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

[Zekariya]

My parish has altar servers that use a paten. My sister’s parish does not use their altar servers (different diocese) at communion time, but then, most of the parishoners there almost always receive in the hand. The paten is supposed to be there is PREVENT the host from falling on the ground for those who receive on the tongue.

No, the parish pastor does NOT have the authority to REQUIRE communion in the hand. I would ask the bishop to talk to the pastor about this.

I’ve been to EWTN and they use the paten as well.

 

[Cat]

Yes, it is an obedience issue, but it is exactly the reverse of what you have described. The priest has overstepped his boundaries here and is violating the absolute right of the parents to educate their child in the faith. The home is the Domestic Church, the parents are the prime spiritual teachers of children. Since the parents have such rights to establish a family custom that is fully in line with Church discipline and teaching, I see no reason for the pastor to impinge on the Fourth Commandment in this regard. There is nothing in the Decalogue about honoring your pastor when he tries to violate your rights. No, he is not commanding the children to sin, but he has no right to impose this on them. Priests must recognize and respect the authority of parents over their children and the debt of obedience which children owe to them.

That being said, you can’t urge your children to disobey the priest because as a parent you should be respecting Church authority. But there are plenty of options that do not involve disobedience. Can you decline to participate in the ceremony itself? Just get the pastor to sign off that your child is ready for FHC, and then have it without fanfare at your usual Sunday Mass. Now that’s kind of unfair to the kids, but it would be a greater stretch if your pastor tried to extend his prohibiting to ordinary Masses. You could go to another parish for a FHC ceremony, and let the pastor know in no uncertain terms why you have abandoned his own. This would send a message that you are not afraid to leave in defense of your rights. If you contribute financially or by volunteering, that could put some fear into him.

I agree with some of your ideas for alternative options.

I’m not sure that I agree with “sending a message that you are not afraid to leave in defense of your rights.”

Elizium23, I know you disagree with me about this and you have made that clear in other threads. Can I ask that you please try to understand my point of view, even though you don’t agree with it?

Perhaps because I converted to Catholicism out of Evangelical Protestantism, where people leave their church because the Women’s Committee selects a color of carpeting that you don’t like, I am much more sensitive to those things in the Catholic Church that seem to me to be a “slippery slope” down the road to disastisfaction and rebellion.

Yes, I believe that the parents should have the right to raise their children in the way that they think best, and I think that your idea of abstaining from the group communion is a good one.

But I also think parents need to be careful not to train their children in such as way as to foster a mindset that is always looking for a fight and always “protesting.”

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you, yes, I’m aware that CITH is not a universal “right.”

But where it is allowed, it is not an “inferior” or “less reverent” method of receiving the Lord Jesus.

Say what you want about reverence but if I understand the conditions of the CITH properly per EWTN, if COTT is denied, then CITH isn’t allowed either. I don’t think one can say the same if it were the other way around.

 

[ProVobis]

But I also think parents need to be careful not to train their children in such as way as to foster a mindset that is always looking for a fight and always “protesting.”

This is good parental advice but step 1 would be to have both parents in agreement first.

 

[Brendan]

I
I could go on, but considering the massive amount of “cafeteria Catholicism” in the U.S., in which Catholics pick and choose which teachings and practices they will accept and which they will reject, I think that the lesson of obedience to the priest trumps the lesson of Communion on the tongue vs. Communion in the hand. .

Obedience is not involved, at least in regards to the pastor’s wishes.

Aquinas described the virtue of obedience as the conformance of one’s will to the one who has the authority. Therefore, where a person giving the instruction does not have the authority to command it, there is no disobedience involved.

As has been noted in this thread, the authority to determine the mode of reception belongs to the communicant themselves, and no other. Not to the pastor, not even to the parent.

If the child wishes to receive on the tongue, or in the hand, no one can issue a command counter to that. If someone attempts to do that, then there IS disobedience, but that disobedience is incurred by the one who is attempting to command the child.

 

[otjm]

Obedience is not involved, at least in regards to the pastor’s wishes.

Aquinas described the virtue of obedience as the conformance of one’s will to the one who has the authority. Therefore, where a person giving the instruction does not have the authority to command it, there is no disobedience involved.

