Communion in Hand at the Last Supper?

[Ockham]

*At the same time, speaking of communion in the hand, it must be recognized that the practice was improperly and quickly introduced in some quarters of the Church shortly after the Council, changing the age-old practice and becoming regular practice for the whole Church. They justified the change saying that it better reflected the Gospel or the ancient practice of the Church… Some, to justify this practice referred to the words of Jesus: “Take and eat” (Mk 14, 22; Mt 26, 26).

Whatever the reasons for this practice, we cannot ignore what is happening worldwide where this practice has been implemented. This gesture has contributed to a gradual weakening of the attitude of reverence towards the sacred Eucharistic species whereas the previous practice had better safeguarded that sense of reverence. There instead arose an alarming lack of recollection and a general spirit of carelessness. We see communicants who often return to their seats as if nothing extraordinary has happened… In many cases, one cannot discern that sense of seriousness and inner silence that must signal the presence of God in the soul.

…]

Now I think it is high time to review and re-evaluate such good practices and, if necessary, to abandon the current practice that was not called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium, nor by Fathers, but was only accepted after its illegitimate introduction in some countries. Now, more than ever, we must help the faithful to renew a deep faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in order to strengthen the life of the Church and defend it in the midst of dangerous distortions of the faith that this situation continues to cause.*

Archbishop MALCOLM RANJITH
Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship

newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/01/ranjith-on-kneeling-for-communion.html

 

[Ockham]

“The most respectful way of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. We must recover a sense of respect and reverence due to the Eucharist, because the love to Jesus is the center of our Christian lives. Our souls are at stake.”

Juan Luis Cardinal Cipriani Thorne, Archbishop of Lima

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/09/communion-kneeling-and-on-tongue-made.html

 

[ncjohn]

Ok, let’s take another try here to just cut to the chase on the topic.

The primary arguments of those who keep looking down on the practice of CITH revolve around two major categories:

First we have the “I hate everything that has happened in the Mass since Vatican II. Why do we need any of these things?” as espoused in the continual reposting of the following in slightly altered forms:

What benefits, practical or spiritual, are there from changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?

The other follows the premise of “Here are lots of people who were either opposed to CITH or who strongly support or supported COTT” as exemplified by the continual reposting of quotes from various popes, etc:

Ockham:

Bishop calls receiving Communion on the tongue more reverent
“It is not a question of ritualism, but a question of faith and love for Our Lord, Jesus Christ."

Each of these categories provides excellent evidence that COTT is a time-honored and venerable practice, but nobody here has questioned that. And each is an excellent support for one’s personal feeling that it is more reverent. Beyond that though neither has any value in “proving” anything about one or the other being better or worse. That comes from the answer to the following questions:

1–Are these matters of discipline?

2–Does the Pope and the Church have the right to regulate its disciplines?

3–Are the Popes since Vatican II valid Popes and endowed with all the same rights as Popes previous to Vatican II?

4–Did one of those Popes approve the practice for the faithful? Have those subsequent to him upheld that approval?

5–Do the faithful have the right to determine for themselves which validly-approved form they find more reverent without having to answer to someone else who thinks differently?

For the faithful Catholic the answer to these questions is clear and the answer supplants any of the arguments someone else might use to support their own preference.

For those who do not find the answer to the questions clear, it puts them into the category of those who are “protesting” the actions of the Church and, in effect, nailing their own “theses” on the door of the Church similar to what Martin Luther did in his time and what the Old Catholics did after Vatican I.

One may legitimately disagree with and question the prudence of the Church’s decisions on disciplines but one crosses FAR over the line when it starts implying that they are not valid or that faithful Catholics are not “measuring up” for choosing those valid alternatives offered by the Church. Further one is crossing FAR over the line in opposing the consistent teachings of scripture, from Paul to Peter to John to James to Jesus himself, in how we are to conduct ourselves with regard to fellow Christians and how we are to look at “traditions of man” vs “Traditions of God” and to promote unity over division.

I have full respect for the beliefs and the sincerity of those who find the decision to allow CITH to be less than prudent. But I find it very scary for their salvation to think of how they espouse that and the division they create in condemning other faithful Catholics just for not happening to agree with them. The story of the Pharisee thanking God for not making him like those others who weren’t nearly as good as him wasn’t put in such a prominent place in the Bible for no reason and should always be a timely reminder when our pride starts getting in the way of building up our brothers and sisters.

