Greg Kandra once praised the fittingness and beauty of standing to receive communion. Now he thinks it’s time to bring back the communion rail:
Two years ago, I rhapsodized on the Feast of Corpus Christi on the theology behind standing to receive communion, and defended it. And why not? I’ve received that way for most of my adult life; I even remember the Latin church’s experiment with intinction back in the ’70s. Standing and in-the-hand always seemed to me sensible, practical and—with proper catechesis—appropriate.
But now, after several years of standing on the other side of the ciborium—first as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, now as a deacon—and watching what goes on, I’ve had about enough. . . .
I’m reminded week after week that people have no uniform way to receive in the hand. There’s the reverent “hands-as-throne” approach; there’s the “Gimme five,” one-hand-extended style; there are the notorious “body snatchers” who reach up and seize the host to pop into their mouths like an after-dinner mint; and there are the vacillating undecideds who approach with hands slightly cupped and lips parted. Where do you want it and how?? . . .
The fact is, we fumbling humans need external reminders—whether smells and bells, or postures and gestures—to reinforce what we are doing, direct our attention, and make us get over ourselves. Receiving communion is about something above us, and beyond us. It should transcend what we normally do. But what does it say about the state of our worship and our reception of the Eucharist that it has begun to resemble a trip to the DMV? . . .
Can kneeling to receive on the tongue help alleviate some of this? Well, it can’t hurt. And for this reason: to step up to a communion rail, and kneel, and receive on the tongue, is an act of utter and unabashed humility. In that posture to receive the Body of Christ, you become less so that you can then become more. It requires a submission of will and clear knowledge of what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what is about to happen to you.
January 15th, 2013 | 12:12 pm
Going back and forth between Old and New rite masses, there is one very practical aspect of the communion rail I’ve come to appreciate: *stopping*. In a standing-up communion line, the obvious thing is to keep it moving. One swift continuous motion. Reception of communion becomes that pause between two steps. In contrast, the few seconds of stillness kneeling at the communion rail are a blessing; the cessation of motion brings home the importance of the moment. The whole logic of the communion rail goes a long way toward undoing the conveyor belt feeling of pew-by-pew standing communion. You wait for a space to open; you wait for the priest to approach; and there is plenty of time for you to get back up and someone else to kneel without feeling like you’re holding things up. Lovely. This is part of the reason why I think having two prie-dieux parked at the foot of the altar is a poor compromise (although that’s not to say compromise isn’t better than nothing).
January 15th, 2013 | 12:18 pm
At the risk of self promotion, here is something I wrote for Lutheran Forum on the topic of altar rails. Touches on your comments.
http://incarnatusest.blogspot.com/2010/02/at-rail.html
You download a pdf of the essay here: http://lutheranforum.org/categories/archive/winter-2007/LF2007-4_20-22-Alms-At_the_Rail.pdf
January 15th, 2013 | 12:49 pm
Altar rails were themselves a substitute for the rood screen.
“The decrees of the Council of Trent (1545–1563) enjoined that the celebration of the Mass should be made much more accessible to lay worshippers; and this was widely interpreted as requiring the removal of rood screens as physical and visual barriers, even though the Council had made no explicit condemnation of screens.”
Sound familiar?
In Breton churches, where they kept their rood screens, it was customary, even in the 1950s, to stretch the communion cloth across the doorway of the rood screen, where people knelt to receive communion, two or three at a time.
January 15th, 2013 | 1:52 pm
I agree with this, I’m one that receives on the tongue because I feel is the most reverent way to do so. I’ll tell you what the objection will be – that Mass will go on too long. People begin to twitch if it goes over an hour. After all, they have places to go…
January 15th, 2013 | 2:04 pm
I’ll offer another endorsement of the altar rail. Julie I think is quite right about the positive aspect of having time at the altar rail before and after receiving the Eucharist. I would add that the stillness and pause allows me to quiet my other thoughts and concentrate on Christ.
