Tämä on erinomainen ratkaisu.
Ensinnäkin siinä toteutuu kommuunio kahdessa muodossa, mikä joillekin on tärkeää.
Toisaalta kielikommuunio on aina hyvin kunnioittava tapa vastaanottaa kommuunio. Siinä eukaristia ei ole vain ateria (leipä, jota revitään paloiksi ja syödään käsin) vaan todellakin jotakin yliluonnollista, kun me voimme ottaa vastaan Herran ruumiin sielumme ravinnoksi, ilman että meidän täytyy sitä käsin edes koskea — papin kädethän juuri on pyhitetty siihen tehtävään. Eihän käsikommuuniosta ulkoisesti ollenkaan aina välity pyhyys ja arvokkuus — Jumalan kohtaaminen. Uskovien sisäistä valmiutta en arvioi. Mutta onhan selvä, että jos jotakuta rakastaa paljon, hänelle haluaa näyttää parastaan.
Tämä tapa myös lähentää meitä merkittävästi ortodokseihin, jotka saavat kommuunionsa lusikalla molemmat muodot sekotettuina. Siitä tavasta olisi kiva kuulla lisää.
Onnittelut Turun seurakunnalle, joka on tehnyt hienon ratkaisun! On helppo uskoa, että se kasvattaa ei vain nykyisiä vaan myös tulevia katolilaisia yhä suurempaan eukaristiseen hurskauteen. Ja se, jos mikä, on tärkeää.
Tekstit
6 kommenttia:
This method of administering Holy Communion is called intinction. However, it is either frowned on or prohibited by many bishops. The reason being that there is a definite risk of the Sacred Blood dripping and also the wine soaked portion of the host breaking off and ending up on the floor. The chalice is more satisfactory.
Chalice in the hands of each faithful is the least safe method! Intiction, the lawful one, is done by the priest only, and communion is given directly on the tongue, a paten being held under the chin of each communicant. No risk there.
It cannot be prohibited really, since it is one of the methods explained in the General Introduction of the Missal.
One more thing: Nobody can force you to receive Communion under two kinds separately ;)
And another: it is TOTALLY forbidden by the lay faithful to make the intinction themselves. It cannot be alloved anywhere (although it is practiced somwhere). Then, the danger of Sacred blood dripping is real. Also when one drinks directly from the cup so that one keeps the cup in his own hands.
I agree totally about self service intinction. I am approaching the 40th anniversary of my ordination and have only witnessed one mishap with a chalice, but several with intinction. Drips of wine frequently end up on clothing, not on the paten. An Ordinary can define procedures for distribution in his diocese. In most countries these norms are agreed by bishops conferences
I didn't know intinction was allowed also in the Catholic church. I've seen Lutherans do it, but thought it was something they invented themselves. :)
The chalice in the hands of each communicant always sends a cold chill down my spine when I see it. It's like I'm just waiting for the sound of the chalice rolling on the floor as someone failed to pass it on properly. :) Why does the chalice have to be given to the communicant, why can't the person responsible for the chalice just let everyone drink from it holding it safely in his hands all the time? In the Orthodox church (and in the Byzantine rite of the Catholic church) we normally use a spoon, with which the communion is given from the chalice, in both kinds at the same time. That is the case in the liturgies of St. John the Chrysostom, St. Basil and St. Gregory. But we have also the liturgy of St. James where the communion is given in both kinds separately. The priest gives the body of Christ either in the mouth or on the hand (the rubrics actually say it should be given on the hand but in practice it is often given in the mouth), and the deacon gives the blood of Christ, holding the chalice all the time safely in his hands and letting every communicant drink from the chalice.
Lähetä kommentti