It’s really time to get past this petty bickering on such things. Make your appeal to the Church if you truly want to see it changed but unless and until it is, PLEASE stop attacking others for their legitimate choices on the matter and acting like they are either stupid or irreverent and just don’t “get it”. Believe me when I say that yes, we get it; we just don’t agree with your conclusions and the Church says that is ok.

Peace,

 

[Departed_Light]

I’m not sure if I am allowed to post here. If not, I ask your forgiveness. May I remark on this from a non-Catholic perspective?

Basically I see people bickering over how to receive Christ as presented in Holy Communion. Back and forth, back and forth. If Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist, as is taught by the Catholic Church, then how come the people receiving Him don’t treat each other better than this? What good does it do to receive Christ on the tongue or on the hand if the fruit of that communion is what we see here?

But I may not be able to post this here.

 

[ProVobis]

Each of these categories provides excellent evidence that COTT is a time-honored and venerable practice, but nobody here has questioned that.

Nobody? Really? The OP poster has by the virtue of the tone of his question provoked the ire of traditionalists and even those not traditionalists. Personally I think it was exactly to provoke the traditionalists, who have repeatedly been against CITH.

If the Vatican told everyone to smoke ten cigarettes every day, I’m sure you’ll find some wisdom in that, as well. It’s a practice so it falls within their realm, right?

Off to Church. Later.

 

[otjm]

Then why did they change to COTT? Did those reasons change post VII? Or did some who just had too much time on their hands decide to start trouble? I don’t know that there is a complete study of the changes and why they were made. It would depend on how many documents we have from history, and how many commentaries. The bottom line is that the Church in the Western rite determined that was best. Whether it was because the Hosts used them crumbled more than what we use today, or there were abuses to the Host separate from that, or because of changes in the size of parishes or numbers of priests available, or any number of other possible reasons, they Church determined that in the Roman?Latin rite it would be COTT.

People are trying to make this into a doctrinal or semi-doctrinal matter. It is not’ it is disciplinary. Above, I have given a quote from CArdinal Ratzinger. As brilliant a theologian as he is and has been, the comment essntially indicates it is not an issue. The Church, whether the matter started out of disobedience or otherwise, has seen fit to allow CITH. It may well be the reasons changed long before Vatican 2, but the Church did not make the change until after Vaticna 2 (and unrelated tot he documents).
ProVobis;5932509:

Sacrilege is not a discipline issue; it is a moral one. Each one of us still has a conscience and a free will, regardless of whether you wish to call it a “correctly formed” or not.

Yes it is a moral issue, but in this circumstance (touching the Host when we only had COTT), if touching was a sacrilege, it was so only because of the disciplinary rule. It is not in and of itself a sacrilege.

 

[ncjohn]

Nobody? Really? The OP poster has by the virtue of the tone of his question provoked the ire of traditionalists and even those not traditionalists. Personally I think it was exactly to provoke the traditionalists, who have repeatedly been against CITH.

I guess you see something as a motivation that I don’t see. I see a simple question in an attempt to formulate an opinion. I have certainly not seen the OP express anything against traditionalists.

If the Vatican told everyone to smoke ten cigarettes every day, I’m sure you’ll find some wisdom in that, as well. It’s a practice so it falls within their realm, right?

Which liturgy is this practiced in? Comparing a specifically secular practice to a liturgical practice that has been the norm in both forms at various times, for extended periods, is what is known as a red herring to draw attention away from the actual issue.

I’d be interested to hear your answers to the questions posed. If one understands the nature of a discipline the entire issue is really quite clear. All the rest of this stuff is nothing but distraction from the core issue.

Peace,

 

[Brendan]

I understand that in the TLM Communion was taken on the tongue, and in the New Mass Communion is generally taken in the hand. I got into thinking of the Last Supper. When the apostles took the Body, wouldn’t they have taken it in their hands?

One thing to remember is that, at the Last Supper, the Apostles were also consecrated as Bishops, and Bishops still recieved in the hands.

So comparing what Christ did with the Apostles to what we should do is not necessarily a wise thing to do.