January 15th, 2013 | 2:16 pm
paula, in my experience, the communion rail method is faster. No need for the priest to wait for the next communicant to step forward.
At the OF, I prefer to receive in the hand simply because I find it more sanitary. At the EF, I’ve had priests inadvertently touch my tongue and he may be touching other tongues in succession. And communion in the hand has a basis in tradition so I have no objections in that regard either. On the other hand (no pun intended), on the tongue is certainly more reverent. Here’s a compromise; Bring back the communion rail but keep communion in the hand.
January 15th, 2013 | 10:48 pm
Hello John,
“And communion in the hand has a basis in tradition so I have no objections in that regard either.”
Not much of one before the late 20th century, aside from a disputed passage from Cyril of Jerusalem.
Even in the Divine Liturgy, where it is generally the custom to stand for reception, reception has always been on the tongue.
“Here’s a compromise; Bring back the communion rail but keep communion in the hand.”
With respect, if there’s to be a compromise, I would vastly prefer the reverse: Stand if you like, dispense with the rail if you must, but receive on the tongue.
The risk of profanation – and increased disbelief in the Real Presence – otherwise is simply too great.
January 15th, 2013 | 11:34 pm
It is unfortunate that the debate of hand versus tongue has obscured other issues. Hand versus tongue is clearly important but while we argue that we can make in-hand reception more solemn by following Episcopalian practices
There is a lot of middle ground between the two common practices — standing, in-hand, down-the-aisle versus kneeling, on-tongue, in-front-of-altar. Episcopalians receive in the hand, but beyond that, their practice is entirely different.
First, it is not a rush to the front. Ushers slowly move from the front back, with each pew rising when it is their time.
Then they do not line up down the aisle like a bread line but across the sanctuary, in front of the altar, standing or kneeling if there is a rail.
Standing shoulder to shoulder with your fellow communicants is unifying. Standing next to and with my parents and siblings at Christmas and Easter was particularly meaningful. The ministers then walk along the line usually from both sides in toward the central aisle. One does not leave the line into those on both sides of you have received.
The right hand is placed over the left hand when they receive. Both hand are then raise to the mouth and the host consumed, like one is drinking from a stream. You only touch the host once. There is no picking it up from your left with your right and popping it in the mouth. Your head bows naturally as you lift the host to your lips.
The host is consumed while there in front of the altar, while the person next to you also receives. There is no turning and walking back down the aisle while you pop the host into your mouth, looking at the cute girl in the pew. You are looking at the altar, lowering your head to your hands.
There are so many ways to improve reception in the hand. While we debate tongue versus hand, we should adopt some of them.
January 16th, 2013 | 11:33 am
“Open your mouth and I will fill it”
This suggests not only care of the Lord in giving us the food that sustains and strengthens us, but an intimacy proper to the relationship between Christ and the Church.
Nowadays I still receive Our Lord the hand when crumbly bread is concecrated to keep pieces of the host from falling on the floor.
Wish they would bring back the use of the paten, which is absent from so many liturgies these days.
January 16th, 2013 | 8:12 pm
The best reason for bringing back the altar rail is the need for our adoration of the truly-present-Body-Soul and Divinity which we are about to receive. Notwithstanding a priest inadvertently touching someone else’s mouth roll-eyes!) and giving you germs it’s a teaching moment on reverence. Precious little body language is used to show it any more…..people don’t genuflect on entering a church all the time and mainly because sometimes they don’t know where the tabernacle is in some churches.
But absent more instruction on the seriousness of reverence at communion time kneeling at a communion rail sounds right.
January 17th, 2013 | 8:46 am
Your post is most timely, as we are in the midst of a flu outbreak. In my experience, no matter how careful one is, there is no escaping contact with the tongues of many communicants. Is epidemiology a pertinent consideration in this discussion? Moreover, I would attribute most of the deficiencies of Eucharistic reverence to poor catechesis, which cannot be solved simply by architecture.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact