Fr. Z: Don't Receive Communion in the Hand

[Dauphin]

Thank you for posting this.

I watched the Pope celebrate Mass while he was in the US and noticed he gave Communion on the tongue and in the hand as the recipient indicated. If the Pope accepts either, I don’t see a problem with it.

If he decrees differently, I will surely obey.

I have a concern about receiving on my tongue. I wear dentures and have a fear they would slip at the wrong time and cause an accident.

Believe me when I say, I have a great reverence and adoration when receiving the body of Christ in my hand.

It surprises me that some people can see in other people’s hearts and tell whether they are receiving reverently enough.

I would also like to add that Christ celebrated the first Communion as evident in the scriptures.

Mat 26:26 And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take ye and eat. This is my body.

Mar 14:22 And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke and gave to them and said: Take ye. This is my body.

1Co 11:24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.

It appears our Lord did not have a problem with His body being received in the hand.

By his priests. Priests have always been permitted to touch the Sacred Host.

The objection to reception on the tongue is principally based on the likelihood of particles dropping and being accidentally profaned, as well as the increased likelihood of the Host being stolen.

It is also based on reception on the tongue being inherently more reverent, since it indicates a reception instead of a “taking” as if it is normal bread. The fact that protestant reformers used reception in the hand in order to fight against belief in the real presence should give us pause. It does not have a good hisory.

 

[Dauphin]

I don’t believe I said anything about outward reverance excluding inner holiness. I do, however, challange the magical thinking that says that adherance to a particular Liturgical form will change the World.

We change the World by hard work done in the name of Christ, in how we treat others, in ministering to the poor, the dying, the prisoners. Jesus tells us in the parable of the sheep and goats that we serve him by serving humanity.

Again, you’re separating inward disposition and outward liturgical expression. This can’t be done. Reverent liturgical expression plays an integral role in shaping inner disposition, and if implemented on a wide basis, will most certainly change the world.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not magic.

 

[Dauphin]

Firstly - the church permitted it by INSTRUCTING, via documents of indult, the GIRM etc, that it was a valid and permissible option - which it is now in most parts of the world.

They never instructed that it was a good option. The Church has never given the least bit of praise to the practice - it’s quite the opposite for reception on the tongue.

It’s a matter of discipline, like priestly celibacy. The Church wasn’t wrong for permitting married Latin Rite priests for the first 1,000 years, in spite of the fact that she (with a very few exceptions) does so no longer. And neither will the ancient tradition of priestly celibacy be wrong if the Church in the future reverts to allowing married priests.

Celibacy has always been a part of the priesthood; priests have never been permitted to marry, in any rite of the Catholic Church. Trying to make a connection between this Sacred Charism and a novelty introduced first as an abuse is really making a huge stretch.

 

[Dauphin]

A perfect example of someone digging-up a rather obscure reference in the hopes of showing that their personal preference is somehow superior to what the Church directs.

I’ll stick with actual Church instructions…

The Church doesn’t direct people to receive in the hand. The Church has directed that we have the right to receive in the hand, and no one has questioned this. You continue raising this straw man despite being shot down many times.

 

[pnewton]

As a sacristan at my local parish, I can assure you that there are plenty of crumbs involved.

Anyone who has worked as a sacristan can corroborate this.

Indeed, especially from the fractured host. I am referring to one’s hand, which as a sacristan, you do not inspect. Besides, it is irrelevant as far as I am concerned. With the host we use, I have received hundreds of time without a single crumb. For me, it is a meaningless argument. I am sure it may carry weight for some.

 

[LilyM]

They never instructed that it was a good option. The Church has never given the least bit of praise to the practice - it’s quite the opposite for reception on the tongue.

I never said they said it was good - rather they said it was permissible and valid. Great way to knock down a straw man.

Celibacy has always been a part of the priesthood; priests have never been permitted to marry, in any rite of the Catholic Church. Trying to make a connection between this Sacred Charism and a novelty introduced first as an abuse is really making a huge stretch.

Again, being well aware of what priestly celibacy means, I never said they permitted priests to marry, rather that they permitted ***married priests *** - which they did, for 1,000 years, in the Latin Rite, then banned the practice. Two strawmen for two - your comprehension skills aren’t that great, are they?

As to Communion in the hand - St Cyril of Jerusalem and other parts of the early Church had Communion in the hand first as an abuse? I’d like to see your evidence for that. The practice existed quite happily and legitimately for hundreds of years in the early Church, it did NOT spring out of thin air post Vatican 2.

And regardless of the origin of the practice, the Church has, even if somewhat grudgingly, allowed it to continue by indult. In total contrast to other practices which have always been considered abuses and haven’t managed to be allowed by indult.

 

[Dauphin]

I never said they said it was good - rather they said it was permissible and valid. Great way to knock down a straw man.

Again, being well aware of what priestly celibacy means, I never said they permitted priests to marry, rather that they permitted ***married priests ***- which they did, for 1,000 years, in the Latin Rite, then banned the practice. Two strawmen for two - your comprehension skills aren’t that great, are they?

There’s no need for nastiness. I’m well aware of what you were saying. I was simply pointing out that celibacy has always been a part of the priesthood, and changes were not introduced as a novelty but instead as an organic development. I hope that’s clear now.

It was meant to contrast priestly celibacy, a sacred charism, with reception on the hand, a novelty.

As to Communion in the hand - St Cyril of Jerusalem and other parts of the early Church had Communion in the hand first as an abuse?

No, I’m referring to the time after the Second Vatican Council when it was forbidden.

I’d like to see your evidence for that. The practice existed quite happily and legitimately for hundreds of years in the early Church, it did NOT spring out of thin air post Vatican 2.

Simply because something is old doesn’t make it good. That being said, many old things are good.

And regardless of the origin of the practice, the Church has, even if somewhat grudgingly, allowed it to continue by indult. In total contrast to other practices which have always been considered abuses and haven’t managed to be allowed by indult.

And Catholics are bound to see this indult as prudent? They are bound to agree with the decision of the Church, not just respect it?

 

[LilyM]

There’s no need for nastiness. I’m well aware of what you were saying. I was simply pointing out that celibacy has always been a part of the priesthood, and changes were not introduced as a novelty but instead as an organic development. I hope that’s clear now.

Tell that to the married priests of the time - they certainly didn’t see any organic nature to the development!

And Catholics are bound to see this indult as prudent? They are bound to agree with the decision of the Church, not just respect it?

I’d say, being privy to way fewer resources than the Church hierarchy who permitted the indult, not to mention being so much less aware of the circumstances which led to it than they, it’s not useful to second-guess them, no.

Looks like there are enough members of the hierarchy (who ARE in a much beter position to consider such matters) advising a rethink that they don’t need our help or hindrance.

 

[Philothea53]

ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=87839

23-April-2008 – Catholic World News Brief

Historical Argument Favors Communion on Tongue
Apr. 22, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The American magazine Catholic Response has published an English translation of a provocative article, originally published in the official Vatican newspaper, calling for an end to the practice of receiving Communion in the hand.

The article by Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, originally printed in L’Osservatore Romano, examines the historical record of Catholic practice, concluding that the early Church quickly developed the practice in which lay people Communion on the tongue while kneeling. Only ordained ministers were allowed to touch the consecrated Host with their hands.

By the 6th century, Bishop Schneider writes, the Church had formed a consensus that Communion should be received on the tongue, of reverence for the Eucharistic Lord. Pope Gregory the Great chastised priests who resisted that consensus, and it was become an “almost universal practice” in the early Church, the author says.

Kneeling to receive Communion was also a pattern established early in Church history, Bishop Schneider reports. That posture, too, was seen as a means of expressing reverence for Jesus in the Eucharist, and “the most typical gesture of adoration is the biblical one of kneeling.”

By administering Communion on the tongue, priests were able to foster greater devotion to the Eucharist; Bishop Schneider remarks that that form is “an impressive sign of the profession of faith the in the Real Presence.”

He adds the argument that this form of distributing Communion can prevent accidents. The author cites St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who exhorted priests to use extra caution “so that no even a crumb of the Lord’s Body could fall to the ground.”