 

[Breviarylover]

Fr Z’s Black Glove
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/poll-communion-in-the-hand/

Excellent article!

 

[Layman]

First we have the "I hate everything that has happened in the Mass since Vatican II. Why do we need any of these things?" as espoused in the continual reposting of the following in slightly altered forms:

Each of these categories provides excellent evidence that COTT is a time-honored and venerable practice, but nobody here has questioned that. And each is an excellent support for one’s personal feeling that it is more reverent. Beyond that though neither has any value in “proving” anything about one or the other being better or worse. That comes from the answer to the following questions:

1–Are these matters of discipline?

2–Does the Pope and the Church have the right to regulate its disciplines?

3–Are the Popes since Vatican II valid Popes and endowed with all the same rights as Popes previous to Vatican II?

4–Did one of those Popes approve the practice for the faithful? Have those subsequent to him upheld that approval?

5–Do the faithful have the right to determine for themselves which validly-approved form they find more reverent without having to answer to someone else who thinks differently?

For the faithful Catholic the answer to these questions is clear and the answer supplants any of the arguments someone else might use to support their own preference.

[My emphases, above].

So, to summarise your counter arguments:

• It’s allowed by Bishops / The Pope, so it’s Ok.
• Any counter arguments are merely in the realm of personal feeling. Or in the classic rejoinder: “That’s just your opinion”.

I do hate what’s happened to the Mass post-Vat. II. I see no benefit to the changes, and many demerits. I have explained why, here and in other posts.

The arguments pro CITH are very weak. They boil down to: “We can do it, so we’re going to do it.”

Argument is, in a way, moot. Post the great iconoclasm of the Vatican II-era, you can do just about whatever you want at Mass, if your Bishop allows it, GIRM or no. CITH is part of a spectrum of almost laughably impious alterations to the rite.

I ask why such behaviour should be done, instead of tradition, at a sacred rite of propritiation of the wrathful Lord Of The Universe, whose Son is present in the Host, now so casually distributed, compared to previously.

Now,** I would like someone to post here, succinctly, why they favour CITH. How it helps their quest for holiness. **

 

[Filioque]

I understand that in the TLM Communion was taken on the tongue, and in the New Mass Communion is generally taken in the hand. I got into thinking of the Last Supper. When the apostles took the Body, wouldn’t they have taken it in their hands?

That is the crux of the question is it not. There were at the time, and still are customary practices of the host putting food into the mouth of his guests in the Middle East. Sometimes (today) it is the first bite. Even if the practice at the time of communion at the Last Supper was to take the Matzoh with ones own hands after the leader had broken it and passed it, I do believe, and will have to find the commentary, after I return from a weeks retreat on the 23rd look it up. But I seem to recall that one of the blessings of the Matzoh at the time included the leader feeding those gathered.

Another reason for the distribution which someone else may have brought up, (I’ve not read the entire thread) is the command of Jesus to “Feed my lambs…feed my sheep…feed my lambs.” Just as our mother offers us a bottle or breast and puts it in our waiting mouth as a newborn, the priest feeds the Lambs, or Children of God, by putting the Bread of heaven in their mouths. Handing the host to someone and having them feed themselves is somewhat contrary to the image of being fed. Like much that Jesus said, there can be more than one meaning applied, a physical and spiritual. So it can refer both to worthy reception of communion, and to teaching, or feeding the lambs and sheep with true doctrine and spiritual guidance. Sheep which are more mature, we can see as St. Peter being told to feed not just the general faithful, but also the mature, or clergy, as he was to rule over all the Church. (So much can be gleaned out of a verse or parable which only complements, what Jesus had to say.)

While there were in the Early Church cases when people received in the hand, scholars are devided, those who favor reception on the tounge cite that the passages of the Father’s mostly Hippotolis, which describe making a throne of one’s hands, also include sections that most communion in the hand omit that women should have a silk scarf or other covering, and that the distribution in the hand was an extraordinary event to protect the Sacred Species when there was danger of profination by a raid against the early Church meetings.

Once again, I will hopefully be able to find the references when I return.

 

[ncjohn]

[My emphases, above].

So, to summarise your counter arguments:

No, here are the actual arguments as compared to yet another statement of your personal preference (thanks for proving my point!):

ncjohn:

That comes from the answer to the following questions:

1–Are these matters of discipline?

