Archbishop of Bologna bans Eucharist by hand in select Churches

[paperwight]

A few years ago, one of the diocese in Brazil asked to not implement the indult, even though the Bishop’s Conference in Brazil had adopted it. The response from the Vatican was that it was up to the local Bishop, that the indult was permission - not mandate.

In Colombia, none of the dioceses has the indult. I don’t believe the Bishop’s Conference has requested it. In Mexico, the diocese where Cozumel is, does not have it as well as some others in Mexico. Since our parish has many families that travel back and forth to Mexico, we are careful when we teach First Communicants that they have the option here but may or may not have that option in Mexico.

And those are just the ones I can remember from the top of my head.

So not the ‘many’ dioceses without the indult you felt was the case, compared with the practice worldwide. One diocese in Brazil, none in Columbia, and some in Mexico.

 

[mitch2007]

So not the ‘many’ dioceses without the indult you felt was the case, compared with the practice worldwide. One diocese in Brazil, none in Columbia, and some in Mexico.

Those were the examples he could remember immediately, not the sum total.

However, I do believe that nowadays most dioceses in the world have over time been granted the indult permitting communion in the hand.

I think it came to Poland only within the last 5-10 years, and is not implemented everywhere.

I do not know whether all Eastern European or Asian dioceses have the indult.

Even in Italy it came RELATIVELY late (1989) as opposed to much of western Europe and the English-speaking world, between 1969 and 1977.

From your tone (and I may be mistaken), it would appear that you are indignant at the concept of not being able to receive communion in the hand, and that you are in favour of it, and opposed to any change away from it.

Where the indult is in place - yes, in much, perhaps even most, of the world - it is perfectly legitimate for people to take advantage of the permission and receive the Host into their hands if they so choose. It is also permissible (always and everywhere) to adhere to the more traditional and in fact “default” method (as no indult is required) by receiving on the tongue. As and where Church authorities opt to restrict the Indult or withdraw it, we must respect that decision as one which they are entitled to make.

 

[paperwight]

Those were the examples he could remember immediately, not the sum total.

From your tone (and I may be mistaken), it would appear that you are indignant at the concept of not being able to receive communion in the hand, and that you are in favour of it, and opposed to any change away from it.

No I am not indignant. I don’t do being indignant when it’s a matter of personal preference. I prefer to receive (and to administer) Communion in the hand, it’s true, but otherwise, let a hundred flowers bloom.

But what does get me miffed are generalisations not backed up by fact. I could just as easily generalise by quoting my experiences going to Mass pretty well worldwide, but without facts and figures such a generalisation would be nearly worthless.

I would be genuinely interested to know the true situation worldwide regarding the indult.

Does anyone know of a short way to getting this information? Trawling all the websites for each Bishops Conference (assuming that they all have them) would be very hard.

 

[Corki]

So not the ‘many’ dioceses without the indult you felt was the case, compared with the practice worldwide. One diocese in Brazil, none in Columbia, and some in Mexico.

It’s **all **the dioceses in Colombia, not none. There are over 70 diocese in Colombia. That, I think would qualify as “many”. I don’t think the indult is widely used in South America but I have first hand knowledge only in Colombia since I have spoken to a priest there who told me there is no communion in the hand in the whole country.

A quick search also turned up Sri Lanka which has never had the indult and two South American diocese which have recently decided to no longer use the indult; San Luis, Argentina and Lima, Peru (Archdiocese).

I am not sure what proportion this is. But my point is that the Bolgna change is not an abberation but part of the diversity that exists around the world. I think that’s a good thing.

 

[paperwight]

It’s **all **the dioceses in Colombia, not none. There are over 70 diocese in Colombia. That, I think would qualify as “many”. I don’t think the indult is widely used in South America but I have first hand knowledge only in Colombia since I have spoken to a priest there who told me there is no communion in the hand in the whole country.

