Does a parish pastor have authority to require communion in the hand?

[Corki]

More often than not, I think the virtue of obedience is absent in these discussions. Unless we’re being compelled to commit sin, or break an actual law of the Church, aren’t we obligated to obey our pastors?

But isn’t it the same thing if we meekly go along when a priest (or DRE) is breaking an “actual law of the Church” as in this case?

There’s a good chance that if this is brought up respectfully to the pastor, that children who want to receive on the tongue will be permitted to do so. That’s what happened in my parish and every class after that has been instructed in both ways to receive.

If the pastor is consulted and still refuses to obey the Church, then the question of obeying him is valid.

But no good will come from just staying silent.

 

[markomalley]

Does a parish pastor have the authority to require that an entire First Communion class receive their First Holy Communion in the hand? This is an issue we are running into for two of our sons. Our family receives only on the tongue, but we have been told that this is not an option at our parish for the public celebration of their First Holy Communion. However, we were told that they could receive either way after they make their First Holy Communion. The reason given for this requirement is for the pastor’s wishes of “uniformity.”

From [CDWDS](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...0423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html#Chapter IV), Instr. Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[91.] In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”.[177] Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

Also, see paragraphs 11 and 12.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

But isn’t it the same thing if we meekly go along when a priest (or DRE) is breaking an “actual law of the Church” as in this case?

There’s a good chance that if this is brought up respectfully to the pastor, that children who want to receive on the tongue will be permitted to do so. That’s what happened in my parish and every class after that has been instructed in both ways to receive.

If the pastor is consulted and still refuses to obey the Church, then the question of obeying him is valid.

But no good will come from just staying silent.

I completely agree with this. I was under the impression that the OP has already brought these concerns up to the Pastor.

 

[tafan]

More often than not, I think the virtue of obedience is absent in these discussions. Unless we’re being compelled to commit sin, or break an actual law of the Church, aren’t we obligated to obey our pastors?

I absolutely prefer to receive on the tongue, in fact I’ve only received in the hand twice since my conversion to Catholicism: once was when the EMHC was significantly shorter than I, and I thought there was great risk in the Host being dropped should I insist that she reach all the way up there to place it in my mouth, and the other was when a well-meaning priest was “just not having it”. The former was a case of economy and prudence, while the latter was a case of just chalking it up to authority. The fact of the matter is, CITH is licit in the United States, and if the Parish Priest wishes for uniformity on this one occasion, we should just go with the flow. It may be another matter altogether should he always refuse COTT.

YMMV, and I’ll let all the other posters hash out the other matters of Canon Law, “rights”, “iss”, “oughts”, etc.

I will modify my previous post slightly.

I see nothing wrong with the advice given to talk to the pastor directly. Is it a matter of obedience? Maybe. If a pastor told an adult to receive only in the hand, the adult would certainly be justified in not following the pastor’s instructions; as we are only to be obedient to a legitimate authority (which a pastor certainly is) when the authority gives lawful commands (which in this case, it most certainly is not). However, there is the child involved, and that nuance can certainly be lost on the child. Hence, it is fine to talk to the pastor and explain if the pastor says, even grudgingly go ahead and have the child receive on the tongue. Then telling the child that the pastor said it was ok, so the child will not think you are being disobedient to the pastor.
If the pastor is adamant, then I suppose I would go with the flow; but only to not let the child see “disobedience” to the pastor.

However, all of the posters who are saying it is not a big deal, we should just go with the flow, etc. are dead wrong, IMO. The pastor is in the wrong, at least according to my understanding of the rubics in place.

 

[Gorgias]

This is the place, though, for pastoral care and loving catechesis.

If someone has strong beliefs to not receive in the hand because they feel it is less reverent

Then we have to ask ‘why is it that you feel it is less reverent? what is it about your hand that you feel is less reverent than your tongue? Is it your opinion that this is what the Church teaches?’

or they do not wish to risk dropping the Host or even spilling a crumb

this is pretty reasonable; it would be difficult to argue with this perspective.

or they feel that only consecrated hands are worthy to touch the Eucharist

This would be a perspective that I think would definitely be in need of some catechesis. Did the Church teach this at one time? Yes. Does it now? No. So, then, I think it would be valuable to have a non-accusatory, non-threatening discussion that catechizes a person, and discusses why one feels that their understanding of theology trumps the Church’s understanding of theology.

Now, don’t get me wrong: at the end of the day, once all the discussions have finished, we can never end the conversation with “…and that’s why I refuse to give you communion on the tongue”!

they should not be obliged to go against their beliefs when their beliefs are in accordance with Church teachings.

This is exactly the point: it’s not that their beliefs are in line with the Church – it’s that their practice doesn’t violate Church practice. The need would still exist to provide proper catechesis, even when praxis isn’t out of line…

 

[Mike30]

It is fairly common in CCD and RCIA classes for the faithful to be taught to receive in the hand and not on the tongue. In fact, when I taught RCIA, I was specifically told by the DRE **not **to teach the reception on the tongue option as it was devisive for the community as a whole.

Maybe the Priests believes that as well.

Who can say?

 

[Zekariya]

It is fairly common in CCD and RCIA classes for the faithful to be taught to receive in the hand and not on the tongue. In fact, when I taught RCIA, I was specifically told by the DRE **not **to teach the reception on the tongue option as it was devisive for the community as a whole.

Maybe the Priests believes that as well.

Who can say?

The only divisive thing would be to praise one method and condemn the other.

 

[babochka]

This is the place, though, for pastoral care and loving catechesis.

Then we have to ask ‘why is it that you feel it is less reverent? what is it about your hand that you feel is less reverent than your tongue? Is it your opinion that this is what the Church teaches?’

this is pretty reasonable; it would be difficult to argue with this perspective.

This would be a perspective that I think would definitely be in need of some catechesis. Did the Church teach this at one time? Yes. Does it now? No. So, then, I think it would be valuable to have a non-accusatory, non-threatening discussion that catechizes a person, and discusses why one feels that their understanding of theology trumps the Church’s understanding of theology.

Now, don’t get me wrong: at the end of the day, once all the discussions have finished, we can never end the conversation with “…and that’s why I refuse to give you communion on the tongue”!

This is exactly the point: it’s not that their beliefs are in line with the Church – it’s that their practice doesn’t violate Church practice. The need would still exist to provide proper catechesis, even when praxis isn’t out of line…

It seems as if you’re saying that that every reason that a person would give to receive communion on the tongue can be countered with proper catechesis, and then, if they still stubbornly refuse to see that communion in the hand is acceptable, it can be grudgingly given to them on the tongue, since receiving Communion on the tongue doesn’t violate church practice.

What if a priest approached the opposite situation in the same way? What if the parish was one in which most, if not all, people receive on the tongue and the priest had instructed that first communicants would only be permitted to receive on the tongue? What if a child (or his family) felt strongly that he should be permitted to receive in the hand, as is his right under church law? Would you still feel that the situation called for pastoral care and loving catechesis?

 

[Lapey]

In more detail:

The vatican has left it up to each country’s confrence of bishops to choose how each country’s faithful will recieve:

The following adaptation of GIRM 160 was approved by the Holy See for the United States.

1. The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. **Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm. **

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

Recognized by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 17 April 2002, and, promulgated as particular law of the United States by Decree of the President of the USCCB, Bishop Wilton Gregory, 25 April 2002.

The bolded part has been removed in the current GIRM, 2011. There is no need for catechesis for receiving in an approved manner. There may be with the reasoning behind it, as Gorgias pointed out.

1. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. In the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. When standing before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow of the head. When receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, they reverently join their hands; when receiving Holy Communion in the hand, they reverently open their hands placing one beneath the other, and they consume the host immediately upon receiving it.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t agree because if someone has objections to receiving in the hand due to their beliefs they should be able to receive in the traditional way. While the Church allows people to receive in the hand, it is done so on the condition that the traditional way always be allowed. If the traditional way is not allowed then they are breaking that rule.

It is my understanding too that CITH is not a universal nor permanent allowance. Conditions are conditions.

 

[babochka]

The bolded part has been removed in the current GIRM, 2011. There is no need for catechesis for receiving in an approved manner. There may be with the reasoning behind it, as Gorgias pointed out.

1. The Priest then takes the paten or ciborium and approaches the communicants, who usually come up in procession.

It is not permitted for the faithful to take the consecrated Bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them on from one to another among themselves. In the Dioceses of Canada, Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. When standing before the minister to receive Holy Communion, the faithful should make a simple bow of the head. When receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, they reverently join their hands; when receiving Holy Communion in the hand, they reverently open their hands placing one beneath the other, and they consume the host immediately upon receiving it.

Of course, the catechesis that was previously called for was regarding the choice to receive kneeling, opposed to the norm of standing. It did not even address receiving on the tongue, as that is not outside of the norm. I can’t see why catechesis is called for at all.

 

[clem456]

What if a priest approached the opposite situation in the same way? What if the parish was one in which most, if not all, people receive on the tongue and the priest had instructed that first communicants would only be permitted to receive on the tongue? What if a child (or his family) felt strongly that he should be permitted to receive in the hand, as is his right under church law? Would you still feel that the situation called for pastoral care and loving catechesis?

One can really only address this in a personal way as it is about preferences. Here’s what I would do:
I would tell my child, “receive communion on the toungue as the priest would like everyone to do”.

Actually, let me take that back, there would never even be a discussion about it. My child would do what the priest requested and I would not even mention anything else. It would not be worth the hot air that I produce to go down and start parsing between two legitimate practices. And no, I would not give my child the heebie jeebies about dropping crumbs of our Lord Jesus. That would not be fair to a child to instill that bit of fear. At least in my child’s case anyway. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Lapey]

Of course, the catechesis that was previously called for was regarding the choice to receive kneeling, opposed to the norm of standing. It did not even address receiving on the tongue, as that is not outside of the norm. I can’t see why catechesis is called for at all.

