FRIDAY POTPOURRI: PERFECT IN OUR REVERSEDNESS

Thank you for being patient with the lack of posts.  It has not been a boring summer around these parts.

Paragraph 88

So you may have read a reply from last Friday from Fr. P concerning how his parish handles music during Communion which appears to me to closer in keeping with actual Vatican II documents and the Tradition of the Church rather than what has just seemed to happen recently.  After Communion is over there may be time to decompress.  The first option is to sit quietly and reflect on all that has happened (and a lot happened) and to give thanks.  The next option is to sing one of the following:

1) Psalm

2) Canticle

3) Other hymn of praise

And it is recommended that this be done by the whole congregation.

If we were to take first options then it would look like this:

During Communion the choir sings, which, in this humble bloggers opinion make a lot of sense.  As a priest I cannot participate because I am doing and saying too much as are the extraordinary ministers of holy communion.  Ushers are ushering, people are getting up and processing and receiving Communion - and if they want to receive in the hand they should not have a hymnal in their hands or clutched under their armpit.  When everyone is done, if we don't just sit quietly, then that is a time to fumble for hymnals and page numbers and sing.  

What happens in a typical parish is exactly the opposite.  

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: WELCOME TO MASS. PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR PREFERENCES

We are skipping a paragraph.  I would imagine that, unless you are experiencing difficulties in the area of when Communion music should start and stop, you will find it imminently uninteresting.

And now on to:

Vatican two

Options for you.

Paragraph 87

When someone is going to be married I have them help me plan their wedding Mass.  When it comes to the vows they have two sets from which to choose and four ways to exchange each of those two sets.  We have a similar thing with options of communion singing.  There are different kinds of music that can be sung and each of those may be sung by different groups of people.

Here are the options of WHAT may be sung in the United States:

1. The antiphon from the Missal or from the Graduale Romanum as it is set to music there (meaning chant - and notice that this is the FIRST option meaning that it is preferred though very few people do this) or other musical setting.
2. The antiphon with Psalm from the Graduale Simplex.  (As of yet, no Eagles Wings)
3. Chant from another collection Psalms and antiphons or set for responsory or to metrical form.
4. Some other liturgical chant.

That’s it.  But the bishops allow for other music - of which most of the time it seems we want to sing about bread and wine and aren’t we great.  But I digress.

But WHO is to sing the Communion song?

So, after you choose one from among the options above, then you have to decide how the choice will be done.  Notice the order of options once again:

1. The choir alone.
2. The choir or cantor along with the people.

Muy interesante.  Most professional liturgists with whom I am acquainted make the great argument that the song should include all of the people (I also get that from many of those people.)  And I get that.  It assists people in participating in something holy during the reception of Communion.  And if we go back to the paragraph that I skipped, it says that we should all be singing to show our joy and unity of heart with our voices.  But if it is a legitimate option not to have everybody singing, that means there is something else for you to do - besides carrying a hymnal up in the Communion line and clutching it tightly under your armpit as you try to receive the Blessed Sacrament.  You have something to offer from your anointing as priest at your baptism - something to pray for, something to pray about, and of great importance, prayer of thanksgiving and adoration.  Just because you are not singing DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE NOT PARTICIPATING UNLESS YOU CHOOSE NOT TO DO SO.  

But wait!  There’s more!

It could not be sung at all!  If there are no musicians, the antiphon should be recited.  

1. By the faithful (should they have access to it.)
2. by “some” of the faithful
3. by the reader
4. or by the priest himself.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH - WHEN IS LESS MORE?

So one time I go to Mass in New York and when entering the church there was a table with two bowls.  There was a sign that said, “If you are going to receive communion today, please take a wafer from this bowl and put it in the other bowl.”

First of all:  Ew.

Secondly, it was a valiant effort to fulfill paragraph 85 of the GIRM.  This paragraph points out that the priest is BOUND to receive a host that was consecrated at the Mass being celebrated.  (That is, not taken out of the tabernacle from that which was consecrated at another Mass.)  It is “most desirable” (pretty strong wording without making it mandatory) that the whole congregation (as you were anointed prophets, kings, and priests after all) also receive hosts consecrated at the Mass being celebrated.  

This is trickier than you might think.  You people are not all that predictable.  A former liturgist for the Diocese of Cleveland CLAIMED that this should be no problem and that he would be able to do it at any parish in the diocese.  Perhaps he was clairvoyant and so I bow to his super powers.  We are not so talented (though we have improved mightily.)

