Home | Contact Us | Subscribe/Renew | Register | Search | Site Map
Question: I know the practice is optional, but where did Communion in the hand come from? Don’t you think it encourages disrespect?
Answer: Communion in the hand was the norm for most of the first millennium. Because of the dangers of misuse and the growing concern for reverence, the practice of giving the Host on the tongue was introduced about the ninth century.
The present practice of giving communion in the hand dates from 1969, when Pope Paul VI opened the way for episcopal conferences who wished to reintroduce the practice. Permission was granted to the U.S. bishops in 1977.
In my opinion, there is nothing intrinsically more reverent about reception on the tongue or less reverent about receiving in the hand. Reverence or irreverence are generally determined by other factors: the spiritual attitude of the recipient, the demeanor of the one giving communion, the adequacy of eucharistic understanding, and the manner in which the eucharistic elements are treated both within and outside Mass.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the fourth century offered a powerful catechesis on the mode of receiving communion in the hand that is still applicable today: "When you approach, do not go stretching out your open hands or having your fingers spread out, but make the left hand into a throne for the right which shall receive the King, and then cup your open hand and the Body of Christ, reciting the ‘Amen.’ Then sanctify with all care your eyes by touching the Sacred Body, and receive it. But be careful that no particles fall, for what you lose would be to you as if you had lost some of your members. Tell me, if anybody had given you gold dust, would you not hold fast to it with all care, and watch lest some of it fall and be lost to you? Must you not then be even more careful with that which is more precious than gold and diamonds, so that no particles are lost?"
Question: Do Lutherans believe in the Real Presence? I thought all Protestants reject the idea that Christ is present in the Eucharist.
Answer: First of all, there is a great variety of Protestant theologies of Christ’s eucharistic presence. Among "high church" Anglicans, for instance, some hold views very close to those of Catholicism, while the "low church" or evangelical wing stands at some distance from Catholic belief.
Lutheran eucharistic theology is quite close to Catholic faith in some respects. The 1978 Lutheran-Roman Catholic Final Report on the Eucharist states: "Roman Catholic and Lutheran Christians together confess the real and true presence of the Lord in the Eucharist. There are differences, however, in theological statements on the mode and therefore duration of the real presence."
The Report continues: "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that ‘Christ whole and entire’ becomes present through the transformation of the whole substance of the bread and the wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ while the empirically accessible appearances of bread and wine (accidentia) continue to exist unchanged. This ‘wonderful and singular change is most aptly called "transubstantiation" by the Catholic Church.’ "
Lutherans, the same document points out, "have given expression to the reality of the eucharistic presence by speaking of a presence of Christ’s body and blood in, with, and under bread and wine — but not of transubstantiation."
Nevertheless, "The Lutheran tradition affirms the Catholic tradition that the consecrated elements do not simply remain bread and wine but rather by the power of the creative word are given as the body and blood of Christ. In this sense Lutherans also could occasionally speak, as does the Greek tradition, of a ‘change.’ "
Question: In a Lenten series in our parish, the speaker referred often to the Eucharist as a symbol. Isn’t this a Protestant approach?
Answer: It certainly could be, depending on the way in which the word "symbol" is being used regarding the Eucharist.
If by symbol is meant something that reminds us of another reality or something that sparks our imagination (a butterfly is a symbol of the resurrection; the Church is symbolized by a ship), then a very weak theory of symbol is at work here. To speak of the Eucharist as symbol in this manner would be entirely inadequate.
But there are also strong theories of symbolism (a ceasefire agreement effects a ceasefire; giving food to the hungry symbolizes care for the poor). This understanding of symbol is much more aptly applied to the Eucharist. To say that Christ is symbolically present in the Eucharist is to say that the tangible realities of bread and wine become the means by which Christ is really and truly present.
All in all, however, the word symbol as popularly understood is too vague and misleading to be applied to eucharistic presence. For this reason it is better avoided.
Question: In my parish my fellow eucharistic ministers talk of the "bread" and the "wine" and never of the "Body" and "Blood" of Christ. Comment.
