L
levavi
Guest
I became a Catholic ten years ago, but am rapidly reaching the ‘end of my tether’ with regard to the way ‘things are done’ on a regular basis at Mass. This Sunday there was a very exasperating experience at Mass, which precipitated my writing the letter to the priest concerned below. But I found it very stressful and I have been depressed ever since. I might point out I normally go to EF Mass, but don’t rule out the OF. But it depresses me when I venture out of my ‘bubble’ (i.e. churches I know and trust) because things are so chaotic! Please, any thoughts to calm me down?
"I thought I would write to you regarding the experience of Holy Communion on Sunday. It seemed to me that there was not a small amount of discomfort when you referred to the recent guidelines of the Bishop concerning H1N1 (‘Swine Flu’). I got the impression from the notice in the bulletin, and from what you said (though I cannot really remember your exact words) that the Bishop had tried to ‘forbid’ reception on the tongue. Knowing that this is impossible, nonetheless I did not want to put you in a difficult position, so I did not communicate in my ordinary way. I did notice, however, that some refused to comply, even though they too might have got the impression that the Bishop had tried to forbid reception on the tongue.
"When we got home, I looked at the Diocese website, and I see that in fact the Bishop has only said it is now ‘sensible’ that communion be given in the hand, under one kind only. A certain amount of relief was felt, therefore, and it occurred to me that you might be able to see that things are expressed ‘as they are’, by reproducing the guidelines in full, and by explaining the situation fully, in the context of the Universal Law. First, no Bishop has the authority to override the norms of Redemptionis Sacramentum, § 92: ‘[E]ach of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice’. Furthermore, the laity has a right, outlined in Memoriale Domini of Paul VI, and reaffirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1977, to receive Communion on the tongue: ‘The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice.’
"(The Bishop’s guidelines also include the request that the ‘Sign of Peace’ should be given at this time ‘by a smile, a slight bow or some other appropriate gesture, but not by the shaking of hands’.) [The ‘Sign of Peace’ was given as usual.]
“In view of the Sacred Host having been dropped on the floor at least once during Holy Communion, could I also say again (as I did after Mass) that plates are absolutely necessary in order to prevent sacrilege: cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum § 93 (‘The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling’). You are fortunate to have many altar servers, and it seems to me that they could be profitably used at Communion-time!”
"I thought I would write to you regarding the experience of Holy Communion on Sunday. It seemed to me that there was not a small amount of discomfort when you referred to the recent guidelines of the Bishop concerning H1N1 (‘Swine Flu’). I got the impression from the notice in the bulletin, and from what you said (though I cannot really remember your exact words) that the Bishop had tried to ‘forbid’ reception on the tongue. Knowing that this is impossible, nonetheless I did not want to put you in a difficult position, so I did not communicate in my ordinary way. I did notice, however, that some refused to comply, even though they too might have got the impression that the Bishop had tried to forbid reception on the tongue.
"When we got home, I looked at the Diocese website, and I see that in fact the Bishop has only said it is now ‘sensible’ that communion be given in the hand, under one kind only. A certain amount of relief was felt, therefore, and it occurred to me that you might be able to see that things are expressed ‘as they are’, by reproducing the guidelines in full, and by explaining the situation fully, in the context of the Universal Law. First, no Bishop has the authority to override the norms of Redemptionis Sacramentum, § 92: ‘[E]ach of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice’. Furthermore, the laity has a right, outlined in Memoriale Domini of Paul VI, and reaffirmed by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1977, to receive Communion on the tongue: ‘The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice.’
"(The Bishop’s guidelines also include the request that the ‘Sign of Peace’ should be given at this time ‘by a smile, a slight bow or some other appropriate gesture, but not by the shaking of hands’.) [The ‘Sign of Peace’ was given as usual.]
“In view of the Sacred Host having been dropped on the floor at least once during Holy Communion, could I also say again (as I did after Mass) that plates are absolutely necessary in order to prevent sacrilege: cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum § 93 (‘The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling’). You are fortunate to have many altar servers, and it seems to me that they could be profitably used at Communion-time!”