Anything can throw the numbers off at Mass.  A football game.  A holiday.  Nice weather.  Bad weather.  The grass mowed in the wrong direction.  The numbers become thrown off because of people coming late because of roadwork, last minute soiled diapers, having to park three blocks away, trying to catch the end of “Jason and the Argonauts.”  

So you try to cut it close and then your are left with having to break the last remaining host into micro-particles in order to have enough for everybody to receive communion.  The next week you have “learned your lesson” and put out extra (better to be caught with a little extra than not enough right) and then you find, at the end off Mass, that you won’t have to consecrate again for the next month.

Sacristans debate in angst before Mass about how much to put out especially at funerals.  “Do you think I should put out more?  Will there be a lot of people at this funeral?  How many people were at calling hours?”  My standard answer, which they have not caught on to after 8 years, is “I don’t know.”

So you do your best.  Sometimes you do well, sometimes not so much.

This paragraph also states that Communion under both species be offered whenever it is feasible, not open to profanation, and suitable as determined by the priest under the guidelines of the local council of bishops.  

Here is another area of difficulty.  How much wine should we prepare to be consecrated?  Some weeks we run out.  Some weeks the deacon consumes so much that I worry about him walking down the aisle.  

Eh.  If this is our biggest problem, we are doing pretty well.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: LARGELY GUESSING IF YOU ARE RIGHT OR WRONG

GIRM paragraph 84

I’ve always been fascinated by this prayer of the Mass.  It is said quietly by the priest just before he is to receive Communion.  The words prescribed sound a little bit like a parent taking his precocious son aside and privately saying in a calm but pointed voice, “Okay, this is your last chance.  Are you sure you want to do this?”  

“Yeah Mom!”

“Fine.  Then go ahead.”

The prayer reads in part, “May the receiving of your Body and Blood Lord Jesus Christ not bring me to judgement and condemnation. . .”

You know what? Wow.  We sugar coat SO MUCH.  “You’re fine.  I’m fine.  We are all going to heaven anyway.”  But here is the Church taking one of her sons aside for a moment and saying, “This is serious stuff.  Don’t mess around.  There are repercussions and consequences for taking this lightly.”  It is possible for the reception of the Body and Blood to bring about judgement and condemnation.  The Church chooses her words very, very, very carefully.  She would not bandy about “condemnation” if she didn’t mean it.  To receive the Eucharist being aware of serious sin on your soul is grave matter.  Since we believe that the Eucharist is not a thing but a Person, that means one has first rejected the Person out of their life (that is what mortal sin is) and then forced themselves on to that Person in this most intimate of actions. It, in essence, becomes a double abuse of His Love.

So let’s suppose that you are a priest and you take these things seriously and you come up to a wedding or funeral at which there are lapsed Catholics of varying degrees and many non-Catholics.  What do you do about Communion?  There are some options.  One is to let it go.  The argument here is that God is Love and can fend for Himself and if someone receives who shouldn’t, they did so in ignorance and God will let it go.

But that would cover over one of the biggest scandals of the Church:  That they may be one.  By recognizing that there is a division between us I have been afforded the opportunity to talk with non-Catholics who have come up to me and to discuss it.  At one point, with a Protestant minister, we came down to the point of, “Well, if you believe that, you need to consider becoming Catholic.”  I don’t think he did but he was shocked at how Catholic his ideas were after some Scripture study and perhaps there was a little healing of Christian unity there.  

That would not have happened with the “You’re Okay, I’m Okay, God can fend for Himself,” mentality.  

SO how do you get the message across?  One way is to have people read the USCCB statement usually found on the cover of the misselette.  It is an entire page of instructions to various persons who may be present.  The priest can also announce some instructions.  Some do it at the beginning of Mass, some do just before Communion.  That is what I do since the missalette is not in our pews.

Here is what I say:

It is always an honor and a privilege whenever persons of different faith backgrounds come together to worship our God.  Out of respect for you and out of respect for your beliefs, I can only offer Communion today to those Catholics who are properly disposed.  If you are unable to receive today, please pray for the unification of the Christian Church and make a spiritual communion with us.  Thank you.

There is a person who lives in our neighborhood who takes great offense at this statement.  She attended a funeral Mass years ago at which I made this statement though I will admit that instead of “Catholics who are properly disposed,” I said, “Catholics who are in a state of grace.”  I changed it because of her.  I suppose she sees me as causing too much division among Christians and I see her as causing too much division among Catholics she tries to dissuade from attending St. Sebastian.  I like to think we are both well intentioned.