Answer: Eucharistic ministers are at least required to use the words "The Body of Christ" and "The Blood of Christ" when distributing the eucharistic elements at Mass. Apart from these occasions, a variety of terms may be used: the "host" and the "cup," "eucharistic bread" and "eucharistic wine," "consecrated bread" and "consecrated wine."
Some argue that the use of the simple words "bread" and "wine" is improper. This argument, in my opinion, should not be pushed too far. These unadorned terms appear, in fact, in the official liturgical books themselves, including in the eucharistic prayer. But the meaning they have in those contexts is that of Catholic eucharistic doctrine.
There exists a danger that in using the terms "bread" and "wine" exclusively or normatively, Catholic belief in the Real Presence will be lost sight of or neglected. For this reason, I think it wise that words other than "bread" and "wine" be used, especially in catechesis and sacramental preparation — and not least with children. Eucharistic ministers should give good example in this matter.
Question: I am confused about the rules of fasting before Mass. Why do we fast before receiving Communion?Answer: The Code of Canon Law sets out the current regulation: "One who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion" (Canon 919, par. 1). However, there are exceptions: "Those who are advanced in age or who suffer from any infirmity, as well as those who take care of them, can receive the Most Holy Eucharist even if they have taken something during the previous hour" (par. 3).
There are many meanings and purposes to the practice of fasting before eucharistic reception, among them the need for Catholics to approach the Eucharist in a physically and spiritually concentrated fashion. Fasting also reminds us of the great difference between earthly food, which sustains only perishable life, and the food of the Eucharist, which is the medicine of immortality.
Question: When I converted to Catholicism in 1964, I was taught that, at Communion, we could say "Jesus," "Master" or whatever was meaningful to us in response to "the Body of Christ." But my associate pastor told me that there is only one correct response: "Amen." I would like your input.
Answer: I hope your associate pastor was very nice to you when he did so. It’s not as if you were publicly proclaiming heresy! While the formula for the distribution and reception of Communion has varied over the centuries, the standard response is simply "Amen." It is possible that you were caught in the crossfire of a transitional moment, thus catechized in the manner you describe.
The present dialogue between the one distributing and the one receiving Communion derives, generally speaking, from the fourth century. The response "Amen" is a rich, all-inclusive affirmation that incorporates the words you yourself have been saying. "Amen" means "truly," "so be it," "I believe." By saying "Amen," you would be publicly expressing your assent with the whole Church, not making a response that is merely private or personal.
Question: In my parish, some eucharistic ministers are bringing the consecrated wine to the sick. I never heard of this. Is this allowed?
Answer: Yes, but it is rare. The 1972 Rite of Anointing and Pastoral Care of the Sick states: "A sick person who is unable to receive the eucharist under the form of bread may receive communion under the form of wine alone" (no. 46). Later, it says: "The precious blood should be carried in a vessel which is closed in such a way as to eliminate all danger of spilling." If some of the precious blood remains, "it should be consumed by the minister; he will also wash the vessel" (no. 95).
This method of Communion requires the greatest of care. Understandably, some bishops and pastors are reluctant to approve it in their dioceses and parishes. However, this practice is "on the books," so to speak, and is therefore legitimate.
Question: Non-Catholics and Catholics I know say if we believe in the true eucharistic presence of Christ as Body and Blood, we are like cannibals when we receive Communion.
Answer: It is understandable that (through misinformation) some non-Catholics might think that Catholics hold a cannibalistic understanding of the Eucharist. However, that Catholics themselves would think this is surprising, and it indicates a serious lack of an adequate understanding of eucharistic presence.
The charge of eucharistic cannibalism has been made from the earliest days of Christianity. The Church has always refuted the notion by insisting that "body" and "blood" in the Eucharist do not correspond to actual meat and blood as we understand these in everyday life. This is why the Church has always been skeptical of stories of "bleeding hosts," of images of Christ crucified appearing in the host, or of bread that turns into flesh after the consecration.
