Some Gotchas

A couple of visitors have sent interesting, and partly puzzling, additional information on intinction, chapel veils, and the sign of peace. One referred me to the USCCB norms for reception of communion, which provide

49. Holy Communion may be distributed by intinction in the following manner: "Each communicant, while holding a Communion-plate under the mouth, approaches the Priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, with a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The Priest takes a host, intincts it partly in the chalice and, showing it, says: 'The Body and Blood of Christ.' The communicant replies, 'Amen,' receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the Priest, and then withdraws."

50. The communicant, including the extraordinary minister, is never allowed to self-communicate, even by means of intinction. Communion under either form, bread or wine, must always be given by an ordinary or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

This raised two questions for me. I asked the visitor exactly what is meant by a "communion-plate", and he replied that it must be a paten. This led me to the question of whether communicants bring their own or draw one from some sort of supply that's made available, but on searching church supply firms, I could only find patens sold in sets with chalices. So I just don't know how this works -- the norm seems to imply that the communicant turns up in front of the priest and extraordinary minister already with the paten under his mouth, and the priest and EM, pre-positioned to do this, then administer the sacrament via intinction. So on one hand, if anyone has seen this done, I'd like to hear the details. On the other, I don't see how this squares with the use of intinction sets at OLA, OLW, and possibly other OCSP parishes.

I raised this with my visitor as well, who replied,

I saw "intinction sets" like these in one or two parishes of the "Polish National Catholic Church" (one in Massachusetts, the other in Connecticut) in 1976, 77, or 78, long before I ever saw them in a "real" Catholic parish. I can't assert that "intinction sets" are a PNCC invention; on the other hand, the PNCC began to give communion in both kinds, by intinction only, by the late 1940s or early 1950s, when it was simply "not done" in the RC Church. I agree that they "don’t seem to meet the criteria in the USCCB norms, and I don't think that I have ever seen them in any Catholic parish of the Diocese of [redacted], where I live, although I have seen them in the Archdiocese of Boston, MA, where I am from. I saw them in use in the PNCC cathedral parish in Lancaster, NY, just outside of Buffalo, when I walked into it late on Sunday morning about 4 years ago when driving home from a historical conference in Toronto.

So this leaves open the question of how intinction sets entered the culture of lah-de-dah in the big Texas OCSP parishes. But further to lah-de-dah, another visitor noted,

When I went through Episcopal confirmation class in about 1968, chapel veils were absolutely required. The priest told the girls they were not to go into the nave without one. There was a ready supply of “throw-down” veils in case someone forgot hers. I know my mother always wore one in those days and not just in a “high-church” parish. This was a “communion once a month” parish. I think that changed by the mid-70s. Also the ringing of the bells during the eucharistic prayer was the signal to get down—really crouch down—in the pew. As far as intinction goes, the reason that I thought people resorted to that was out of concern for other parishioners, if you had a cold or something. That was the only Episcopal reason I ever knew of. Finally, you are probably aware that not all RC churches offer the parishioners the chalice. My most recent parish in Houston does not, nor my parish back in Plantation, FL. That saves a LOT of time.

But as I've noted before, the Catholic Church has no policy regarding head coverings for women. Wear them or not, chapel veils or not. Hats of any sort are a minority in our diocesan parish, veils even less common. But beyond that, if in some parish, women all thought it proper in some way to come to church wearing Eleanor Roosevelt type hats, I suppose this would be something they could agree on among them, but it wouldn't make anyone more or less holy. Heck, in my first TEC parish, it was thought proper not just to wear suits, but Brooks Brothers suits. However, I don't see the point of bringing the lah-de-dah side of Episcopalianism into the OCSP.

Finally, the first visitor brought up Vatican policy regarding the Sign of Peace:

82. The Rite of Peace follows, by which the Church asks for peace and unity for herself and for the whole human family, and the faithful express to each other their ecclesial communion and mutual charity before communicating in the Sacrament.

As for the sign of peace to be given, the manner is to be established by Conferences of Bishops in accordance with the culture and customs of the peoples. It is, however, appropriate that each person offer the sign of peace only to those who are nearest and in a sober manner.

There are extensive concerns regarding the placement of the Peace in the novus ordo mass, explained in an article in Crisis here.

Thankfully, the Roman Missal has allowed consecrating priests to omit the gesture of peace among the people. The Vatican’s Circular Letter reaffirmed that the gesture is indeed optional, meaning that those who choose not to participate in the gesture when invited and those who intellectually disagree with its placement in the Mass are in no way challenging Church hierarchy on liturgical instruction.

However, the article points out that those who refrain for these reasons do risk appearing churlish. More locally, I have the impression that Filipinos, of whom there are many at our parish, are less culturally inclined to shake hands than Americans, and while I'm sensitive to this, we do smile and say the peace.

I will welcome further insights into these matters! UPDATE: A visitor adds,

In the OCSP masses I’ve been to, a minister stands beside the priest who is offering communion, carrying a thing that looks like a golden ping-pong paddle, and he places it under the chin of the communicant as the dipped communion wafer is placed by the priest on the communicant’s tongue. I suppose this is to catch any drip or crumb. Those devices are then ceremonially wiped down along with the ablutions at the conclusion of communion.

I of course never saw that in any Episcopal church.

So we still have the issue that this is not any sort of Anglican tradition -- it seems to have begun, as far as my visitors suggest, in the PNCC and is fairly recent in the Catholic Church itself. But it is being adopted in some OCSP parishes, rather clearly as a way to avoid the use of EMHCs and force reception on the tongue, and in the name of what seems to be a faux "traditionalism".