But I digress.

Whereas the celebrant has specific prayers to pray before receiving, all others are giving leeway to pray as they wish that they will “fruitfully” receive the Blessed Sacrament.  The priest then shows the Eucharist to the people “inviting them to the banquet of Christ” and then all say an act humility borrowed from the Scriptures.  

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: WE ARE MANY PARTS - WE ARE ALL ONE CHEVY

When I was in junior high school (back when it was thought the concept was thought superior to middle school) one of the prizes handed out at carnivals was a necklace that had a heart on it that was broken in half.  The other half you were supposed to give to the person with whom you were going steady to show that you were one of the same heart.  (Eash.  Please tell me they don’t do that anymore.)  Of course, never mind the fact that they handed out millions of those things and so there was a good chance that any number of people were walking around with the other half of your heart.

But the cool thing about it is that, although trite and not efficacious, it does give an insight into the Eucharist.  Today we move from the part of the Mass in which the sacrifice was offered to the Father on behalf of mankind, and now (paragraph 83 of the GIRM) we prepare to become one in Christ and with each other as we partake in the One Body of Christ and share in His benefits.

So, in an action reserved to the ordained clergy, Christ’s Body is broken and divided among His brothers and sisters not unlike that heart that was divided between two people involved in the trials of puppy love.

Now obviously the analogy only takes us so far.  The necklace does not actually unite anybody.  And it is only an object, not a Person.  And the Eucharist is the entirety of Christ; Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, not just half a heart.

Christ’s Body is arced toward unity.  There is only the appearance of the Body being divided, but spiritually it is bringing us all together into unity with Christ and with each other.  Understanding this allows you to understand better Flannery O’Conner’s comment, “Because if it is only a symbol, to hell with it.”  And if I belonged to a Church that didn’t celebrate the Eucharist, if I didn’t like the music, I think I would stay home and pray with my family and maybe a couple of neighbors.  But if the Eucharist is what Christ said it was, what a magnificent event this is.  Nothing compares.  

FRIDAY POTPOURRI - BUT EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING IT

So in high school I was dating a girl whose father was a Methodist minister.  One day I went to her family’s church to play trumpet for the choir.  The service was good, they had a communion service (no, I didn’t partake) and the music went well.  I was sitting in the sacristy after cleaning my trumpet when her mother came in bringing the communion that was left over from the service.  She tilted the silver platter and dumped it all into the trash.  

I had a moment of freaking out - like seeing someone bumping a glass full of water and reaching out to catch the glass before it spills.  Then I realized that she had done it on purpose and was embarrassed.  She said something along the lines of, “Oh you Catholics,” with a kind and broad smile on her face, “it isn’t Jesus anymore.”

It is intellectually easier for a very good Methodist to open up their communion service to anybody who professes the Name of Jesus, even those who are not yet baptized.  This body of Christians does not believe in transubstantiation but that in some way not fully explainable (it is a mystery - understandable) that “the elements are essential tangible means through which God works.”

But let’s suppose that you see something different in Communion.  You see and/or understand a Divine Person clearly present.  It would be similar to the person who sees life in the womb as a cluster of impersonal cells, but you see a vital, viable and inviolable human being - a boy or a girl.  Who would you entrust to carrying your baby to term for you: someone who promises to have respect for your clump of cells, or someone who has love for your baby girl?

If they have respect for your clump of cells, that may be grounds for a very good friendship.  If they would love your baby girl the way you do, that is a grounding for marriage.  And who is invited into THE MOST INTIMATE ACT of the marriage covenant?  Those who are part of the covenant.  Who is invited to Catholic communion?  Everybody.  All people of all times and all places.  But if you have no desire or belief to be part of this mystical marriage in a permanent way, we can share all kinds of things together, just not this Person Who we believe is present to us Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity.  

That is why paragraph 80 (yes!  we have escaped paragraph 79) of the GIRM says that it is desirable that at the Paschal Banquet, in keeping with Christ’s instructions, “His Body and Blood should be received as spiritual food by the faithful who are properly disposed.”  Properly disposed to receive means about the same thing as someone who is properly disposed to receive the sacrament of marriage.  For marriage to be valid, a person must, know what they are getting themselves into, understand it, accept it, and fully give themselves to it and to a partner.  Eucharist is no different.  We are to know exactly what it is that we are doing, understand it, accept it, and give ourselves not only fully to Him, but to this Body of Christ, the Church, to which we are to be made one to be properly disposed.  If not, communion (common union) does not really exist and what we act out is not in accord with the reality.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THE FIRST COMMUNIO PARTY