To hold that believers receive in the Eucharist the body and blood of Christ is to say that by the power of the Spirit the bread and wine, while remaining in appearance bread and wine, are changed into the very being of the risen and glorified Christ. This is in no way to play down the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In the Eucharist we receive nothing less than the whole person of the risen Christ.
The Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation excludes the idea that Christ’s body and blood are cannibalized in eucharistic communion.
Question: When I was young the term "Viaticum" was used for Communion to the dying. Do we still use that term?
Answer: The term "Viaticum" is indeed still used. It means "food for the journey" and refers to the reception of Communion when death is imminent.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "As the sacrament of Christ’s Passover the Eucharist should always be the last sacrament of the earthly journey, the ‘viaticum’ for ‘passing over’ to eternal life" (no. 1517).
The Catechism continues: "Communion in the body and blood of Christ, received at this moment of ‘passing over’ to the Father, has a particular significance and importance. It is the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection, according to the words of the Lord: ‘He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day’ [Jn 6:54]. The sacrament of Christ once dead and now risen, the Eucharist is here the sacrament of passing over from death to life, from this world to the Father" (no. 1524).
Question: On the Masses broadcast daily on EWTN, the commentator often speaks of "Spiritual Communion." I don’t fully understand what that means. Please explain.
Answer: Spiritual Communion is traditionally understood as the fervent desire to receive the Eucharist. This attitude should habitually precede the reception of the sacrament. Spiritual Communion is also expressed in attitudes of faith and love throughout the day after one has received the Eucharist. To receive Communion "in spirit" means that the fruits of the sacrament overflow into charity, a more profound faith, and deeper devotion to Christ.
The act of receiving Communion should never be merely external or routine, but must penetrate the heart and mind. Otherwise its graces are not realized in the worshiper.
Spiritual Communion may also be practiced by those who are unable to approach the Eucharist worthily or are impeded from so doing. The disposition involved is appropriate for those who follow Mass on television. Actual Communion is clearly not possible in such a circumstance.
Question: I was told that Catholics and Orthodox can receive communion in each other’s churches. Is this true?
Answer: Yes and No. The Code of Canon Law (reflecting Roman documents on ecumenism) allows Catholic priests to "administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their own for the sacraments and are properly disposed" (Canon 844). Thus an Orthodox Christian may on occasion receive communion in the Catholic Church.
The Code also states: "It is lawful for the [Catholic] faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister, to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose churches these sacraments are valid" (Ibid.). Since the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Eucharist, a Catholic may, in case of necessity, receive Communion in an Orthodox church.
But (with a capital B), the Orthodox churches generally do not allow Catholics (or members of any other denomination) to receive communion in their churches. So for a Catholic to ignore such a prohibition would be to show disrespect for Orthodox regulations. By the same token, Orthodox are generally not allowed by their own leadership to receive communion in a Catholic (or any other) Church.
On the matter of Catholic-Orthodox intercommunion, the U.S. Catholic bishops summed up the matter nicely in their November 1996 Guidelines for the Reception of Communion at a Catholic Mass: "Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches."
Question: I am confused about why the Church does not allow non-Catholics like President Clinton to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. Why were the Irish bishops upset when (Catholic) President Mary McAleese received communion at a Church of Ireland (Anglican) service? Don’t confuse me with Canon Law. What’s the bottom line here?
Answer: You want the bottom line? Here it is. The Catholic view of Communion is that in the Eucharist we don’t only receive Christ in a personal way. We are also expressing and deepening our commitment to the living Body of Christ, his Church on earth. To receive Communion in the Catholic Church is to affirm publicly all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and does. When we walk to the altar of the Lord in a Catholic Church, we are expressing belief in the Catholic doctrine of the real presence of Christ, in Catholic teaching about the authoritative role of the papacy and the episcopacy, in the Catholic moral tradition — in short, in the whole of Catholicism.