The article published in L’Osservatore Romano, and now translated in Catholic Response, summarizes the more complete argument that Bishop Schneider put forward in his book, Dominus Est. That book, released in Italy earlier this year, drew special notice for two reasons. It was published by the official Vatican press, and a preface was contributed by Archbishop Macolm Ranjith, the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship, who said it was “high time to review” the policy of allowing laymen to receive Communion in the hand.

 

[muffinmojo]

Hey, I hope all the people who are saying that because the Pope says it’s okay or the Church says it’s okay means we can’t argue with it realize that at one point the Church also said it was okay for bishops to own small kingdoms, for Jews to be burned alive(and yes I know Catholics throughout history have also defended the Jews), that purgatory had ‘time’ like the world, and so on.

What would be wrong would be to say that the Pope doesn’t have the authority to legalize receiving in the hand or to say that it doesn’t apply. Saying it is a less reverant way of receiving Holy Communion is not disobeidiant, unless it transforms into someone simply ignoring the Pope or ranting about their own personal frustrations(As any disagreements with the Church are based on).

 

[LilyM]

Hey, I hope all the people who are saying that because the Pope says it’s okay or the Church says it’s okay means we can’t argue with it realize that at one point the Church also said it was okay for bishops to own small kingdoms, for Jews to be burned alive(and yes I know Catholics throughout history have also defended the Jews), that purgatory had ‘time’ like the world, and so on.

What would be wrong would be to say that the Pope doesn’t have the authority to legalize receiving in the hand or to say that it doesn’t apply. Saying it is a less reverant way of receiving Holy Communion is not disobeidiant, unless it transforms into someone simply ignoring the Pope or ranting about their own personal frustrations(As any disagreements with the Church are based on).

Nothing wrong with Bishops owning small kingdoms - who says secular rule is automatically incompatible with religious leadership?

As for burning the Jews - church may’ve said it, the church also stopped saying it, the hierarchy came to that conclusion on its own (it’s quite smart enough to do that, y’know), don’t recall any activist campaigns by the laity agitating for them to change their position…

 

[Digitonomy]

"Digitonomy:

It is in no way heterodox to discern for oneself whether Church discipline is wise or unwise.

Wrong.

It’s not your responsibility to “discern” if an instruction from the Church is “wise or unwise”

It’s always our responsibility to some degree - we can’t just follow like automatons when one of our shepherds tells us to jump off a cliff. But for the most part I agree with you that it’s not our responsibility - we are pretty safe to blindly follow Church disciplines without giving them much thought as to how wise they are. However, just because it’s not our responsibility doesn’t mean we are prohibited from making this discernment, nor does it mean that if we conclude the Church is acting unwisely we are automatically wrong.

I’m certain that in the 80s and 90s some people discerned that Church policy on sex abuse of minors by priests was unwise. Were they wrong to consider this, or wrong because their conclusion was contrary to Church discipline? No.

Having said that, those who speak contrary to Church discipline should generally do so in a humble manner, making it clear that the opinion expressed is their own, and that they are aware that the Church disagrees with them.

 

[Spiller]

Ever notice how some get VERY bent out of shape (and rightfully so) when the GIRM and other documents are not followed, yet they make the oddest of claims (XYZ document not abrogated, etc.) when Church instructions fail to support their own concept of what is “right?”

 

[Lepanto]

Ever notice how some get VERY bent out of shape (and rightfully so) when the GIRM and other documents are not followed, yet they make the oddest of claims (XYZ document not abrogated, etc.) when Church instructions fail to support their own concept of what is “right?”

I’m honestly not certain I understand what this means.

Are you saying that we can disregard Memoriale Domini or that it has been abrogated? Please explain (before I get even more bent out of shape).

 

[wow]

I have noticed no one wishes to express their thoughts on what the Pope has said when he was Cardinal.

Please let me know your thoughts on Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger words below.

Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before** the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands**. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him.

 

[japhy]

Ever notice how some get VERY bent out of shape (and rightfully so) when the GIRM and other documents are not followed, yet they make the oddest of claims (XYZ document not abrogated, etc.) when Church instructions fail to support their own concept of what is “right?”

On the contrary, Memoriale Domini describes the hazards of Communion in the hand, and makes it clear that the indult is granted in those places where the practice was already illegally been taking place.