2–Does the Pope and the Church have the right to regulate its disciplines?

3–Are the Popes since Vatican II valid Popes and endowed with all the same rights as Popes previous to Vatican II?

4–Did one of those Popes approve the practice for the faithful? Have those subsequent to him upheld that approval?

5–Do the faithful have the right to determine for themselves which validly-approved form they find more reverent without having to answer to someone else who thinks differently?

I notice you specifically omitted answering the questions, which are the germane questions rather than matters of personal opinions or preference. Nobody has any requirement to answer to you or anyone else as to why they find some other legitimate choice more reverent than what appeals to you. Those answers have been given by many, however much you may discount them, but are irrelevant to the question. And for what it’s worth, as I’ve stated many times, I am not promoting CITH and could care less if it goes away tomorrow. I find my value and reverence in the reception of communion, whatever form that may take, and I’ve experienced most of them without feeling any more or less reverent with any of them.

Care to take a shot at the questions or will you choose to avoid them because of what they point out?

Peace,

 

[otjm]

Excellent article!

Whether or not that is an excellent article may be debatable. We can go back to an article written in 1917 (a tad bit before Vatican 2, and therefore a tad bit even further than before CITH) concerning the Communion cloth and the Paten. The issue was about pruification, which in turn is related to the concerns of those opposing CITH because of particles not consumed.

Some quotes:

The early Christians received the Blessed Eucharist standing… the left hand supporting the right and constituting, as it were, a throne for the King of Kings… This custom… afforded Tertullian, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and others a forceful argument in urging Christians to keep their hands free from idolatry, murder, rapine, extortion, and other vices, since those hands must touch the Body of the Lord.

…How long the custom of giving the Blessed Eucharist into the hands of communicants prevailed cannot be precisely determined. St Gregory the Great… asserts that Pope Agapetus (535 - 536) placed the Sacred Particle in the mouth of a certain dumb and lame man. The express mention of the Blessed Sacrament being placed in the mouth would indicate that the general practice was otherwise. A council held at Rouen, the date of which is placed at 650 by some, by others at 880, strictly prohibited priests from placing the Eucharist in the hands of any person male or female, prescribing that it be put in the mouth… This rite of placing the sacred Species in the tongue, which probably originated in the desire to protect the Blessed Sacrament from profane or superstitious uses, became in time the universal rule of the Church. It is impossible , however, to state with any degree of certainty whe the rite of placing the Host on the tongue of communicants became general. It seems to have been practically so in the tenth century, though there are not wanting at a much later period isolated examples of the old regime.

The Church, ever mindful fo the sanctity of the Blessed Sacrament, has never been wanting in guarding the same. From the very beginning precautions were taken to prevent the Sacred Particles from falling to the floor… The tradition of the Roman Church points to the use of a linen cloth (not meatl of any sort) at Holy Communion. The purpose of the cloth was to receive Sacred Particles which might fall from the hand of the priest. the present regulations of the Church embody the Roman practice of old…Custom tolerates a card or small square of linen, instead of a cloth, at altars where communions are not numerous or frequent.

But what is the precise purpose of this linen cloth or card? The Church nowhere expressly defines for us her intention in the matter. We must consequently resort to reasoning, if we would ascertain her purpose. It is certain that the linen cloth was introduced to catch the whole Host or a considerable part of it, were it to fall from the priest’s hand. But was it intended likewise to receive under similar circumstances the minute and scarcely discernable particles that might become detached from the Host? [my emphasis] - continued -

 

[otjm]

• continued -
  We believe not, and for the following reasons. What does the Church prescribe in regard to the care of the communion cloth or card when not in actual use? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The cloth usually remains attached to the sanctuary railing, while the card is left on the credence table. This has ever been the custom in Rome and elsewhwere. Not the slightest indication is found in any rubric, nor is there given by any liturgist a suggestion that the communion cloth or the card should be purified no hint that the minute particles that may have been lodged thereon are to be specifically cared for. If the purpose of the cloth or card were to preserve these minute paticles, the Church would have determined specifically the place and manner of caring for it.