Because of this, well-informed and committed non-Catholics would not wish to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. To do so would be tantamount to a statement that they wish to be Catholics. Similarly, when Irish President McAleese received Communion in the Church of Ireland, she was (if she knew what she was doing) expressing adherence to Anglicanism, including its 49 Articles of Faith which have, shall we say, not very nice things to say about some matters Catholics hold clear, like the Mass.
Now this is a very rough and ready answer. If I had 25 pages to deal with the matter, I would refine the above, dotting the "i’s" and crossing the "t’s." A lot more needs to be explained. But there’s your bottom line.
Question: My husband was a Mason before we married. He was later baptized. Since he still wears his Masonic ring, he was told by a priest he couldn’t go to Communion. Is that true? Now he only ushers. I would like him to go to Communion with me.
Answer: The Catholic Church and freemasonry have traditionally not been friends. While not true to the same degree in England or America, freemasonry in Europe has had a strongly anti-Christian and anti-clerical disposition. European Freemasons would not be caught dead in a Catholic Church! The 1917 code of Canon Law forbade Catholics from being Masons. This proscription was not carried over to the 1983 Code, probably because in some parts of the world Masonry is more benign and is vague philosophically. While the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith referred in 1983 to Masonic membership as a "grave sin," this may not apply in those situations where Masonic groups have a positive attitude to Christianity — as many American Masons do.
If your husband is, as you suggest, no longer a Mason but simply wears a Masonic ring, and he sees no inconsistency between this practice and his Catholic faith, then he should not stay away from Communion. On the contrary, you should encourage him to go with you.
Question: I know people who are divorced and remarried who receive Communion each time they go to Mass. I know this is against the law of the Church. How is it possible to enforce this restriction?
Answer: Individuals or couples who are divorced and remarried outside the Church should not receive Communion until existing irregularities are sorted out. The best way to "enforce" correct practice is by effective pastoral guidance. Bishops and pastors have a responsibility to educate Catholics in the discipline of the Church. This requires clarity of teaching, an attitude of charity, and an expressed willingness to help people in difficult situations. Divorced and remarried Catholics should never be made to feel as if they do not belong in the Church.
What can a concerned Catholic like yourself do if you are aware of an irregular situation? If you know an individual in the situation you describe fairly well, you could seek a tactful and charitable way to raise the question of the status of the marriage, help him or her understand the irregularities involved, and then encourage an approach to his or her pastor for a "diagnosis" of the situation.
Question: Can a person receive the Eucharist if he or she was married in the Church for less than one year, then was divorced, and without an annulment was married outside the Church a second time for over 40 years? Both spouses are now deceased.
Answer: Yes, a person in such circumstances may receive the Eucharist. The logic is that no marriage irregularities preventing the reception of Communion in the situation you describe currently exist. Having been away from the sacraments for 40 years, the person in question would appropriately make contact with his or her pastor and receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Now a speech: I have received more questions regarding the situations of people who are divorced and remarried than on any other topic. I quickly determined that it would not be possible to answer most of the questions submitted because of incomplete data.
What is evident, however, is that many people in similar circumstances misunderstand their standing in the Church. Some think they should stay away from the sacraments because of marriage problems when, in fact, there is no impediment to receiving them. (For instance, some Catholics think that the answer to the question above is "no," when in reality it is "yes.") Others think that the very fact of being legally divorced (with no subsequent marriage) prevents them from receiving Communion. It doesn’t.
I would encourage anyone whose marriage situation is complicated to approach a wise and kind priest to get a good pastoral "diagnosis" on his or her situation.
Excerpt from Pastoral Answers by Msgr. M. Francis Mannion, copyright © 2001 by Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. All rights reserved.For more information or to order, click here. Msgr. Mannion's column also appears weekly in Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.
New Bible Study»
OSV4Me | Parish | Retail Search | Catalog | Books | Periodicals | Parish Resources | Other Resources | Offering Envelopes | About Us | Contact Us Send comments regarding this site to webmaster@osv.com Click here for our site map. Copyright © 2008, Our Sunday Visitor, Inc. All rights reserved.