The new norms? (communion in hand and face-to-face confession)

  • Thread starter Thread starter takosan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

takosan

Guest
My daughter has just made her first confession and is preparing for her first communion in April. In the course of these preparations, the parents have had a meeting with the priest to ask questions and receive guidance. So far so good. My question has to do with the answer he gave to a couple questions.

The short version is that he represented communion in the hand and face-to-face confession as the preferred methods, with anonymous confession and communion on the tongue being hold overs retained simply to accommodate the comfort of parishioners used to the older ways (i.e. old people). He went on to imply that encouraging such practices in our second grade children would be a disservice to them and would possibly be fraught with the danger of doctrinal error. (On this of course, he may well be right. If a parent was making an argument that anyone other than the priest touching the consecrated host was profane, then that would be contrary to Church teaching.)

These ideas are not consistent with my understanding. What is the basis for his comments?
 
Point blank, he’s wrong.

In my parish, probably 75% or up of the congregation receives on the tongue (we also still use the altar rail). First Communion children are taught how to receive on the tongue in their class, parents can later teach how to hold their hands if they want to. (I haven’t with my two who have made their First Holy Communions, don’t expect to with the twins when it’s their turn.) And our normal confessionals are all anonymous. (We’ve occasionally had extra priests visiting and they’ll take a spot near the communion rail, so those would be face-to-face.)

Here you see an opinion that a priest can decline the face-to-face request of a penitent, but not the request for anonymous confession.

And in truth, receiving on the tongue is the preferred method, while in the hand is allowed. There are places one can go where in the hand is not allowed; the opposite cannot be said (though there are some priests and deacons who seem quite awkward about giving communion this way … they still cannot insist on giving in the hand). In my case, nerve damage and arthritis has me too anxious to consider receiving in the hand, and I’m only 41 (i.e. 40 years away from being old).
 
I have no idea what the basis is for his comments.

With regard to Holy Communion, I know that communion on the tongue is the universal norm, whereas communion on the hand is permitted in certain places, including Canada and the US, but forbidden in most of the rest of the world, at present.

I don’t know what the norms are for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but I know that the penitent does have the right to an anonymous confession - I’ve forgotten where I read that, though - which is best provided for with a sturdy screen and/or “box” arrangement. I have also seen priests turn the lights out in the Reconciliation Room, but you can’t depend on that all the time - it’s best to use the box-style of Confessional, if you want to be absolutely certain of anonymity.
 
PS: As the primary educator of your child, feel free to teach her both ways, so that she can make her own choice, or else teach her the method that you prefer for yourself, so that she can do what you do. 🙂
 
I do not get from your post that you and your family have established one method as personally preferred over the other.
 
takosan said:
My daughter has just made her first confession and is preparing for her first communion in April. In the course of these preparations, the parents have had a meeting with the priest to ask questions and receive guidance. So far so good. My question has to do with the answer he gave to a couple questions.

The short version is that he represented communion in the hand and face-to-face confession as the preferred methods, with anonymous confession and communion on the tongue being hold overs retained simply to accommodate the comfort of parishioners used to the older ways (i.e. old people). He went on to imply that encouraging such practices in our second grade children would be a disservice to them and would possibly be fraught with the danger of doctrinal error. (On this of course, he may well be right. If a parent was making an argument that anyone other than the priest touching the consecrated host was profane, then that would be contrary to Church teaching.)

These ideas are not consistent with my understanding. What is the basis for his comments?
Click to expand...
They have no basis, at least not in the Catholic Church. Receiving on the tongue IS the norm in the Latin Church, receiving in the hand is allowed in the U.S. when the communicant wishes to receive that way.
Face to face confession is permitted when the priest allows it and the penitent wishes to use the option. Canon Law
REQUIRES that a screen be available to everyone, always.
 
takosan said:
The short version is that he represented communion in the hand and face-to-face confession as the preferred methods, with anonymous confession and communion on the tongue being hold overs retained simply to accommodate the comfort of parishioners used to the older ways (i.e. old people). He went on to imply that encouraging such practices in our second grade children would be a disservice to them and would possibly be fraught with the danger of doctrinal error. These ideas are not consistent with my understanding. What is the basis for his comments?
Click to expand...
Eilish_Maura said:
I do not get from your post that you and your family have established one method as personally preferred over the other.
Click to expand...
Neither do I, Eilish, but that’s not the issue here. The OP wants to know upon what the priest based his comments that Communion in the hand and face-to-face confession are “preferred”; his comments are not “consistent” with the OP’s understanding. It matters not what the family prefers; the priest is misrepresenting the Church’s preferences.
 
japhy said:
Neither do I, Eilish, but that’s not the issue here. The OP wants to know upon what the priest based his comments that Communion in the hand and face-to-face confession are “preferred”; his comments are not “consistent” with the OP’s understanding. It matters not what the family prefers; the priest is misrepresenting the Church’s preferences.
Click to expand...
The thread does not make sense.

If the OP knows ‘enough’ to question what the priest said why not ask the priest at the time of the conference? That would have been the proper way to handle any situation like this.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
If the OP knows ‘enough’ to question what the priest said why not ask the priest at the time of the conference? That would have been the proper way to handle any situation like this.
Click to expand...
That can be your suggestion to the OP, then: talk to the priest about it.

My expectation about the OP, though, is that since the priest is teaching that these two particular practices are “preferred”, asking him about it wouldn’t produce any new information for the parents: they already know what he thinks, but they don’t think he’s correct on the matter. Thus, the OP is looking for something to either support the priest’s position or to support their position.
 
jmcrae said:
I have no idea what the basis is for his comments.