Centuries have elapsed since this linen came into use. The practice of leaving it unpurified, attached to the sanctuary railing or on the credence table, is universal. The Church has never insisted on any special attention being shown it. Liturgists, authors, writers are equally silent on this matter, thought they are most specific in regard to the reverence due to the Blessed Eucharist, and the diligent care necessary in administering the Sacred Species. Must we not conclude that the purpose of the communion cloth or card is not to receive atoms or minute particles that are barely visible?.. It is fitting that the Church should zealously care for the whole consecrated Host or any considerable portion of it: hence the linen cloth. It is unfitting that she should be over solicitous for dust-like atoms that are scarcely discernable; unfitting, we hold, not on account of the particles themselves, since we believe with the Angelic Doctor tantum esse sub fragmento quantum toto tegitur, but because of the difficulty of distinguishing them and consequently of attributing to them proper adoration.

We do not deny that small particles from the consecrated host may, or even do, fall on the communion cloth, but this is not a frequent occurance, when the hosts are properly made and the fragments removed therefrom before they are placed in the ciborium. We do maintain that not a great number of the atoms found on the communion cloth are Sacred Species. Did you never see a dense column of atoms dancing in the sunbeams that penetrated the sancutary? Though not always visible they are always present. If not all, at least nearly all, the particles on the communion cloth come from the floor, the air, the clothing, the head (“ne dicam de naso et de ore”) of the communicants. Who can distinguish the Sacred Species from this foreign matter? Shall we adore particles of dust and dandruff? The Church does not demand what is impossible or improper. How wise is she in not conceding adoration to doubtful or uncertain objects!

There are, however, certain rubrics that pertain to the care of fragments of the Sacred Host… the purifying of the corporal is not strictly speaking prescribed. The corporal is to be examined. If any particles are noticed, they must be gathered up with the paten. Fragments or particles of the Sacred Species, not starch or lint from the corporal, are to be put into the chalice. Excessive solicitude in looking for particles on the corporal is not necessary. It would open the way to scruples, were it required…

One other rubric of the Missal has some bearing in the subject before us:… This rubric cannot refer to minute particles. The particles in question must be larged enough to be seen and handled, since they are to be picked up reverently.

[The article goes on to discuss other related matters; it is written by A. B. Meehan, January, 1917]

rubricsandritual.blogpsot.com/2007/08/communion-cloth-or-paten.html

The point is that the black glove is suspect to begin with; further, it implies a hyper-religiosity. When one is more cautious than the Church itself, then one is in the area of scrupulosity. If, upon receiving in the hand, one notices particles which are clearly from the Host, one consumes them. There is no question that all people so receiving could receive more instructions on this method. However, the implication of the black glove is that there are all sorts of particles from the Host which are not being consumed, and thus the Eucharist is being profained. Not only is the case not made, but if the particles are not identifiable as Eucharist, the Church requires nothing more, and hasn’t for centuries and centuries.

 

[dcrowmik]

After all this discussion is said and done, it comes down to a simple, practical fact – what do MOST people who receive in the hand do with the crumbs, specks or particles of the Sacred Body that remain in their palms or on their fingers after they consume it?

Now I’m sure a good number in this forum will state they are careful and do look for crumbs and consume them or that their parish uses “non-crumbing” hosts, but for MOST people and parishes that, sadly, is simply not the case.

I posit that MOST people don’t give it a second thought and there are, therefore, after taking into acount and adding together all the minute crumbs and particles that fall to the ground in any given day in parishes across the country and around the world, the equivalent of many, many consecrated hosts lying on the ground.

If anything, that should give us all somber pause for thought about which really is the best way to receive for MOST people.

 

[otjm]

After all this discussion is said and done, it comes down to a simple, practical fact – what do MOST people who receive in the hand do with the crumbs, specks or particles of the Sacred Body that remain in their palms or on their fingers after they consume it?

Now I’m sure a good number in this forum will state they are careful and do look for crumbs and consume them or that their parish uses “non-crumbing” hosts, but for MOST people and parishes that, sadly, is simply not the case.

I posit that MOST people don’t give it a second thought and there are, therefore, after taking into acount and adding together all the minute crumbs and particles that fall to the ground in any given day in parishes across the country and around the world, the equivalent of many, many consecrated hosts lying on the ground.

If anything, that should give us all somber pause for thought about which really is the best way to receive for MOST people.