QUOTE]

Sorry, you’re quite right. It was lazy typing (and checking) on my part. I knew what I meant i.e. none of the dioceses in Columbia has an indult, but the way I phrased it made it sound the opposite to what I meant.

And I certainly agree with you about diversity. Although it sounds like the bishops in the places you quote aren’t allowing that diversity.

I wonder how many dioceses exist worldwide. I suppose the Vatican website would be the place to start.

 

[Malkin71]

Via Fr. Z wdtprs.com/blog/2009/05/card-caffara-of-bologna-in-certain-churches-only-communion-on-the-tongue/

“Buildings can be smashed down quickly by they are built up brick by brick”. (Fr. Z)

We Traditionalists could use some cheering up .

Let’s pray that other Bishops will follow suit, if it be God’s will.

Make him a Cardinal. Reward him.

 

[ritthichai]

Make him a Cardinal. Reward him.

A bishop here has recently forbidden communion in the form of wine and the placing of the host on the tongue because of swine flu:
[timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6571725.ece](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6571725.ece)

 

[eggplant911]

I don’t really understand the strong feelings about this. :blush:Honestly, is a tongue more consecrated than a hand? At the Last Supper, do you suppose Jesus put the bread into the apostle’s mouths so it wouldn’t touch their hands? I hope this doesn’t sound flip, I don’t mean for it to, I truly do not get this argument. Somebody wrote once about the first person to receive Jesus in their hands was Joseph assisting Mary in childbirth,a. tender picture of care and awe. We are told to worship and serve with our whole selves and offer our whole bodies as a living sacrifice. Surely Eucharistic amazement is not exclusive to receiving on the tongue and since the Eucharist is the sum and summit of our worship it would seem that the method of receiving - hand or tongue - would be defined with no need for discussion if it were that holy or unholy. I would, by the way, obey the authority of the Church wherever I was. Those are the thoughts that pop into my head as I read these pages. And thanks be to God for the Bread of Life.

 

[una_fides]

Wouldn’t it be better if a pronouncement such as this be better if it was made by the Pope ? as it would cause more reflection and adhearance ?? I know I would be more inclined to follow the suggestion from the Pope rather than the Bishop or Archbishop unless they had an official letter from the Vatican expressing this desire for us to follow

Actually the practice of Communion in the Hand was explicitly banned by the Church for many centuries. Popes have in the past forbidden the practice and the ban endured for a substantial amount of time. The universal norm of the Church is still to receive on the tongue. Reception in the hand is only and indult, a special permission, that can be revoked at any time.

 

[Cecilianus]

I don’t really understand the strong feelings about this. :blush:Honestly, is a tongue more consecrated than a hand? At the Last Supper, do you suppose Jesus put the bread into the apostle’s mouths so it wouldn’t touch their hands? I hope this doesn’t sound flip, I don’t mean for it to, I truly do not get this argument. Somebody wrote once about the first person to receive Jesus in their hands was Joseph assisting Mary in childbirth,a. tender picture of care and awe. We are told to worship and serve with our whole selves and offer our whole bodies as a living sacrifice. Surely Eucharistic amazement is not exclusive to receiving on the tongue and since the Eucharist is the sum and summit of our worship it would seem that the method of receiving - hand or tongue - would be defined with no need for discussion if it were that holy or unholy. I would, by the way, obey the authority of the Church wherever I was. Those are the thoughts that pop into my head as I read these pages. And thanks be to God for the Bread of Life.

The Apostles were priests, so your analogy is false. The reason why we must avoid touching the Body of Our Lord with our hands is because the hands of the priest are specially consecrated to do this, and our hands are not. Receiving Communion in the hand is analogous to fondling another man’s wife - the priest alone has the right to touch.

Obviously we’re not worthy to receive Communion (which people seem to be referring to for some odd reason as “touching” with our tongues) either - yet this is what the Eucharist was ordained for. But for us to touch Him with our hands first is not part of the act of Communion, and the Church has rightfully banned this for many centuries.

