We Don't Need No Stinkin' USCCB!

Here are some excerpts from the USCCB web page on The Reception of Holy Communion at Mass:

The General Instruction asks each country's Conference of Bishops to determine the posture to be used for the reception of Communion and the act of reverence to be made by each person as he or she receives Communion. In the United States, the body of Bishops determined that Communion should be received standing, and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving. These norms may require some adjustment on the part of those who have been used to other practices, however the significance of unity in posture and gesture as a symbol of our unity as members of the one body of Christ should be the governing factor in our own actions.

Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion.

There are many reactions and interpretations of this policy on the web. My own view is that as a convert, I'm the last person to second-guess the teachings of the Church via the USCCB in this matter, and in any case, this guidance has been followed at every Catholic mass I've attended since I was received in 2013.

However, the North American ordinariate doesn't work this way, which is a conundrum, since Bp Lopes is a member of the USCCB. But my regular correspondent pointed me to a recent article by Shane Schaetzel, one of the unreflective but prolific lay cheerlleaders for the North American ordinariate. It's significant that he repeats the recent line that any Caholic can now "join" (whatever that means) an ordinariate group or parish:

There is no need to learn Latin responses, or follow carefully in a Latin-English Missal, as one needs to do in a TLM. So it makes for a fairly easy switch from a contemporary parish to a traditional parish, without having to relearn everything. Many regular Catholics find this appealing for various reasons.

But my regular correspondent also points out,

I am also interested that he states that communion in the OCSP is always given on the tongue. Really? This is certainly not part of the “Anglican Patrimony” although no doubt practised in a certain sort of Anglo-Catholic parish. Communion in the hand, like the use of the vernacular, is an example of an Anglican practice that has been subsequently adopted by the Church. Why revert?

Yes indeed, in my Episcopalian confirmation class in 1981, I was taught communion in the hand exclusively. Even in my experience at Anglo-Catholic bastions like St Thomas Manhattan and St Thomas Hollywood, communion in the hand was nearly universal; on the tongue was pretty unusual. I suppose if I were to e-mail Mr Schaetzel to ask about this, I would get no reply.

Looking farther, my regular correspondent found at Mt Calvary Baltimore,

On page 10 here, communicants are "encouraged" to receive communion on the tongue. I can’t find a more recent bulletin.

My correspondent found a similar message in the bulletin at St Barnabas Omaha:

Communicants at Ordinariate Masses receive the sacrament kneeling at the altar rail unless prevented by health. We encourage communicants to consider the example of Papal Masses, where the faithful receive the Sacred Host directly on the tongue.

Nevertheless, immediately above this advice, the bulletin cites none other than the USCCB in urging the faithful to "express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another", except, one must conclude when it comes to differences in how to receive the sacrament.

The bulletin of St Mary the Virgin, Arlington, TX says

All Catholics are invited to participate in our Divine Worship liturgy and receive communion by kneeling (if able) at the altar rail and receiving our Lord on the tongue.

I've printed reports here that elsewhere, like Our Lady of the Atonement, intinction is the standard use for all communicants, which essentially forces communion on the tongue. The USCCB, however, says on the page linked above

It should be noted that it is never permissible for a person to dip the host he or she has received into the chalice. If, for some reason, the communicant is not able or willing to drink from the cup then that person should receive only under the form of bread.

There's no mention of having the priest dip the host, but it's plain that intinction for the purposes of the USCCB is not normally on the radar.

I assume that if Mr Schaetzel or anyone else connected with the ordinariate were to reply to an e-mail inquiry, or offer a clarification in response to this post, they might say that deviations may be authorized by the bishop. But this still leaves open the question of why, if the ordinariate is there to retain elements of Anglican heritage, it replaces the communion-in-the-hand Anglican option with compulsory communion on the tongue and in fact stresses this as a difference with the US Church at large.

Even though, in the words of the USCCB,

It is difficult for some of us to embrace this emphasis on Mass as the action of a community rather than an individual act of my own faith and piety, but it is important that we make every effort to do so. Christ himself at the Last Supper pleaded with his Father: "Holy Father, keep them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are... as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us..." (John 17:11, 21).Baptism has joined us to Christ and to one another as the vine and its branches. The life of Christ, the Holy Spirit, animates each of us individually, and all of us corporately and guides us together in our efforts to become one in Christ.

Unless, I guess, we used to be Anglican, or in fact if we used to be Catholic but don't want to be that kind of Catholic any more. In that case, Mr Schaetzel will greet you warmly.