Finishing up First Holy Communion is the afterglow party.  Strictly speaking there is no grand tradition of a First Communion party though they are common enough.  Often a parish will throw a little gathering, usually punch and cookies, after the event.  More often there is a gathering of family, godparents, and perhaps a few friends of the family.  As Mrs. Fenner writes, “There is no social obligation to do this, but it is a nice thing to do for the child’s sake.”  Of course she also writes, “If Grandpa wants to give a dinner at his club, this would be a fine treat too.”  In Monsignor Manners case, Grandpa’s club would have been Slovene Center and some nice, greasy, Barberton chicken and then a game of bowling.  Now that I think of it, that doesn’t sound so bad.

 

In any event, we did not do this.  Wait.  Yes we did.  We all went out for Barberton chicken dinners afterwards.  We did not, however, go bowling.

 

Nobody is socially obligated to give a child a First Communion gift though some people often do especially parents and godparents.  Some suggestions by Mrs. Fenner include: a rosary, a prayer book (Mass book), cross and chain, religious medal, holy water font for the bedroom, book of Bible stories or lives of the saints, crucifix, or statue of Mary, Joseph, or the child’s name saint.

 

In the picture from last week, you can see the rosary, prayer book, and brown scapular that we all received.  I only recently lost the rosary.  Never, never, never hang your rosary on a door knob even temporarily.  Closing the door the rosary swung out and was crushed – shattering some of the beads and the crucifix.  I also had scapular medal that was given to me.  The chain eventually became too small to fit around my swelling head and in later years I hung it on rear view mirror as a reminder.  It was stolen along with $1.35 in change that was in the ashtray.  *sigh*

 

This Monday begins our sacramental prep for our Confirmation program here at St. Sebastian and Friday Potpourri will turn its attention to that sacrament.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: FIRST THINGS AT FIRST COMMUNION

At baptism I tell parents that this is only the first day of their child’s baptism.  It is the beginning of a relationship and a process and that they have only begun the journey.  One of the milestones on the journey is the child’s First Eucharist.  How a child reacts to the Blessed Sacrament is highly dependent upon the parents.  Faith is not handed down in Church, CCD or PSR, in the day school or what have you.  It happens in the domestic Church – in the home – one generation handing on the faith to the next.  This translate to the reception of the sacraments.  How seriously will the child take Jesus in His Eucharistic presence?  How do his parents behave around the Blessed Sacrament?  How seriously do they take receiving Communion?  How well do they take what they do in Church home?  How do they speak of it?

 

Quite typically there will be a social response to receiving First Communion.  As Mrs. Fenner takes pains to express, “it is your opinions and your reactions that they value and imitate.  It is you therefore that can bring home the wonder and joy of the great sacramental occasion.  Do everything in your power to make the day of First Holy Communion meaningful.  You do this by putting emphasis on the reception of the sacrament and its significance.”

 

As C. S. Lewis said, “When first things are put first, second things are not suppressed but increased.”  So when First Communion becomes about a party at which First Communion happens to be a part, the whole event suffers.  The significance of the Blessed Sacrament is lost and so the reason for celebration is lessened.  It becomes not much more than a fancy dress occasion and not a very exciting one at that.  But, when First Communion is emphasized, not only is due reverence made to Christ and the child’s excitement increased, the festivities that accompany it are also raised up in significance. 

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THE WALL KIT

Recently somebody donated a box of religious items to the parish. Most of it was things used at Mass. One thing in the box, however, was a sick call crucifix that I hung in one of the guest bedrooms.

Sick call crucifixes used to fascinate me as a child with its sliding secret compartment, candles, holy water, and other things. It seems a majority of Catholic homes had one usually near the bedrooms or in the living room just in case it might be needed. This does not seem to be the case anymore. Whereas Catholics are still highly encouraged to have a crucifix hanging in their houses, the sick call crucifix seems to be becoming a thing of the past. (It it is not in your area, I would be interested in hearing about it.)

In all actuality, I have never seen one used and today they are largely not necessary. I do remember my mother showing how they would be used if it were ever needed however. “Before the priest comes,” she said, “we would prepare for his arrival. He will not be very talkative because he is carrying the Blessed Sacrament and therefore will not be engaging in idle chit chat until after.” She then took the crucifix off of the wall and placed it on a table. The top of the crucifix slid off and could be set up right into the base. A small cloth (which I take to be a corporal) would be placed on the table where Father could place his pyx. Two tiny beeswax candles would also be set into the base and lit because of the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. There was also a little vile of holy water.

