Communion in the hand

[USMC]

For some reason the thread I was going to post this on was closed. The following quotes are in response to a question about communion in the hand.

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils actually held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” [Fr. Rutler said that he fully expected her to say abortion.] “Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’” (note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Mother Teresa).

Also, the late Fr. John Hardon has spoken out against this practice. On November 1st, 1997 at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, there was a panel discussion in which Fr. John Hardon was one of the speakers who fielded various questions from the audience. One of the questions was about Communion in the hand. The following is his answer:

"We were were concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand began with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.

"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.

“And the American hierarchy took most… three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).

 

[Marilena]

I will gladly answer this. I will take communion by mouth only.
Not in the hand. When my marriage gets blessed, and I get confirmed, I will be able to receive communion again. I will not
take it in the hand

 

[thistle]

USMC:

For some reason the thread I was going to post this on was closed. The following quotes are in response to a question about communion in the hand.

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils actually held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” [Fr. Rutler said that he fully expected her to say abortion.] “Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’” (note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Mother Teresa).

Also, the late Fr. John Hardon has spoken out against this practice. On November 1st, 1997 at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, there was a panel discussion in which Fr. John Hardon was one of the speakers who fielded various questions from the audience. One of the questions was about Communion in the hand. The following is his answer:

"We were were concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand began with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.

"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.

“And the American hierarchy took most… three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).

As I am not so clued up on this, can you tell me if the way to receive Communion comes under Church Dogma or Discipline. If it comes under Discipline then doesn’t that mean it can be changed.

 

[the_phoenix]

Just because something can be changed does not always mean that it should.

~~ the phoenix

 

[thistle]

the phoenix:

Just because something can be changed does not mean that it should.

~~ the phoenix

That wasn’t my question. I wanted to know if it is dogma or discipline.
Although I still don’t know I would like to answer your comment. Whatever discipline might be at issue, if the Pope and Council of Bishops decide to make changes to that discipline then as good Catholics we must accept such changes.

 

[USMC]

thistle:

As I am not so clued up on this, can you tell me if the way to receive Communion comes under Church Dogma or Discipline. If it comes under Discipline then doesn’t that mean it can be changed.

Yes, it is a discipline, and as such can be changed. However, that doesn’t mean the change is good. It was never the will of the Pope to allow communion in the hand. The practice began in the 60’s as an abuse contrary to the will of the Pope. Both Paul VI and John Paul II spoke out against it.

However, for whatever reason, Paul VI allowed those who violated the law to continue, since it had become a custom in their diocese. He warned of the dangers, but allowed it. That was a prudential move by the Pope.

But keep in mind, it was never the will of the Pope to change the discipline of receiving communion only on the tongue. Communion in the hand began as an abuse, and an act of disobedience.

thistle:

Whatever discipline might be at issue, if the Pope and Council of Bishops decide to make changes to that discipline then as good Catholics we must accept such changes.

One point to make is that communion in the tongue was obviously not forbidden. The practice of communion in the hand was just allowed.

 

[thistle]

USMC:

Yes, it is a discipline, and as such can be changed. However, that doesn’t mean the change is good. It was never the will of the Pope to allow communion in the hand. The practice began in the 60’s as an abuse contrary to the will of the Pope. Both Paul VI and John Paul II spoke out against it.

However, for whatever reason, Paul VI allowed those who violated the law to continue, since it had become a custom in their diocese. He warned of the dangers, but allowed it. That was a prudential move by the Pope.

But keep in mind, it was never the will of the Pope to change the discipline of receiving communion only on the tongue. Communion in the hand began as an abuse, and an act of disobedience.

quote=thistle]Whatever discipline might be at issue, if the Pope and Council of Bishops decide to make changes to that discipline then as good Catholics we must accept such changes.

One point to make is that communion in the tongue was obviously not forbidden. The practice of communion in the hand was just allowed.

Who approves what goes into the Universal GIRM before local adaptions?

 

[the_phoenix]

Dear USMC:

Mega-dittos! Thank you for speaking for me in your eloquent answer to thistle.

~~ the phoenix

 

[thistle]

I just want to mention that I receive on the tongue in case my questions lead you to believe I might receive by hand.
I simply want to know why receiving by hand is called sacrilege and an abuse. It would not be allowed if that was the case.
I would also still like to know who approves the universal GIRM.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

USMC:

…
Pope John Paul II: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).