That is in essence a comment to throw out the baby with the bath water. If, as I noted in my previous post, people need catechesis, then by all means catechesis should be given.

As to the issue of crumbs; per the notation from the article, crumbs must be identifiable as parts of the Host. The hosts we have today do not exude a large number of particles, with the possible exception of the fractioned large Host, and that is not notorious for causing particles. If there is an identifiable particle, it needs to be consumed; but a goodly amount of the discussion involves concern that there are minute particles that are not being accounted for. As noted in the article in 1917, it was not an issue for centuries; it should not become one now.

 

[Layman]

1–Are these matters of discipline?

2–Does the Pope and the Church have the right to regulate its disciplines?

3–Are the Popes since Vatican II valid Popes and endowed with all the same rights as Popes previous to Vatican II?

4–Did one of those Popes approve the practice for the faithful? Have those subsequent to him upheld that approval?

5–Do the faithful have the right to determine for themselves which validly-approved form they find more reverent without having to answer to someone else who thinks differently?

1-4 Sure, as far as I know.

1. They can certainly, if the Bishop and presiding priest permit it. My arguments are whether they should.

It’s a simple question, and anyone who favours CITH can answer it; How does CITH, standing, from a laywoman help you in your quest for sanctification, compared to COTT, kneeling, from a priest. What do you think it adds to the Roman Catholic rite?

 

[ncjohn]

1-4 Sure, as far as I know.

1. They can certainly, if the Bishop and presiding priest permit it. My arguments are whether they should.

It’s a simple question, and anyone who favours CITH can answer it; How does CITH, standing, from a laywoman help you in your quest for sanctification, compared to COTT, kneeling, from a priest. What do you think it adds to the Roman Catholic rite?

Thank you for your answers. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “whether they should” , unless that means you think people should be limited somehow in what valid choices they are allowed to choose, but it does at least appear that we agree that the options validly exist and that as such people should be able to able to make their own choices from those valid options.

As to the “why”, there have been bunches of threads with people giving their reasons, some of which you have been on pretty publicly dismissing them. Maybe there are people who might still be willing to venture them forth but under the circumstances I would be kind of surprised. People don’t usually like to be asked for an opinion only to be berated and written off, especially when the question is asked by someone who is so publicly in hatred of the practice and seems unwilling to even consider that others might actually have valid reasons for their expressions of piety. I’ll certainly let them speak for themselves though if someone is just in the mood to get whipped again.

 

[ncjohn]

That is in essence a comment to throw out the baby with the bath water. If, as I noted in my previous post, people need catechesis, then by all means catechesis should be given.

As to the issue of crumbs; per the notation from the article, crumbs must be identifiable as parts of the Host. The hosts we have today do not exude a large number of particles, with the possible exception of the fractioned large Host, and that is not notorious for causing particles. If there is an identifiable particle, it needs to be consumed; but a goodly amount of the discussion involves concern that there are minute particles that are not being accounted for. As noted in the article in 1917, it was not an issue for centuries; it should not become one now.

I would have to totally agree with you on this. I do remember though at some point seeing either video or a time-lapse sequence of the fractioning of the large host and the amount of particles flying into the air from that process–very microscopic particles–almost surely far exceeds the number of particles that might be being lost in an entire communion distribution. There seems to be a great deal of scrupulosity in some cases on this matter which the Church has never supported. Certainly visible particles need to be attended to and there may indeed be some catechesis needed on that, but it is certainly not a reason in and of itself to discard the practice.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s a simple question, and anyone who favours CITH can answer it; How does CITH, standing, from a laywoman help you in your quest for sanctification, compared to COTT, kneeling, from a priest. What do you think it adds to the Roman Catholic rite?

Exactly. What does any kind of relaxation of rules really add? The relaxation of Latin only in the liturgy, the elimination of a lot of prayers in the Mass, the less emphasis of mortal sins and Hell, the relaxation of the Friday meat abstinence, the relaxation of the men-only rule in the sanctuary, the relaxation of fasting rules during Lent, the expansion of Mass obligation to Saturdays, the lifting of sacrilege rules, the relaxation of the communion fast, the relaxation of priest-only touching of the Body and Blood of Christ, and then the relaxation of communion-on-the-tongue only reception. And then they wonder why most Catholics didn’t take Humanae Vitae more seriously.