Hand or Tongue?

One of the slightly disconcerting things  in the early days before I had finally decided to return to the Church was watching people standing to receive Communion and taking the Host in their hand. I remember thinking that it might as well be a Ritz cracker for all the external reverence I saw. Now I had spent some time in the Church of England where communion was received in the hand, but then,officially at least, those receiving did not believe (and they were right not to believe) that they were receiving anything but a blessed wafer. Oddly enough we received kneeling at the -wait for it- altar rails. You know those nasty excluding things Catholic churches have largely got rid of. So my real problem was a perceived lack of reverence for the Host as the Body and Blood of Christ : in which all Catholics believe- don't they?

Well, no they don't, anything between 40-70% depending on which survey you consult. And it's hardly original of me to suppose that this might have something to do with the way they receive. I think you need to tread carefully here. Not everyone who receives in the hand is intentionally irreverent or believes otherwise than as Christ and the Church teach about the Eucharist. But many seem very casual and it seems quite likely that over time it can wear down that awe that I learned as a child when only the consecrated hands of the priest touched the Host.

I've just been reading bishop Schneider's pamphlet 'Dominus Est - It is the Lord' on precisely this subject. The bishop, of whom I hadn't heard until recently, seems to have become something of a poster boy for traditionalists and I'm none too keen on personality cults. But what he has to say is pertinent. He draws on a large range of patristic sources to show that Communion on the tongue became the practice at an early stage, while avoiding the propagandist trap of asserting that it was always so. He puts reception in the hand in the early Church in its proper context of purification and humble prostration. And he argues the compelling reasons for reception on the tongue while kneeling. Kneeling has been a sign of reverence and humility in our culture for many centuries: we kneel to those greater than ourselves and stand before our equals. Rather than take as our right what is offered we humbly accept the gift. In a particularly good image he likens such reception to the small child being fed by its parent.

So what do I do? Having thought about it for some years, but lacking the courage to be different, I was standing in line at the Cathedral one day behind some young overseas Catholics who all received quite unselfconsciously on the tongue and I just followed suit. It felt awkward for a while, but, as I was in any case used to doing it at traditional Mass, I soon got used to doing it all the time. But do I kneel? Afraid not: my knees are stiff and while I could get down without altar rails to help I could only get up again by hanging on the the priest. And that I think would be a step too far!

Habemus episcopum

The diocese of  Hallam at last has a new bishop-elect. Not much seems to be known about him and he hasn't set the traditionalist blogosphere alight, but as our parish priest said this morning, he's a Redemptorist so he should know how to preach.
Well, that's a start. A proactive, evangelising bishop is just what this rather stagnant diocese needs. One who, like bishop Egan of Portsmouth, will preach the Gospel irrespective of criticism and do his best to be a humble and orthodox shepherd. One who will not be complacent about the problems within the Church.We have a few such bishops already, may bishop Heskett be one of them.

Green shoots?

An elderly priest asked me a few weeks ago if I saw any sign of 'green shoots' in the Church. Well, 'no' was the answer. Fewer, mainly elderly, priests, (although there has reportedly been a slight upturn in vocations since 2005) resulting in more parishes having no resident priest and conversely priests, like Church of England ministers, having to take on several parishes; ageing and dwindling congregations; young people mostly abandoning whatever connection they had with the church  once they leave school. No, no green shoots, I said. Not in England at any rate.

But yesterday I was idling my way through various blogs and somewhere, can't remember where,came across someone who was trilling about exactly that: green shoots and 'springtime' in the Church. And why so? Because, it turned out, a 'dissident' Irish priest, who was forbidden to publish several years ago by the CDF, has had sanctions against him lifted. There's no sign that he's repented or acknowledged his wrongdoing in spreading material contradicting the teaching of the Church on (of course) sexual matters- that's what usually concerns dissidents.

This is a sign to those Catholics (the majority, I'm afraid) who have spent the last 30 years complaining about the 'repressive' nature of the magisterium and sulkily asserting their right to believe whatever is most attractive and convenient for them. (They do of course have that right, but they really shouldn't confuse their self-selected titbits with the Faith, still less sneer at those who disagree with them). What they think they now have is a Pope who is, if not exactly on their side, much more relaxed about what ordinary Catholics get up to, keen on concepts like 'mercy' which they interpret to mean it's OK to do whatever you like, God will always forgive you, and  happy to leave most matters to local bishops.

This is so depressing. We had (not that I was around for most of the time) two good, orthodox Popes for a generation, who worked tirelessly to undo the damage caused in the 1960s and 1970s and to set the Church on the right course post-Vatican II (which both men were committed to and of course involved in behind the scenes). And now that seems under threat, because we have, for whatever reason, a Pope who thinks and behaves like a provincial bishop and appears to have difficulty in articulating the substance of the Catholic Faith, instead muddying the waters so that dissidents can claim, surely wrongly, that he's one of them.

Given the head of steam building up over the forthcoming synod on 'The Family' which many people seem to think will be solely concerned with the hurt feelings of people who have entered knowingly into illicit relationships which should preclude them from receiving Communion, there seems a greater likelihood of schism than at any time in the last 40 years. This might not be a wholly bad thing and perhaps Pope Francis' pontificate will turn out to be the point at which we stop trying to put sticking plaster on broken bones, acknowledge that only a very few Catholics are faithful and rebuild from that remnant.

Not what I wanted or expected when I came back. But there is one important thing to remember: Christ has already won the victory. It will all end well- but there will be much to endure first.