 

[Supercatholic]

Interesting.

Just about everyone receives it in their hand at my parish.

Just about everyone receives it in their hand at my parish too. And it sickens me to no end. Why don’t we just take it in our hand eat half when we get it and save the other half for later in the day or the middle of the week? Or bring a sandwich bag and have the priest drop it inside for us to put it in the fridge when we get home. I’ve even seen some people take the host walk over to the wine bearer (if that’s the correct term) and dip it into the chalice like someone dunking a doughnut into a cup of coffee or an oreo cookie into a glass of milk. I’ve heard even Lutherans receive it on the tongue. It’s a shame for us Catholics when the first Protestant denomination which is against the Catholic Church has more reverence and respect for the eucharist than most Catholics do.

 

[soflochristmas]

Via Fr. Z wdtprs.com/blog/2009/05/card-caffara-of-bologna-in-certain-churches-only-communion-on-the-tongue/

“Buildings can be smashed down quickly by they are built up brick by brick”. (Fr. Z)

We Traditionalists could use some cheering up .

Let’s pray that other Bishops will follow suit, if it be God’s will.

Speaking of encouraging news…I’d like to share an experience I had at Mass a couple weeks ago on the feast of the Body and Blood of Christ. The priest who celebrated Mass homilized about the sanctity of the Eucharist and specifically about receiving communion in the hand versus the tongue.

Father spoke about Pope Benedict only granting communion on the tongue (is this true?). He explained that while the Church “allows” communion both ways, receiving the Sacred Host in the hand allows small particles to fall to the ground. He explained that as a priest when he purifies the ciborium, you can see small particles of the consecrated host floating to the surface. As he explained, if this happens from the Eucharist just resting in the ciborium, imagine what happens in your hands.

Now I’ve always felt you can tell the spiritual health of the parish from how many people receive on the tongue versus the hand. But after father’s homily, I was STUNNED by what I saw. ONE homily…10 MINUTES!!! That’s all it took and you could see the alter servers and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist squirm. Almost ALL of them, with the exception of one or two, received on the tongue who normally do not. You could almost see the discernment going on in their minds as father proclaimed “Body of Christ”. Father even placed his hand lovingly on the side of the face of the first alter server after she received on the tongue when father knew she did not normally.

But it gets better! OVER HALF of communicants ALSO received on the tongue. It brought me to tears. The power of ONE holy man taking ONE homily to speak 10 MINUTES. Imagine what we, the church could do if we set our minds to it.

 

[soflochristmas]

I don’t really understand the strong feelings about this. :blush:Honestly, is a tongue more consecrated than a hand?

No, neither the hand or toungue are more “consecrated” than the other. But consuming the Blessed Body and Blood of our Lord is prefered to it falling on the ground. As I mentioned in a previous post related to a homily one of the priests at my parish gave, small particles of the host tend to fall off…more so the more the Eucharist is handled.

 

[jazzbass981]

In my opinion, Jesus should be received only from the hand of a priest or deacon on the tongue, and on our knees! If it meant me crawling on my belly to show reverence to the Lord, then I would gladly do it! Also, taking it by mouth would diminish evil people from pretending to place it in their mouth and use it to desecrate Jesus! It can (and is) used at black masses, and look at the athiests that show the host being desecrated on Youtube!

 

[ritthichai]

Receiving Communion in the hand is analogous to fondling another man’s wife - the priest alone has the right to touch.

Obviously we’re not worthy to receive Communion (which people seem to be referring to for some odd reason as “touching” with our tongues) either - yet this is what the Eucharist was ordained for. But for us to touch Him with our hands first is not part of the act of Communion, and the Church has rightfully banned this for many centuries.

I could have sworn DNJC instructed us to ‘take this’ and not ‘receive this’ - to suggest a mouth or tongue (which both crawl with bacteria) is somehow better or more wortthy than a clean hand is bizarre to me.