As has been noted in this thread, the authority to determine the mode of reception belongs to the communicant themselves, and no other. Not to the pastor, not even to the parent.

If the child wishes to receive on the tongue, or in the hand, no one can issue a command counter to that. If someone attempts to do that, then there IS disobedience, but that disobedience is incurred by the one who is attempting to command the child.

The OP did not, I think, indicate who it was who said the pastor wanted everyone to receive CITH - and because of the way it is worded, it appears it may have been the DRE or whomever prepares the children for first Communion.

Having said that, one could also read the first post as the parents imposing on the child how he would receive.

Given this is most likely a child between the ages of 6 to maybe 9, what would you suggest is the best way for the parent to handle this (given that I agree with your analysis from a technical standpoint). The child appears to be caught between at least two, if not up to four adults going in opposite directions.

 

[Elizium23]

As has been noted in this thread, the authority to determine the mode of reception belongs to the communicant themselves, and no other. Not to the pastor, not even to the parent.

Okay, so the parent doesn’t have the standing to command this of his child either. I can buy that. Thanks for your contribution. My point remains that the pastor has overstepped his own authority, of course. He is bound to recognize and uphold the faithful’s right to receive via either method.

 

[babochka]

The OP did not, I think, indicate who it was who said the pastor wanted everyone to receive CITH - and because of the way it is worded, it appears it may have been the DRE or whomever prepares the children for first Communion.

He or she did not state that the directive had come to them directly from the pastor, but it was stated that it was the pastor’s wish.

 

[jwinch2]

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.

In the most recent version of the GIRM, the comment about catechesis regarding kneeling seems to have been removed.
ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/13/04/25/08-35-00_0.pdf

1. What does the Missal say about the posture of the faithful when receiving Holy Communion? What about Communion in the hand?
   Both of these questions are covered in no. 160 of the GIRM. It states clearly there that the “norm” established for the United States for reception of Holy Communion is standing. In the 2003 GIRM, it stated that no one should be refused Communion if they kneel, but that afterward they should be properly catechized. In the current edition, the exhortation to catechesis is removed and the exception to the norm of standing is left to the discretion of the faithful: “unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling.” The Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, no. 91, is then cited.

In addition, the Pastor does not have the authority to require deny someone communion on the tongue or to mandate that they receive in the hand. As correctly noted above, there can be no disobedience when the one directing someone to do something has no authority to do so. The caveat to that of course would be if the person being wrongly directed is refusing simply to be contrary rather than on an issue of conscience. That does not sound like it applies to this situation based upon the OP.

With regard to receiving Communion in the hand, there is a significant development from the 1985 GIRM to the 2003/2011 edition. Whereas in 1985, Communion in the hand was granted by virtue of an indult received in 1977, in the Roman Missal, Third Edition, communion in the hand is now ordinary liturgical law for the United States, though every communicant retains the equal right of receiving on the tongue.

Having said that, the prudent thing to do I believe is to approach the pastor in a polite and respectful manner and ask about the situation. If it is as described, the parent who has concerns about this practice should explain, again politely, to the pastor that they are teaching their children to receive on the tongue. The parents are the primary instructors of the Faith for their children, and as long as they are not teaching something incorrectly, any reasonable pastor should support their efforts towards reverence for our Blessed Lord in the Eucharist.

 

[otjm]

He or she did not state that the directive had come to them directly from the pastor, but it was stated that it was the pastor’s wish.

That is how I read it too.

 

[Brendan]

Given this is most likely a child between the ages of 6 to maybe 9, **what would you suggest is the best way for the parent to handle this **(given that I agree with your analysis from a technical standpoint). The child appears to be caught between at least two, if not up to four adults going in opposite directions.

Tell the child the truth, that they can receive however they want to receive.

 

[Cat]

Tell the child the truth, that they can receive however they want to receive.

I agree with your posts, Brendan, and you are right, that as long as the option exists in a diocese to receive on the tongue or in the hand, that it is up to the communicant.

However, I’m a little uncertain whether most young children (around age 7) have the maturity to make this decision without some guidance and training (practicing with necco wafers).

I know there are some pretty smart little kids, but just based on what I know of the young children in our family (nephews), if someone didn’t tell them exactly what to do, they would just stand there and probably start crying. They’re not very brave or confident.

