Letters on Liturgy I: Reverence for Our Eucharistic Lord
Practical suggestions for a parish priest
Above: “The First Communion of the Apostles” by Marco Palmezzano (1460-1539).
Editor’s note: this is part of a series of personal letters sent to a parish priest to encourage him to bring a spirit of solemnity and reverence to the liturgy. We hope that you will be inspired to share them with your parish priest as well!
Dear Father,
I write to you concerning the lack of reverence and solemnity in our parishes today—a fact that is simply undeniable. In Memoriale Domini ("Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion"), we read that "it is a matter of great concern to the Church that the Eucharist be celebrated and shared with the greatest dignity and fruitfulness."1 However, I lament with Pope Francis when he says:
I am saddened by abuses in the celebration of the liturgy on all sides. In common with Benedict XVI, I deplore the fact that “in many places the prescriptions of the new Missal are not observed in celebration, but indeed come to be interpreted as an authorization for or even a requirement of creativity, which leads to almost unbearable distortions”.2
The blasé attitude about the Eucharist, for instance, is abundantly clear when you witness a communion line marching up with their casual clothes and their hands stretched out in front of them, or when watching a huge number of people receive Our Lord and walk right out of the church without a second thought. If for some reason you are not convinced this is a major issue, I commend to you this study showing that two thirds of Catholics in the United States do not believe in the True Presence, down from nearly 90% in 1950.
What should be done about this problem? The answer that is often put forth is that we need more catechesis. However, though learning the Church’s teaching on the Eucharist through catechesis is a worthy and necessary goal, it is not enough to learn it in a classroom or religious education program.
I often wonder if an atheist walked into a Catholic Church, would he witness what is happening and think “these people believe something special is going on”? Or is the way we handle the Eucharist more akin to handling a dinner roll at a restaurant? After all, Catechesis by liturgy is more potent and formative than learning in a classroom or lecture hall—a “catechesis by doing”, if you will.
If you truly believe something, it should be reflected in your outward actions. Catholicism is imbued with this principle, where a small symbol or gesture calls to mind a greater truth of the faith. No one disagrees with this principle when it comes to saluting superiors in the military, proposing down on your knee with a diamond ring, or dressing in your best suit for an important meeting. The outward signs clearly matter.
This is why genuflecting before the Eucharist is so important: first, it gives to God the reverence and honor which is due Him. Second, the outward action of bending your knee before what seems to be a piece of bread informs your interior disposition and belief that there is more there than meets the eye. This exemplifies the timeless Catholic principle of lex orandi lex credendi.
For these reasons, and as an effort to combat the irreverence which is the impetus for my letter, I humbly offer three simple suggestions on how to encourage your parishioners (and fellow priests) to approach Our Lord and form their interior disposition through their exterior posture and actions.
Extraordinary Ministers
Discourage extraordinary ministers of communion. You are specially called and set apart as an alter christus, ordained with the express purpose of confecting and distributing—with your consecrated hands—the precious body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. Robert and Betty from the parish extraordinary ministers society, however, are not. Even the name “extraordinary minister” tells you they should be the exception, not the norm.
Canon Law states that eucharistic ministers are to be used “when a need of the Church warrants it and proper ministers are lacking.”3 And Redemptionis Sacramentum (“On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist”) says that the function of an extraordinary minister
is to be understood strictly according to the name by which it is known, that is to say, that of extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, and not “special minister of Holy Communion” nor “extraordinary minister of the Eucharist” nor “special minister of the Eucharist”, by which names the meaning of this function is unnecessarily and improperly broadened. If there is usually present a sufficient number of sacred ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion, extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion may not be appointed.4 [emphasis mine]
In all the parishes I've visited where eucharistic ministers were used, there has not been any discernible need to justify their use. Such widespread disregard for the Church's guidance on a grave matter—the handling of the Holy Eucharist—contributes to the serious issues I described at the outset of this letter.
Photos by New York Times (left) and Busted Halo (right).
Again, consider a non-Catholic watching two separate communion lines: in the first, the congregation approach the sanctuary, kneel down, and receive from the hands of a priest in his vestments. In the other, they approach a volunteer in pants and a sweater, and receive standing up with their hands outstretched. From the view of an outsider, which line believes they are receiving something special?
Ushers and Communion Lines
Instruct ushers not to funnel people out of the pews and into communion lines. This places undue pressure on those unprepared to receive our Lord, including non-Catholic visitors, forcing them to stand up and move with the crowd. It should be a normal, non-scandalous occurrence for people to stay in the pew, and there should not be any social pressure to receive our Lord, as doing so unworthily will bring judgment on oneself, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:29.
Mode of Reception of Holy Communion
Encourage your congregation to receive Our Lord kneeling and on the tongue. Go to any lengths you can to encourage this as the normal mode of reception. Set kneelers at the front of the communion lines, teach altar servers to place the patent directly under the chin, and preach often about the reverence this posture shows to Our Lord.
It should be noted that the Protestant reformers knew well the effect communion in the hand would have on the faith of the people, and we have seen that play out in modern times as the study I referenced at the beginning of my letter shows.
Martin Bucer—a German reformer and influence on Thomas Cranmer of England—believed that receiving on the tongue perpetuated two falsehoods that he wanted to root out: that the priest is fundamentally different or set apart from the communicant, and that the host is fundamentally different than any piece of bread.5
Michael Davies, historian and expert on the liturgical changes of the 20th century, writes:
Bucer rejected any Eucharistic presence of Christ in or under the forms of bread and wine. He was obsessively preoccupied with ensuring that no reformed liturgy should retain any word, gesture or rubric that could possibly be interpreted as indicating belief in any such presence.6
He sought to achieve this goal by ensuring that communion was given in the hand. Davies tells us:
[T]he Protestant Reformers invested the practice of Communion in the hand with an anti-Catholic signification. From that time onwards, reception of Holy Communion on the tongue signified belief in the ministerial priesthood and the Real Presence, and the reception of Communion in the hand signified their rejection.7
Finally, because many priests are told by their pastors or bishops to disallow communion on the tongue for one reason or another, I would like to highlight the Church’s stance that the faithful have a right to receive on the tongue. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal, paragraph 161, states:
If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant. [emphasis mine]
I turn again to Redemptionis Sacramentum:
Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognition of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
The Congregation for Divine Worship wrote about this topic at least three more times in 1985, 1999, and 2009, always affirming the right of the communicant to receive on the tongue.
Conclusion
There is, of course, much more that can be done as your pastor and bishop allow. But I believe that gradually committing to these three things will prove the simplest and most profound way to bring Eucharisitc reverence to your parish.
Know that I will continue praying for you in your priestly ministry!
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship Issued on May 29, 1969.
Letter of the Holy Father to the Bishops of the whole world, that accompanies the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio data “Traditionis custodes” (16 July 2021).
Canon 230.3 (https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/documents/cic_lib2-cann208-329_en.html#TITLE_II.).
Chapter VII (Extraordinary Functions of the Lay Faithful), paragraph 156. (https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html).
Michael Davies, Cranmer’s Godly Order (Saint Marys, KS: Angelus Press, 1995), p. 212.
Ibid. p. 210.
Ibid. p. 213.