 

[eggplant911]

“The Apostles were priests, so your analogy is false.”

When did the apostles become priests? When they were first called by Jesus? Or after the Resurrection or Pentecost? Were they priests at the Last Supper? I don’t know.

About dropping the Host, I haven’t ever seen anyone drop it or crumble it, although I am sure everything happens. I have seen people who are not even Catholic going up to take the Host - or unmarried people who openly live together. That’s sorrowful to me, as is any mishandling of the Lord. I have - once only - seen the Host fall from someone’s mouth. The priest caught it in the plate. That’s not a position of for or against, I don’t think I need a position, it’s just an observation.

 

[Cecilianus]

I’ve heard even Lutherans receive it on the tongue. It’s a shame for us Catholics when the first Protestant denomination which is against the Catholic Church has more reverence and respect for the eucharist than most Catholics do.

My Lutheran pastor before I became Catholic would go to a Catholic church and receive Communion on the tongue. But, as she explained, this wasn’t “reverence and respect for the eucharist” - as a “Protest-ant”, she was “protesting the rigidity of the Catholic Church”.

In the early Church (pre-Vatican II), we had porters (who were ordained in the minor orders) solely for the purpose of guarding the Eucharist and ensuring that all who received were Catholic (and even ushering non-Catholics out of the church before the Liturgy of the Eucharist - the Eastern rites such as the Maronites still have the priest dismiss the catechisms today). In the Byzantine Churches there was even a time when the priest would not give Communion to anyone who had not personally confessed to him the night before. But I’m afraid to say that there was no porter to inform Pastor Protestant her place - in fact, the priest of the parish had personally invited her to receive.

 

[otjm]

The Apostles were priests, so your analogy is false. The reason why we must avoid touching the Body of Our Lord with our hands is because the hands of the priest are specially consecrated to do this, and our hands are not. Receiving Communion in the hand is analogous to fondling another man’s wife - the priest alone has the right to touch.

Obviously we’re not worthy to receive Communion (which people seem to be referring to for some odd reason as “touching” with our tongues) either - yet this is what the Eucharist was ordained for. But for us to touch Him with our hands first is not part of the act of Communion, and the Church has rightfully banned this for many centuries.

The analogy is not false because there is ample evidence th theearly Church revceived in the hand.

The ordination ceremony was revised; the hands are not specially consecrated. The act of consecration of the priest is by the laying on of hands of the ordaining bishop on the head of the priest.

Receiveing in the hand has nothing wahtsoever to do with fondling another man’s wife - what it has to do with is Christ’s command - “Take and eat…” and so receiving in the hand is as much a part of the act of Communion as it is receiving on the tongue.

And your history is incorrect; the reception in the hand was not banned in the Church, but only in the Roman rite. There are other rites in which it has continued down from the apostles.

 

[otjm]

Just about everyone receives it in their hand at my parish too. And it sickens me to no end. Why don’t we just take it in our hand eat half when we get it and save the other half for later in the day or the middle of the week? Or bring a sandwich bag and have the priest drop it inside for us to put it in the fridge when we get home. I’ve even seen some people take the host walk over to the wine bearer (if that’s the correct term) and dip it into the chalice like someone dunking a doughnut into a cup of coffee or an oreo cookie into a glass of milk. I’ve heard even Lutherans receive it on the tongue. It’s a shame for us Catholics when the first Protestant denomination which is against the Catholic Church has more reverence and respect for the eucharist than most Catholics do.

It is also sad when a Catholic is sickend by a practice that goes back to the time of the apostles and has continued unabated for 2000 years - as it has in some of the Eastern rites.

 

[soflochristmas]

It is also sad when a Catholic is sickend by a practice that goes back to the time of the apostles and has continued unabated for 2000 years - as it has in some of the Eastern rites.

You should be more tollerant and respectful of diverse points of view. Power to the laity.