 

[marchoi]

So I am slightly confused by the * Memoriale Domini*…

I get the part where it seems to say that, objectively speaking, receiving on the tongue is “better”. But it seems to be basing that on more of a practical basis - to prevent desecration, either accidental or intentional, not some theological basis. I think this part was quoted before, albeit slightly different translation (mine’s from EWTN):

“Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]”

To me, each of the three sentences say practically the same thing - the need to ensure reverent reception of Communion. It’s not that there’s a theological reason for receiving on the tongue… And it seems to make sense, because receiving on the tongue does help ensure that every host is consumed without fragments falling, etc. (at least more so than receiving on the hands…). And really, it comes down to the interior disposition, doesn’t it? So, to me, the Memoriale Domini doesn’t seem to argue for reception on the tongue on solely theological reasons… Am I reading the above passage correctly?

Now, what really confuses me is the following note (other websites don’t really include it, but EWTN had it):

Note: in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-547) the Instruction was accompanied by a sample of the letter (in French) which is sent to hierarchies who ask for and are granted permission to introduce the practice of holy communion on the hand. The letter laid down the following regulations:

1. With regard to the manner of administering the sacrament, one may follow the traditional method, which emphasized the ministerial function of the priest or deacon, in having them place the host in the hand of the communicant. One may also adopt a simpler method, allowing the communicant himself to take the host from the ciborium. In either case, the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place, and the minister’s role will be emphasized by his saying, “The Body of Christ,” to which the communicant responds, “Amen.”

So… the Memoriale Domini was supplemented by a letter that allowed self-communicating?

 

[japhy]

I get the part where it seems to say that, objectively speaking, receiving on the tongue is “better”. But it seems to be basing that on more of a practical basis - to prevent desecration, either accidental or intentional, not some theological basis.

Right, it doesn’t argue theologically, it argues practically. Distribute on the tongue only, and you’ll find significantly less consecrated hosts showing up on eBay, for example.

Note: in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-547) the Instruction was accompanied by a sample of the letter (in French) which is sent to hierarchies who ask for and are granted permission to introduce the practice of holy communion on the hand. The letter laid down the following regulations:

1. With regard to the manner of administering the sacrament, one may follow the traditional method, which emphasized the ministerial function of the priest or deacon, in having them place the host in the hand of the communicant. One may also adopt a simpler method, allowing the communicant himself to take the host from the ciborium. In either case, the communicant ought to consume the host before returning to his place, and the minister’s role will be emphasized by his saying, “The Body of Christ,” to which the communicant responds, “Amen.”

So… the Memoriale Domini was supplemented by a letter that allowed self-communicating?

That proposition (taking the host ourselves) was shot down and not permitted, thank God. One could say that the priest placing the host in the hand of the communicant is superior to the person taking the host from the ciborium on their own!

 

[japhy]

Here’s another excerpt from MD:Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches, in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

 

[Lepanto]

“There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it.”

• His Holiness Pope John Paul II, responding to a reporter from Stimme des glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda (Germany) in November 1980.

Holy Communion received on the tongue “signifies the reverence of the faithful for the Eucharist … provides that Holy Communion will be distributed with due reverence … is more conducive to faith, reverence and humility… It [Communion in the hand] carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”

• Pope Paul VI in his instruction Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969)

“Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

• As reported by Fr. George Rutler in his 1989 Good Friday sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York. When Mother Teresa of Calcutta was asked by Fr. Rutler, “What do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” without pausing a second she gave the above reply. She stated that to her knowledge, all of her sisters receive Communion only on the tongue.

"With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some Particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful… Let us speak clearly: whoever receives Communion in the mouth not only follows exactly the tradition handed down but also the wish expressed by the last Popes and thus avoids placing himself in the occasion of committing a sin by negligently dropping a fragment of the Body of Christ.”

• Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise of San Luis, Argentina in his book Communion in the Hand: Documents and History.

“There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular… Why—for God’s sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it.”

• Dietrich von Hildebrand (called a “20th century doctor of the Church” by Pope Pius XII), in an article entitled “Communion in the Hand should be Rejected,” November 8, 1973.

"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… Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

• Fr. Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion.

Quotes culled from:
tldm.org/news6/holy-ones.htm

Whatever you may think of that website, the quotes stand and speak for themselves.