With regard to Holy Communion, I know that communion on the tongue is the universal norm, whereas communion on the hand is permitted in certain places, including Canada and the US, **but forbidden in most of the rest of the world, at present. **
I don’t know what the norms are for the Sacrament of Reconciliation, but I know that the penitent does have the right to an anonymous confession - I’ve forgotten where I read that, though - which is best provided for with a sturdy screen and/or “box” arrangement. I have also seen priests turn the lights out in the Reconciliation Room, but you can’t depend on that all the time - it’s best to use the box-style of Confessional, if you want to be absolutely certain of anonymity.
Click to expand...
That is not true. It is allowed and the most common form of receiving in all Asian countries. It is also allowed in the UK.
 
takosan said:
My daughter has just made her first confession and is preparing for her first communion in April. In the course of these preparations, the parents have had a meeting with the priest to ask questions and receive guidance. So far so good. My question has to do with the answer he gave to a couple questions.

The short version is that he represented communion in the hand and face-to-face confession as the preferred methods, with anonymous confession and communion on the tongue being hold overs retained simply to accommodate the comfort of parishioners used to the older ways (i.e. old people). He went on to imply that encouraging such practices in our second grade children would be a disservice to them and would possibly be fraught with the danger of doctrinal error. (On this of course, he may well be right. If a parent was making an argument that anyone other than the priest touching the consecrated host was profane, then that would be contrary to Church teaching.)

These ideas are not consistent with my understanding. What is the basis for his comments?
Click to expand...
My take on this is that the priest inserted his personal opinion and preference into the discussion. My son knows that both ways are acceptable and I made it clear that he may receive either way when he made his First Communion last May. The priest seems not to give children enough credit and forgets the meaning of ‘age of reason’. Also when learning about his first confession, the children were told that confessions could be behind the screen or face to face. We left that up to our son and he knows that both ways are acceptable to the Church. Image the number of people who would no longer go to confession if face to face were the only option! :eek:

You’re your child’s primary teacher; instruct your child how you wish as long as it is acceptable within the Deposit of Faith. Your child will not see it as disobedience if you explain to your daughter that in your family, you prefer to receive communion on the tongue yet it is acceptable to receive both ways. The Eucharist should be a joyful reception and one shouldn’t get hung up on what others think or say about the reception methods. If the Church says okay, don’t hesitate to do what you feel is best for you and your family.

Peace

Kelly
 
thistle said:
That is not true. It is allowed and the most common form of receiving in all Asian countries. It is also allowed in the UK.
Click to expand...
It is forbidden in Mexico, Central America, South America, and most of Europe and the Middle East. Split the difference - let’s call it half the world. 😉
 
jmcrae said:
It is forbidden in Mexico, Central America, South America, and most of Europe and the Middle East. Split the difference - let’s call it half the world. 😉
Click to expand...
It is allowed in Italy and in the Vatican State.
 
The best way to go about this is to just ask the priest?

Where could I read about these new norms? This might make the priest look into it, (if he is interested) and give you some feedback.

Just say that you are curious and would like to know more, don’t be antagonistic or even hint that you think differently. Many of the modern priests will dismiss you outright if they see any hint of “too much Catholicism”. Make him the teacher and that will lead to more fruitful communication.

I live out here in California where these crazy ideas have firmly taken root, if you ask questions in a direct manner, the priests, or pantsuit nuns will just start acting like Protestants, and wont want to talk to you. You need to be gentle and allow them to share and just ask where you can learn more.

When it turns out to not be official Catholic teaching, keep asking for Catholic teaching, and ask if you should read the Pope’s writings, letters from the Vatican, etc…

God Bless
Scylla
 
japhy said:
That can be your suggestion to the OP, then: talk to the priest about it.

My expectation about the OP, though, is that since the priest is teaching that these two particular practices are “preferred”, asking him about it wouldn’t produce any new information for the parents: they already know what he thinks, but they don’t think he’s correct on the matter. Thus, the OP is looking for something to either support the priest’s position or to support their position.
Click to expand...
But as we both noticed it is not clear it is the ‘family’s’ position.
 
Eilish_Maura said:
But as we both noticed it is not clear it is the ‘family’s’ position.
Click to expand...
Right: the OP simply says the instruction about those two practices being “preferred” is “not consistent with my understanding”. It could very well be that the parents receive Communion in the hand and go to confession face-to-face! That’s not the issue the OP brought up, so let’s not make it the issue.
 
Without getting into an argument about “what the Church really prefers” in terms of whether communion in the hand is viewed as a “lesser of two evils” concession or a simple added option, the priest was clearly wrong in claiming that communion in the hand and face to face confession are the preferred methods. Why? Catholics have a canonical right to communion on the tongue and confession behind a screen, whereas they do not have the same right to the other options.

Why they don’t have a right to the other options is different in each case. In the case of face to face confession, this is because while face to face is a licit option throughout the world, the priest also has a right to a screen. So if you ask to go face to face but he prefers a screen, he can legitimately tell you that it must be behind the screen. Regarding communion in the hand, this is because it is allowed only by indult, and thus is not an option everywhere in the world. In either case, it would be silly to say that the Church prefers an option she denies to some over the option she grants to all as a canonical right.

The true disservice would be not to teach children the options that are their right and instead only teach them options that, depending on the place or circumstance, might not be available to them. It seems it might be rather disconcerting for a youngster were he or she to find that the Church’s “preferred” method was being denied!
 
The priest could have been speaking of the general preferred practice in the parish as seen in actual usage at mass.

The real disservice is taking such questions here to basically have the priest put down than to go back and get it cleared up with the priest in question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top