Local Usage In The Ordinariate

My regular correspondent went looking for evidence of how ordinariate communicants receive the Sacrament at individual groups and parishes. It turns out that there is slight variety in how policies are expressed, recognizing that in any case, there is no option other than the Roman Canon every Sunday, which is in fact contrary to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.

Most communities, however, are a little bit more careful to avoid explicitly contradicting the USCCB policy than Fr Lewis in his March 12 letter to the Atonement parish. Some others, like St Timothy Catonsville, MD are quite low church, and others in diocesan facilities without communion rails are also exceptions.

But the mode at most seems to be effectively to enforce, however subtly, communion kneeling, in both kinds, on the tongue. None of these gives realistic options other than for those clearly unable to kneel.

Mt Calvary Baltimore has a fairly comprehensive outline in its FAQ:

I noticed that you have a communion rail. If I want to receive Communion, am I required to kneel at it?

Communicants at Divine Worship Masses receive Holy Communion kneeling at the altar unless prevented by health.

Why do you receive Communion on the tongue at Mount Calvary? Can I receive Communion in the hand?

We encourage communicants to consider the example of Masses celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, where the faithful receive the Host directly on the tongue. Reception on the tongue is an ancient and honored practice in both the Divine Worship and the Roman Rite. As with the Roman Rite, communicants have the right to receive the Host either on the tongue or in the hand.

Why do you receive Communion under both kinds at Mount Calvary? If I approach to receive Communion, am I required to receive both kinds?

Reception of Communion under both kinds is a longstanding tradition in Divine Worship liturgies, and the Ordinariate preserves that tradition. While you are encouraged to receive Communion in both the Host and the Precious Blood, the Host is sufficient, as Christ is equally present in both Eucharistic species.

This is all maybe a bit too cute, since it makes grand statements about how things are done, while not giving any indication of how one might signal to the priest that one wishes, for instance, to receive only the Host -- and that for very good reason, like wishing to avoid alcohol.

Here comes the priest, dipping each Host in the wine and placing it on tongues as he moves down the line. What do you do, grab his hand before he dips the Host? Whisper urgently that you can't have wine? My guess is that a normal Catholic would simply choose not to receive, which means there likely won't be any return visit to the parish.

St Barnabas Omaha expresses a similar policy on p 15 of its bulletin:

Communicants at Ordinariate Masses receive the Sacrament kneeling at the altar rail (unless prevented by health) and in both species.All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.

This doesn't explicitly say the parish doesn't observe the General Instruction of the Roman Missal or the USCCB guidelines, but it definitely does say if you want to be comfortable here and want to be in unity "with Jesus and one another" (but apparently not with the CDW or the USCCB), you do as we do. Those who struggle with kneeling due to arthritis, those who may not wish to receive wine, or those who simply prefer to receive the Host in the hand like Episcopalians do will, out of charity and wishing not to be conspicuous, probably simply elect not to receive.

Simple instructions for how to arrange perfectly reasonable exceptions aren't provided. Good luck building the parish, Fathers.

St Thomas More Scranton has a similar policy expressed in different words in its FAQ:

The Sacrament is typically received kneeling, in both kinds, on the tongue (the Priest will intinct the Host in the Chalice and place it on your tongue). If for reasons of disability or your accustomed pattern you prefer not to kneel, you may receive standing. If you will not be receiving Holy Communion today, you are still most welcome to come forward. . .

It's acknowledged that someone may prefer to stand simply because that's what he's used to, but it's pretty clear that you're expected to receive in both kinds, on the tongue, even if that's not "your accustomed pattern". Why is "your accustomed pattern" OK in one case but not another? And how does this differ from Church policy that a priest may not force a communicant to receive on the tongue? (I guess it's OK because Fr Bergman is doing it nicely, huh?) Again, if nothing else, I suspect this drives potential members, either possible Episcopalian converts or cradle Catholics, away.

A copy of FAQs on the Divine Worship Missal is linked from several ordinariate community websites. In Quetion 2, it specifically says

The liturgical norms and principles of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal are therefore normative for this expression or form of the Roman Rite. The Missal also includes a Rubrical Directory which proves instructions for those areas in which Divine Worship diverges from the Roman Missal.

However, I can so far find no reference to exceptions to the General Instruction regarding use of Eucharistic Prayer III as the normal Sunday mass, nor any rubric that requires reception kneeling on the tongue. Someone more familiar with the applicable documents may be able to clarify this for me.

Another question left unaddressed is what policy the ordinariate will follow regarding reception on the tongue once current restrictions on public gatherings are lifted in the current health crisis. It's certainly possible to argue that advice to avoid close contact with other people's hands and fingers is misguided, and visitors have sent me tracts from pre-Conciliarists to this effect. On the other hand, prudence is a cardinal virtue.

People have free will. But people do suffer unnecessarily by deliberately ignoring mainstream medical advice due to misguided religious scruple.

In looking at options for ordinariate communities as we lead up to reopening public masses, I would want to see a clear accommodation to reasonable health concerns in the matter of receiving the Host on the tongue. If this matter is not clarified with some reasonable adjustment, my advice would be that we indeed have free will, and prudence would suggest communicants concerned with their own health and that of their families move to diocesan mass celebrations.