Today there does not seem to be the need for one of these crucifixes. The priest generally brings with him all the things he needs for a visit and such things as candles are either no longer needed or even forbidden as many people we visit are on oxygen the combination of which would send a person to his maker sooner than anticipated. But neither is there anything that forbid or make inappropriate the use thereof.

WHEN YOU ARE BOTH CATHOLIC AND A CELIAC

YOUR INPUT IS REQUESTED. AFTER READING THIS ARTICLE IF YOU HAVE ANY INSIGHT THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT OR EMAIL ME PRIVATLY. THANK YOU.

Years ago there was a large article in the newspaper about a family who left the Catholic Church just as their daughter was about to receive her First Communion. The girl had celiac disease, a disease that is just starting to come into the public conscience now but was virtually unheard of then. If you want to know more about the disease please look here – but the long and short of it is that celiac cannot have any gluten which is part of wheat, rye, and barely. If you know someone who has this disease you know that there are significant lifestyle changes that are required of this person. Think of everything we eat that is made of these grains and think of a restaurant menu and consider how difficult it would be for this person to enjoy going out with friends. Think of going on a picnic and not eating the chips and salsa, the birthday cake, drinking a beer, or many of the processed foods that most people don’t think twice about eating unless they are watching their waist line. And this list doesn’t even include other things to look out for such as medicines, lip balms, and vitamins which often contain gluten.

So back to the little girl. The family left the Catholic Church because at the time there was no alternative to receiving the host except for receiving the Precious Blood alone (which is perfectly acceptable.) But not wanting their daughter to stick out, they chose to leave the Church and go to a Protestant Church that did celebrate communion but was not so picky about of what it was made.

I remember thinking, “How could someone leave Jesus for a symbol?” It was beyond my ken and I partially wrote it off thinking, “If they truly knew what they were giving up, this would not have happened.” Well, that may be theologically true, but like trying to take a celiac to a fast food restaurant, the stress that the situation can cause may be quite trying for them. For that family it was easier to leave.

One of the biggest problems is that celiacs and their doctors are largely flying blind. There just isn’t enough known. Can the itsiest, teeniest, tiny bit of glutton be Okay? “Probably,” says one doctor. “Probably?” Would you be comfortable with “Probably?” If someone handed you a pill and said, “It probably won’t kill you,” would you take it? At least you would think twice. There is a question as to whether beer is safe. Can celiacs drink beer? We don’t know for absolute sure

Now the Catholic celiac comes to Mass. One option is of course to only receive from the chalice. Fine. As long as it isn’t the chalice into which the priests puts a crumb of the host during the fraction rite. (This is not something to worry about at Saint Sebastian.)

Another option is a gluten free host – which I believe is actually a virtually glutton free host. Is it Okay? Maybe. But here is the trick – how do you get the gluten free host the Catholic celiac? You cannot put their host in among the other hosts (there is less gluten in a gluten free host than there is in a tiny crumb of a regular host.) It had been our practice to have persons with celiac disease to come up into the sanctuary with the extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to receive – which worked great with those we had who are rather self-confident people and have no problem standing up in front of so many people. But now we have a few more joining us – some kids – and this is not such a great option.

HERE IS WHERE I COULD USE SOME HELP: Do you have any suggestion as to the best way to get gluten free hosts to Catholic celiacs? The first trick is making sure you show up on time to warn the priest that one is needed. Then where are they distributed? One should not be handling regular hosts and then when the person comes forward, wash your hands, dig out a pyx (setting the ciborium down somewhere,) distribute, and then go back to what you were doing before. (Or do you?) If a separate line is needed how do you keep non-celiacs from receiving thereby short changing someone who needs it? It may be that I am over thinking it. *sigh* But just the same – if you have any ideas I would greatly appreciate hearing about it.

HERE IS A CATHOLIC CELIAC SOCIETY WEBSITE WITH MORE INFORMATION.

A TONGUE LASHING

It seems that the Church has a cool name for just about everything. (I mean – come on – who really needs a word like “tintinnabulum” – but aren’t you glad we have it?) A number of years ago Adam’s Ale had a post on abuses in the way people receive communion in the hand and their proper Latin terms (see here.) Yesterday while with some priests we discussed the corresponding abuses that occur receiving on the tongue. Those follow. For obvious reasons there are not the same type of pictures that there were for the first post.