Okay, thanks…

I think it was stated hat if the person wanted to recieve a certain way for the wrong reason, not that the method was wrong. Does it appear I said either tongue or hand was wrong?

 

[Zekariya]

One can really only address this in a personal way as it is about preferences. Here’s what I would do:
I would tell my child, “receive communion on the toungue as the priest would like everyone to do”.

Actually, let me take that back, there would never even be a discussion about it. My child would do what the priest requested and I would not even mention anything else. It would not be worth the hot air that I produce to go down and start parsing between two legitimate practices.

Receiving on the tongue is the universal practice of the Church. Receiving in the hand is the practice of some local dioceses. Only those that have no conviction on this matter would have their children do whatever. There is nothing wrong with having no conviction on this since either way is permitted. However, some of us hold to the conviction of receiving on the tongue and this should be respected.

 

[Lapey]

It seems as if you’re saying that that every reason that a person would give to receive communion on the tongue can be countered with proper catechesis, and then, if they still stubbornly refuse to see that communion in the hand is acceptable, it can be grudgingly given to them on the tongue, since receiving Communion on the tongue doesn’t violate church practice.

What if a priest approached the opposite situation in the same way? What if the parish was one in which most, if not all, people receive on the tongue and the priest had instructed that first communicants would only be permitted to receive on the tongue? What if a child (or his family) felt strongly that he should be permitted to receive in the hand, as is his right under church law? Would you still feel that the situation called for pastoral care and loving catechesis?

I don’t think thats what Gorgias meant, as both methods of receiving in the USA are in fact valid and should be available. Either way a pastor may prohibit he would be in error.

 

[clem456]

Receiving on the tongue is the universal practice of the Church. Receiving in the hand is the practice of some local dioceses. Only those that have no conviction on this matter would have their children do whatever. There is nothing wrong with having no conviction on this since either way is permitted. However, some of us hold to the conviction of receiving on the tongue and this should be respected.

Curious why are you addressing my post with this reply? I know this as does prolly everybody else here.

 

[Zekariya]

Curious why are you addressing my post with this reply? I know this as does prolly everybody else here.

I’m sorry. I must have misunderstood you.

 

[otjm]

It is fairly common in CCD and RCIA classes for the faithful to be taught to receive in the hand and not on the tongue. In fact, when I taught RCIA, I was specifically told by the DRE **not **to teach the reception on the tongue option as it was devisive for the community as a whole.

Maybe the Priests believes that as well.

Who can say?

Not in the classes I taught for close to 20 years! I always taught what the Church holds, explaining both methods, explaining the actual history of both, and telling them it was entirely their choice unless CITH was withdrawn.

The majority of those I taught in RCIA choose CITH, but not all - as it should be.

Sorry you were countermanded - me, I would not have followed directions to not teach COTT, and probably asked if they wanted to meet me in a conference with the bishop. nOr maybe not said anything; I would have just gone ahead and taught it.

 

[babochka]

Okay, thanks…

I think it was stated hat if the person wanted to recieve a certain way for the wrong reason, not that the method was wrong. Does it appear I said either tongue or hand was wrong?

No, I’m not sure what I was thinking. I’ve gotten a bit lost in quotes on this thread. I thought you were addressing Georgias’ suggestion that the situation called for catechesis.

At any rate, I actually agree with a few posters that this is probably a situation in which obedience would be the prudent course of action. I don’t really care to receive in the hand, but the previous local Latin bishop in the past called for communion in the hand only during flu season. Even though I thought the move was necessary and a bit silly, if I happened to find myself at a Latin-rite church during that time, I was obedient. If I had been subject to that bishop, I’d have probably written him a letter with my concerns, but I’d have still followed his directive, though not necessarily with a humble spirit.

 

[otjm]

No, I’m not sure what I was thinking. I’ve gotten a bit lost in quotes on this thread. I thought you were addressing Georgias’ suggestion that the situation called for catechesis.

At any rate, I actually agree with a few posters that this is probably a situation in which obedience would be the prudent course of action. I don’t really care to receive in the hand, but the previous local Latin bishop in the past called for communion in the hand only during flu season. Even though I thought the move was necessary and a bit silly, if I happened to find myself at a Latin-rite church during that time, I was obedient. If I had been subject to that bishop, I’d have probably written him a letter with my concerns, but I’d have still followed his directive, though not necessarily with a humble spirit.

As an aside, I started serving Mass while Pope Pius 12 was in office. Not all of us were as pious as we could be; and many the times we would laugh after Mass or in school about how long a string of spit the priest could pull off someone’s tongue at Communion. It is not impossible to give Communion COTT without touching the tongue, but it is most certainly not unknown.