Discipleship requires hospitality at the Eucharistic table

There are reasons the liturgy was reformed as a result of the Second Vatican Council. The main reason for the reforms was to provide for the full, active, and conscious participation of all the faithful in the Sacred Liturgy. For some forty or fifty years before the Council the lack of participation by all the faithful in the Mass was matter of great concern among many pastors, bishops, and even popes. This led to surprising reforms even before Vatican II, made by the likes of such popes as Pius X and Pius XII. After Vatican II the Mass came to include congregational singing and congregational responses, both said and sung. The way was also opened for meaningful participation by the laity in liturgical ministries, which includes serving as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and as lectors. Hence, the remedy for whatever may ail the liturgy in the lengthy aftermath of these reforms is not a wholesale return to pre-conciliar practice, which is not what Pope Benedict's "reform of the reform" intends to bring about.

It seems to me that for every 12 Catholics who care of about matters liturgical there are 13 opinions, meaning we have a long way to go in realizing the unity the Eucharist was given to bring about. It ought to go without saying that the Eucharist is the Sacrament of Christian unity. All too often it becomes the most divisive aspect of our ecclesial lives together. This is why I think great docility is required of all the faithful, both lay and clerical, when it comes to matters liturgical.

It is quite obvious that some people are more traditional in their liturgical preference and others more contemporary, while some still are more moderate, even though they lean one way or other (Full disclosure: I consider myself a moderate with traditional leanings, who is not averse at all to participating in a well-done, yet faithful, Mass in a more contemporary style). As Roman Catholics we face a highly unusual situation in which we have the Mass in two distinct forms: the Ordinary form and the Extraordinary form. The latter, of course, refers to approval of the use of the pre-conciliar Mass according to the final pre-conciliar edition of the Roman Missal, which was implemented in 1962. Nonetheless, Mass in the traditional form remains extraordinary with the so-called Novus Ordo being the ordinary form of the Mass. It bears noting that it was recently indicated by Cardinal Koch, who is the President of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity, that this state-of-affairs will result, at some future point, perhaps in the not-too-distant future, in a single rite.

In the wake of some recent public comments by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments that the whole Church should return to the practice of kneeling to receive Holy Communion, there is no shortage of people who want to demagogue this issue and who seek to impose their individual teaching authority. Cardinal Canizares' reason for saying this, at least according to the news sources I have read, was because he noticed that bowing before receiving communion while standing (something that should be done) is practically non-existent. As with many things in the Church today, this is probably more indicative of a lack of catechesis and Christian formation than a lack of reverence.

It is no secret that at the Holy Father's request, at Masses celebrated by the pontiff, those who receive communion from him receive on the tongue while kneeling (a prie dieu being put in place for that purpose). It is also true that in places, like the United States, where the normal way for receiving communion, set forth by our bishops and approved in by the Holy See (see Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America) is that it is at the discretion of the communicant whether to receive communion under both species, to receive standing, and to receive the Host either directly on the tongue or in the hand. The practical norm in the U.S. is to receive communion standing, after making a reverential bow prior to receiving communion. Not long ago, the Holy Father made it a point that those who choose to receive communion kneeling should in nowise be made to stand, but should be accommodated in the spirit of Eucharistic hospitality. Standing to receive Holy Communion is only done by way of an indult, not as a matter of law. However, the indults in this regard have now been in place for decades and so, it can credibly be argued, they can now be considered to be normative.

It is a very short trip from these kinds of observations to demands for communion rails to be re-installed in all churches and accusations that those who do not favor returning to receiving Holy Communion while kneeling don't really believe in the Real Presence, despite the fact that kneeling to receive Holy Communion is not the experience of most Catholics. Such matters require humility and great docility to magisterial authority, which includes your bishop and even your pastor. In short, you are not holier, or even necessarily more reverential, for kneeling to receive communion than many of your sisters and brothers who prefer to stand, just as returning to your pew after receiving communion, kneeling, and remaining in this posture until the end of the Communion Rite, does not make you more holy than someone who returns to their pew, sits and joins in the singing that takes place during this rite, especially if you do this in order to show others just how holy you are! Of course, the same is certainly true in reverse.

Anyone on either side of this issue that makes this ideological or divisive is to be eschewed, that is, ignored. It is certainly a legitimate aspect of our Catholic faith that is worthy of discussion and not just by Church leaders or experts, but all the faithful precisely because it concerns the central of act of our faith, which is always an ecclesial act. So, let's not throw extreme examples about, like the priest here or there who refuses to give communion to somebody who insists on kneeling, or receiving communion directly on the tongue, seeking to thereby implicate all who do not share the commentators point-of-view. As with most things in the Church, these rare occurrences are best redressed locally either by resolving the matter directly with the priest in question, or, if necessary (meaning the latter has failed) going through the chancery. The equal and opposite of this is impugning those who genuinely and piously ("pious" not being a perjorative word) desire to take what they see as an appropriately reverential approach to receiving Holy Communion as being ignorant, ill-informed, or hopelessly retrograde.

Mass is no place for activism or self-assertion of any kind. So, if you desire to receive communion on the tongue while kneeling, which is certainly not the norm in the U.S. as per our bishops (it is the reality regardless as to what you personally think about it), you might want to schedule an appointment with your pastor and discuss this with him rather than drop to your knees at Mass and take him unawares.

I've said it before and it bears repeating: Part of being a Christian means that how you say something is at least as important as what you say. You may very well be correct, but it may not matter or make a difference to anyone, except negatively, or merely serving to reinforce those who already agree with you. We should always bear in mind the words of the apostle:

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing (1 Cor. 13:1-3)

UPDATE: My post Discourse divorced from reality: Norway and Israel was published this morning in the English edition of Il Sussidiario.