Now, of course, the proper way to recieve after bowing and saying, "Amen" is to open wide one's mouth and to seriously stick out one's tongue providing a nice landing runway and amply open hanger doors all the while keeping one's hands folded. (It is amazing how many people stick out their hands and their tongues.) This sends a clear message to the distributor how it is that you wish to recieve and is the safest form of recieving Him on the tongue.

Movingus Targetus: One of the most insidious of all tongue receivers because of their deceptiveness. All may seem absolutely normal and safe but at the last possible moment when it is too late to duck and swerve the person moves causing their tongue to slide up your finger. It is at times like these that I wish we had never gotten rid of the maniple. Whose idea was that anyway?

Postus Slotus: This is similar to Postus Slotus in the hand. Here, after saying, “Amen” the person barely opens their mouth in order to receive. Maybe it’s modesty I don’t know. And I will admit though I enjoy sports I’ve never been particularly good with aim. We had our International Festival last weekend and while the kids were setting up games they invited me to have a go at throwing been bags through a whole around which a great white shark was painted. BANG – I hit its nose. BANG – I hit its fin. “This is the million dollar throw Father! You can do it! Just one!” BANG – no, actually WOOSH – over the top of the board. Anyway, that is why when someone wants to receive a la Postus Slotus, not matter how careful I am a whack them on the front teeth or on the lips before actually making it in.

Snapus Turtleus: Once again, everything seems absolutely fine and the distributor can be lulled into a false sense of security. Then, the person leaps forward to snatch the host from your fingers much like a snapping turtle. Once again – maniple anyone?

Maximus Cavimus: Similar to the Postus Slotus but not nearly as dangerous. Here the person opens their mouth wide but fails to stick out their tongue. However it poses little risk for the distributor. One can give them Jesus without fear of hitting teeth or being licked. Kids, remember, this is the one time you can stick your tongue out at an adult and not get in trouble for it so do it!

Guessimus: After saying amen the person simply stands there without giving any indication whatsoever how they wish to receive. Sometimes it is the case that they person has never received before such as at the wedding and despite the announcement has decided to come up anyway. At times these give themselves away by responding, “Sure” when you say, “Body of Christ.” Other times, not so much.

Usually however it is simply a late bloomer. Slowly move the host toward the person and it is then that they put their hands out or stick out their tongue. They are, in my opinion, the least of the offenders.

Once again, we believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity or Our Lord Jesus Christ. Careful and proper reception of this great gift gives honor to God and witness to our brothers and sisters.

WHEN DOES HOSPITALITY GO TOO FAR?

Recently I received a letter stating that a recent action of mine had been perceived as insensitive, unnecessary, and thoughtless. Actually I can see how my actions might have been thought so. Except thoughtless. I do not accept that one. It had actually been given quite a bit of thought over the past eleven and a half years.

Here is the situation: There are often Catholic ceremonies that are attended by a good number of non-Catholics. The most frequently reoccurring of these is weddings and funerals. It is often not difficult for the celebrant to notice these persons. Sometimes they remain seated with arms folded across their chests while those around them are invited to kneel or stand. Then it comes time for Communion. We as Catholics have a very distinct belief in what the Eucharist is. This action is central and sacred to our covenant with God and with each other much as the marital act is to marriage. It is our com (with or co-) union. We believe that the Eucharist is a person. To share our most intimate action – indeed to entrust a person to another who does not recognize the Eucharist as such or at least not in the same way is dishonest at best. (If a person believe as we do then they should be in union with us. No?)

At Communion time I make an announcement. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as Canon law only Catholics (and Orthodox under certain circumstances) who are in a “state of grace” are permitted to partake in Communion. This means not only should non-Catholics refrain from coming up the aisle but non-practicing Catholics, or Catholics in serious sin as well.

So I give the following statement just before distributing. “Out of respect for those who may be here today who are not Catholic and out of respect for your beliefs, I can only offer communion today to those Catholics who are in a state of grace. If you are unable to receive today I ask that you pray for the unification of the Christian Church, and made a spiritual communion with us.”

It seems to me that this statement is honest. It has spurred fruitful conversations with non-Catholics over the years. Quite often when priests get together we run by our little speeches with each other. “What do you say?” to see what might be a better way to handle it.

It has been suggested that we have people read the hymnal statements but until we have our pews refinished (please patron saint of pews soon) congregants do not have access to them. And programs (which are really quite unnecessary) are often not printed.

So I guess I am asking you what you think. Something needs to be declared. Whatever is said should in a perfect world be honest, brief, and inoffensive. I am open to your input. Leave a comment and or vote in the poll in the right column.

EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN

You have probably heard this already: “Dateline VATICAN CITY: Pope Benedict XVI intends to return to the old way of distributing Communion at Masses.” One wonders why newspapers do not bother to consult a practicing Catholic when writing these things. *sigh*

In the interest of integrity in reporting here is a better nuanced version of the same story. “The pope is going to rescind the special indult that allowed people a different way to receive Communion from that which is normative.” This is not a “return to Pre-Vatican II” ways but what has always been the preferred and normative way to receive communion. Even in the United States it is by special indult that we are permitted to receive Communion in the hand. Personally I have no problem with it unless someone does not have full use of both hands and both arms. However I find it neglectful that we teach our children that there is only one way to receive, and as we are want to do, we usually teach them the secondary method as the only way to go.

It is important however that they learn both ways even if they never intend to receive on the tongue. No matter which way a person decides to receive, it is their right and none of the business of the priest. But there are times when it is necessary. Who knows? Maybe they will travel to Rome where they must receive on the tongue and they will be standing there looking quizzically at the Pope who is trying to get them to open their mouth.

But there may be times even in one’s own parish when receiving in the hand should be avoided. The first would be when carrying a child. A hand is pried from underneath the child’s bottom to receive Our Lord and then popped into the mouth while crushing the child to one’s body. It also provides a moment when the host might be swiped away by the child. This is an instance when receiving in the hand is both impractical and irreverent.

For that matter, when one is carrying an open hymnal, has an arm in a cast, is on crutches, has dirty hands or has a phone number scribbled across the palm when it would be most appropriate to receive in the normative fashion. To receive properly requires both hands and if one does not have such free use of both, then they should receive in the normative fashion.

This is one of those times I am so happy to be a priest. There is not thinking about it. There is one way for us to receive and there is no wondering, “Which way would I like to receive?”

For the same reason I am glad we only wear black. There is no, “What color should I wear this morning?” Like Henry Ford once said, “Any color you want, just as long as it’s black.”

YOU CAN BANK ON IT

I forgot how to go to the bank.

I am not kidding.

I do most of banking either on line (something I am opposed to in principle) or through a machine (yet something else that I am opposed to at least in theory) so when I have to go to an actual bank and meet an actual person to do an authentic bank transaction outside of my little ream of knowledge I become an absolute boob.

Wednesday I had to go to the bank to get either a cashier’s check or certified check or some such think for – uhm - a reason - * ahem * - (Okay! I got a ticket when I was in New York – there. I said it!) and wasn’t exactly sure what I was supposed to do. But there was no avoiding this little excursion and so it was off to the bank.

Fortunately the bank was empty and after a twisted walk through the rope maze a distracted teller called me forward.

“Good morning,” I said.

“Good morning. May I help you?”

Being generally a snotty person, I remained silent until she looked up from her computer screen and actually looked at me. It was at that point that I realized that I really did not know what to ask. “I need some sort of check from the bank to pay a – uhm – bill that I have.” Heavy blush.

She breathed a deep sigh and ran through my options, which did not mean much to me until she told me the prices. That was clear. “I’ll take the cheap one.”

“Do you have a check?” she asked.

A check? I didn’t know I would need a check to get a check. I wondered what else I will need? Do I need my bankbook? (Do they even have bankbooks anymore?) “Oh, I don’t have one.”

She scooted her glasses down her nose and peered over them. “You don’t have a check with you?”

“No.” I felt about three years old.

“Well, if you have ID, I can do a (she mentioned some sort of) check for you.”

I think it was at this point that she realized how completely helpless I was and became a very nice and helpful person and the great state of New York can cross one more ne’er-do-well off of their list.

Now, walking out of the bank I thought, “I’m glad THAT’S over! I hope I never have to do THAT again.”

Then I had an epiphany. I wonder if this is what it is like for someone who has been away from the Church for a long time and suddenly finds himself at mass. As I mentioned yesterday about making (what I thought was a very clear) announcement before communion at weddings and funerals about who should receive and who should not, people still come forward all the time that I wonder if they should. I say, “Body of Christ,” and non-practicing Catholics do one of the following:

Smile and shrug their shoulders.
Ask, “What?”
Say, “Sure.”
Say, “Body of Christ,” and make no sign that they are going to receive.
Say, “I’ll take one.”
Stand there mute.

It can be a very uncomfortable moment. Too bad it got that far. I wonder how many people walk out of the Church thinking, “I’m glad THAT’S over. I hope I never have to do THAT again.”

