to enthuse and be reverent in order that anyone might understand the importance of what we are about to do when we go to Communion. If Dominus Est, we should surely approach as reverently as possible?

 

[FightingFat]

This makes sense. To impose this on the child would be contrary to the Church’s wishes. If the local bishop wants the faithful to have the option, then his wishes cannot be overruled by the parent. In other words, the parent cannot deny the option, because it’s your child. The child has canonical rights.

It is appropriate for the parent to explain to the child the options, COTH and CITH. It is approprate for the parent to share his preference with the child. This is part of sharing your faith.

But parents must be careful to avoid making the child feel that he or she has to comply wit the parent’s preference, when the Church does not require this of the child.

I realize that it’s a fine line. How much do we tell our children and at the same time allow them the freedom of choice that the Church allows? It’s certainly wrong for the parent to say something that can lead the child to believe that there is a conflict between the parent and the Church. This puts children in an uncomfortable situation. That’s not what we want for our children.

I would suggest that parents, not just the OP, but any parent, ask the DRE or the individual catechist to explain the options to the children and teach them the proper posture for both. From that point forward, we have to allow our children the freedom to exercise their choice as any other member of the faithful.

Awesome post, this has clarified the matter for me, thank you JReducation! I completely concur with this and that’s really what I want to ensure-that my son is given all the facts and not just told that this is how it’s done.

In the end, it begs the question. If the child cannot be considered mature enough to choose CITH or COTT, is he or she mature enough to receive the Sacrament at all? We do our best to share our faith and preferences with our children, without coming between them and what the Church allows them to do.

The conversation can go something like, "You can receive Holy Communion on the hand or on the tongue, kneeling or standing. Mom and Dad do it this way, because . . . . " But avoid leading the child to believe that the Church allows us to do something that is wrong. That would not be true. The Church does not allow us to do something wrong. We don’t want our children thinking that way.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I understand, thank you for taking the time to explain the issue with such clarity. John is my fourth child and he is a young seven year old. My two oldest sons are brilliant and very reverent, I would love him to follow in the same mould, but they have very much made their own minds up about what they wanted to do and how they want topractice their faith. I believe this is essential in order to make them feel that their opinion and contribution is valuable and respected. For example, my oldest son is a bit of an EF fanatic and is learning to serve the Usus Antiquior. Both of them chose to be confirmed in the Extraordinary Form in collusion with a friend of theirs and approached me with the suggestion (of course I was extremely happy to accommodate them!) there are a couple of pictures on my profile page of William serving the EF.

We are sort of between two parishes as well and the one that has the EF is extremely good, with a brilliant Parish Priest who is totally on message. The other one, (where John has decided he wants to make his FHC by the way) is a bit more unorthodox and a much more “modern” church in design. The PP is an ex-Anglican with “interesting” ideas which he often introduces without consultation. I suppose my main bugbear is that these days, so few Catholics in my part of the world know or care about their faith, no one knows what is orthodox and what is heterodox. This sort of pastoral leadership only adds to their confusion unfortunately!

 

[tee_eff_em]

There is nothing in Sacrosanctum Concillium to that effect.
How to receive is NOT a doctrine.
The GIRM determines how Communion should be received.

Although the quoted section below is from the US the GIRM for the UK is the same with regard to receiving Communion

.

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.

It is my understanding that *in England and Wales it is through [the] action of walking solemnly in procession that the faithful make their sign of reverence in preparation for receiving Communion. *(cf. catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Documents/Processions.pdf and liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/CTM.pdf )

tee

 

[thistle]

It is my understanding that *in England and Wales it is through [the] action of walking solemnly in procession that the faithful make their sign of reverence in preparation for receiving Communion. *(cf. catholic-ew.org.uk/liturgy/Documents/Processions.pdf and liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/GIRM/Documents/CTM.pdf )

tee

In my home town in Scotland the sign of reverence is a bow of the head.
Its also the same here in the Philippines, Hong Kong, Singapore and Germany.

I’ve never seen a Communion line in procession. For me that would imply continuous movement but all Communion lines I’ve been in are stop and start movements and forward motion is almost shuffling sometimes. There is no continuous movement.

 

[dconklin]

From a logistical stand-point…

I am responsible for the preparation of 188 little lambs to receive their First Holy Communion. They are indeed little lambs. They follow the leader and each other. We spend a fair amount of time instructing them on the “mechanics” of going to Communion. On ‘the big day’ many of them are a bundle of nerves and if they see someone doing something different they become very confused.

Does God really care if we stand or kneel, bow or genuflect, use our left hand or right? Is doing it one way or another better, or just different?

I say let the church leaders have their way on the 1st HC. You and your son can have your way at the 2nd and every one after that day.

 

[ProVobis]

Does God really care if we stand or kneel, bow or genuflect, use our left hand or right?

Well, there is such a thing as body language and prayer. For example, would we be kneeling and receiving on the tongue if we believed we were only receiving an ordinary piece of bread?

 

[JReducation]

Well, there is such a thing as body language and prayer. For example, would we be kneeling and receiving on the tongue if we believed we were only receiving an ordinary piece of bread?

Pro, that’s a whole other subject and a fascinating one too. It falls into the realm of ascetical theology and liturgical practice. But the question here is one of canonical rights and duties.

Children have canonical rights and parents have moral duties. That’s what we need to focus on. We’re trying to help a parent educate the child in the faith, without violating the child’s rights.

This may sound silly to some people, but it’s not. Children have many rights. But there are two that are on the table here.

1. 
   *]The right to learn the faith from the parent.
   
   *]The rights granted to the faithful by legitimate ecclesial authority, which even the parent may not trump.
   
   I like using the example of confession, because it makes things much clearer. If you tell your seven-year old son that he has to go to confession, he’ll probably go. But the validity of the absolution is questionable, because we don’t know if the child is repentant or compliant. On the other hand, example speaks volumes with few words.
   
   As our Holy Father Francis frequently did, “preach always and only when necessary did he use words.” Contrary to popular quotes, he did not say this. He did it and it was said about him. Some people just never get hagiography right.
   
   Fraternally,
   
   Br. JR, OSF