I think it’s appropriate for parents to impose their family preference on their own child, and to explain this preference to the priest and ask that he not discourage their child or any other child who is being taught by parents to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

And of course, I think that the parents should strive to teach their child utmost respect for the clergy and their Christ-given authority. All of the discussions with the priest should be held without the child being present (in other words, not after class or after Mass, when the priest is tied up greeting everyone and really isn’t in a position to discuss anything at length).

 

[clem456]

I am amazed at how people can continually talk past one another.

Who here has disputed this:

the pastor has overstepped his own authority, of course. He is bound to recognize and uphold the faithful’s right to receive via either method.

or this:

In addition, the Pastor does not have the authority to require deny someone communion on the tongue or to mandate that they receive in the hand.

Who has disputed these things here?
Sometime I think people hear what they want to hear, because listening to another point of view is just too challenging.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

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.”

Don’t go to war over this. It’s not worth it. Your pastor will win that fight.

Have your sons accept their first communion in the hand and thereafter on the tongue. Offer up this outrage as an act of love and reparation.

 

[agnes_therese]

Don’t go to war over this. It’s not worth it. Your pastor will win that fight.
Have your sons accept their first communion in the hand and thereafter on the tongue. Offer up this outrage as an act of love and reparation.

We don’t even know who exactly stated they had to receive in the hand, nor whether the parents have actually spoken to the priest; the OP has never returned to this thread to clarify that. Given the unknowns, I think calling this an “outrage” may be a bit much.

 

[englishredrose]

I think it is sad how threads on here go and people are just airing their opinion rather than really helping the opening poster. How can people just get into battles with one another when it nothing to do with each other per se, just the opening poster. Sad how each one of this kind goes into decline and the opening poster is left feeling very confused because each post comes out with something different and an argument be had all to help the opening poster. I don’t think so. Wake up. She is asking if the pastor has the right to make such a decision not what her sons should and shouldn’t do, though that is into account since the decision is opposite to her desires for her sons. But rather than argue amongst yourselves can we try to remember what the opening poster initially asked. No wonder she hasn’t responded. Probably totally confused to how to responds. She wasn’t expecting a war between you guys. So sad that you just want to do battle with each other meaning well but don’t help the opening poster one bit.Where has your Catholic evangelism gone.

 

[markomalley]

Somewhat related to this subject is a post today from Father Z:

QUAERITUR: I found a Host at my mother’s house. Wherein Fr. Z rants a little.
From a reader:

While visiting my parents’ home (they are not Catholic; I am a convert), I was invited up to look at something on Mom’s prayer table.
I forget what it was … but out of the corner of my eye, something white caught my eye. Turning to look, I realized with shock that it was a Host. I asked how It had got there; Mom said she had gone to a Catholic church near her home and they had “handed these out” to everyone as they came up. So she took one too, but, not knowing what to do with it, she placed in on her prayer table near a picture of Jesus. (She’s a bit syncretistic in her religion.) So, what is the right thing for a Catholic to do after discovering such a situation?
What I did was, first knelt down to adore … stopped to explain to Mom that Communion is only meant to be received by Catholics …
adored some more, and finally, consumed the Host.
​

Why is this related? Well, perhaps the parents have seen / heard of abuses like described in the above-referenced WDTPRS post and wanted to minimize the possibility of that kind of thing within their scope of responsibility.

 

[agnes_therese]

I think it is sad how threads on here go and people are just airing their opinion rather than really helping the opening poster.

Some of us do keep our soapboxes entirely too handy.

 

[englishredrose]

Some of us do keep our soapboxes entirely too handy.

it might be acceptable - ish if the soap was Dove

 

[maryjk]

Why is this related? Well, perhaps the parents have seen / heard of abuses like described in the above-referenced WDTPRS post and wanted to minimize the possibility of that kind of thing within their scope of responsibility.

That is a really good question. Why would you think this is related?

Do you really think a child, receiving his 1st Communion, would save it? Put it on his prayer table? And the way to stop this is to forbid the child from receiving in the hand?

Wouldn’t it be better, if this was a real concern, to teach, as the Church teaches, to consume the Host immediately?