So that got me wondering, what would have made me more at ease at the bank?

First would have been a teller who was more attentive, directional, and kind. So, maybe I need to give more clear direction during my masses.

Second would have been to have a friend with me who knew the ropes and who would have guided me through. So I encourage you to at least offer to help relatives and friends who are not Catholic or do not practice, with whom you are close, particularly at weddings and funerals to know what to do at mass.

Thirdly, banks have information pamphlets. Many times at weddings and funerals people produce programs with lists of characters and music credits. Most of the time they are pretty useless except in the summer when the air-conditioning is not working well (that is just personal opinion). Perhaps they could become true worship aids a part of which would be to help non-practicing Catholics know what’s coming up and what they should do. Maybe. Perhaps.

And lastly, when in New York on Route 3 going through the military base and they ask you to reduce your speed to 45 for that eighth of mile, do it. They mean it.

I'VE GOT TO HAND IT TO YOU

As far as opinion goes, it does not matter what I think as to whether you should receive communion on the tongue or in the hand. According to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (paragraph 92) you have the right to receive on the tongue as a universal rule. You may receive in the hand where the conference of bishops with papal approval has deemed it permissible. (It is interesting to note however that the rest of the short paragraph warns against possible difficulties with receiving in the hand and actually forbids the practice if there is a risk of profanation.)

The risk of abuses when communion is received in the hand increases dramatically and it is incumbent upon the communicant to put forth the extra effort this privilege demands in order to make sure that the Blessed Sacrament is afforded all of the attention and care of which He is deserving. It is also vitally important that pastors make sure that his people are properly disposed to receiving in the hand if they so desire it. To that end, here are a couple of notes:

If you are not able to properly receive in the hand; don't. If you have a hand in a cast, if you are on crutches, if you have a hymnal in your hands, if you have your hymnal (or purse or any object) shoved up under your arm (no matter powerful your armpits are), if you are carrying a baby, or holding hands or need a hand to balance yourself or for any reason you do not have full and free use of your both of your hands and arms for the reception of the Blessed Sacrament, receive on the tongue.

So suppose your hands and arms are not otherwise occupied or disabled, please consider the following.

This is the way to receive communion in the hand. Your dominant hand is placed under your non-dominate hand. With fingers closed and palm flat and parallel to the floor, you create an altar for the reception of our Lord. Observed in this fashion it will be difficult to receive communion irreverently (unless at the same time you are also sticking your tongue out thoroughly confusing the person distributing.)

THE PINCHASAURUS (Sometimes know as Birdus Beakodiosus) As communion is about to be placed in the hand of the recipient, a "pincher" known in some circles as the Bird Beak of Snatchiness jumps out and tries to snatch the host out of the hand of the minister. The pincher can sometimes be quite persistent. In worse case scenarios one must use the incantation, "Stop it!" and then whack the person on the head and when they open their mouth to say, "Ouch," you place the Eucharist on their tongue and promise them that this is what will happen every time they come to communion until they learn now to receive correctly.

THE AMBIDEXTROUS It may be obvious to YOU into which hand the Eucharist should be placed (couldn't he see my pinkies were overlapped?) but it is not to everyone else. Please don't make the minister have to guess.

LAYITONMEOUS - Often leads to popping Jesus in the same way pills are popped. Again if you only have one hand, receive on the tongue. Unfortunately I am blind in one eye so if you hold out only one hand, I won't see it and will resort to distributing to you on the tongue. (Yes, I am kidding, I can see with both eyes. Just not at the same time.)

THE POSTUS SLOTUS - Please deposit one host. No.

THE RICEUS BOWLUS - Rice bowls are general good for collecting money for Catholic Relief Services and for, well, rice. Doesn't work so hot for communion. It may be that you are crippled up with arthritis, but in such cases, please receive on the tongue.

THE MODEST MANUS - I find it strange that persons who don't mind showing their mid-drifts or legs beginning just below the hips will be modest about exposing the skin of their hands in church. Please let me assure you that not only, at least in the instance, is it alright, it is also mandatory.

THE PIUS MANUS - Actually NOTHING should be in your hands, not even something that we would otherwise consider holy.

THE NOTA BENE - Have the answers to your final written in the palm of your hand? A reminder to pick up milk? A phone number? More information than we need. Only the pure of heart shall see God and only the clean of hand shall receive Jesus.

We believe this is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Proper reception of the Body and Blood of our Lord gives great witness to this miraculous gift He has entrusted to us.