This is wrote John Paul II said in context…

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced.*** This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See.*** However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation. (Dominicae Cenae, 11, vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html)

 

[Toni]

thistle:

I simply want to know why receiving by hand is called sacrilege and an abuse. It would not be allowed if that was the case.
I would also still like to know who approves the universal GIRM.

Ok just my opinion:
Receiving communion in the hand when your hands are not clean or you have spent the entire mass picking your nose, playing with your hair, picking your but etc. to me is the most disrespectful thing I have ever seen.
Twice I got in a conversation with people when they asked me why I received on the tongue and I told them that basically as my sister the nun says people pick up Jesus like they are eating a cookie. I have yet to see this reverently done. Do they know who they are picking up,or because it looks like bread and tastes like bread in their mind is it bread or truly the body of Christ.
The next day for morning Mass the one told me how the host broke in her hand after the priest place it there.
The other one saw the importance of reverence in receiving our Lord and began receiving on the tongue.
DOn’t get me wrong I have many students who receive on the hand but I always tell them to make sure their hands are clean and to place Jesus in their mouths lovingly.
Years ago when communion was given to the lepers a doily would be placed in their hand to put the body of Christ on for fear of infection. So because of this people feel they are worthy. Oh Lord I am not… I am not even worthy to receive on the tongue.
The bishops of the US put the germ together.
Just like the altar girls in the church today there is been a whole lot of people bending the rules. The Pope said girls could be acolytes only. But I have yet to see this either in parishes that allow altar girls.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

If it were not the will of the Vicar of Christ to approve the practice, then it would not have received approval from the Apostolic See.

A similar example is this US adaptation to the GIRM:

…*** inserted at number 43, paragraph 2****:*
… The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the Diocesan Bishop determines otherwise.

---

Kneeling after the *Agnus Dei *began as a “custom” in the US, having no prescriptions in the GIRM or approved adaptations. In other words, it was a liturgical abuse in the sense that nothing the the GIRM or approved adaptations prescribed kneeling after the Agnus Dei, right?

Can we then describe this adaptation, later approved by the Holy See, as being against the will of the Holy See after its approval?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

According to the Letter from the Holy See to the American Bishops (April 3, 1985):

Communion in the hand should show, as much as communion on the tongue, due respect towards the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. For this reason emphasis should be laid, as was done by the Fathers of the Church, upon the dignity of the gesture of the communicant. Thus, the newly baptized at the end of the fourth century were directed to stretch out both hands making “the left hand a throne for the right hand, which receives the King” (Fifth mystagogical catechesis of Cyril of Jerusalem, n. 21: PG 33. col 1125, or Sources chretiennes, 126, p 171; Saint John Chrysostom, Homily 47: PG 63, col. 898. etc.).*

So it appears that in the early Church, citing St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Saint John Chrysostom, one could receive Holy Communion in the hand. This appears to be how the non-ordained boy-martyr St. Tarcisius carried the Eucharist to those in prison, right?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

USMC:

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

this is not what is found in the Liber Pontificalis which is supposed to be the source for this quote. Further, that material is an invention – most of the first half of the book contains anecdotes that have no basis in history.

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

Again, this is not what the letter says at all. This letter is available online for anyone willing to do a few minutes research.

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

Local councils do not determine the practice for the universal Church.

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

Local councils do not determine the practice for the universal Church.

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils actually held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

And this still remains the discipline of the Church. Receiving communion in the hand doesn’t qualify here – as St. Basil in the letter you cited so clearly points out!

St. Thomas Aquinas: “Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.” (SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

Yes, St. Thomas was elucidating the theology of the day. Pope John Paul II wrote that the Church could grant this faculty to anyone. Again, however, this has nothing to do with receiving communion in the hand but, rather, with distributing it.

As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York in 1989, when Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” [Fr. Rutler said that he fully expected her to say abortion.] “Without pausing a second she said, ‘Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.’” (note: Fr. Emerson of the Fraternity of St. Peter was also a witness to this statement by Mother Teresa).

This has never been verified.

Please, before posting these lists of supposed supporting citations, do a little research on them.

Deacon Ed

 

[Marian_Carroll]

I believe Deacon Ed’s post clarifies the premises of this thread and it is therefore closed. A search of the forum will find numerous past discussions of the subject.