If communion in the hand is mandated what should those who normally receive on the tongue do?

[PatienceAndHumility]

I was trying to help you understand why some might not want to receive in the hand so that you could approach the issue in charity to why they might think differently to you

Thanks you dear Brother/Sister- point humbly taken.

The Pope could decide tomorrow to remove the indult to receive in the hand as it, and not communion on the tongue, is the exception to liturgical norms.

I agree with you but this is a hypothetical situation and the reality is that communion in the hand might be mandated. On your point about greater support of Tradition- the early church practice makes this point debatable.

 

[Usige]

On your point about greater support of Tradition- the early church practice makes this point debatable.

Point taken. I was really talking about the longevity of COTT within Tradition with regard to having universal practices in the Latin Church and their organic development.

I agree with you but this is a hypothetical situation and the reality is that communion in the hand might be mandated.

I was really trying to get at the fact that there are likely a large number of Catholics that would abstain from receiving the Eucharist if the indult to receive on the hand was withdrawn. It would take time for someone to change a lifetime of practice and changing ones frame of reference is not as easy for most as some might think.

For me it really gets to the question of what authority does a bishop have in this matter? This is a case where the faithful have a universal right to receive in the “traditional” way. It is up to the bishops conference to request additional rights for people to also receive in the hand, but that does not negate the universal rights of the faithful.

Because liturgical law is very clear that one cannot be denied communion on the tongue as the liturgical norm, bishops do not have the individual authority to impede that right. Only the Pope has the authority to remove that right for the universal Church or to change law to grant that authority to the bishops. Until either happens it is not really in a priest or bishops realm of authority to change the liturgy in that particular way.

 

[Brendan]

Is the legal conclusion you propose therefore that each Bishop who makes such a mandate is breaking canon law?

Liturgical law, which is distinct from Canon Law. But yes, such a bishop would be violating Church teaching.

 

[OraLabora]

This kind of rigidity drives me crazy. It’s like handing out speeding tickets to ambulances, police cars and fire trucks responding to an emergency. Christ came to free us of unjust laws.

If it bothers one so much to receive in the hand, then refrain from communion.

The monk who is principle minister of communion in our abbey, where several folks receive on the tongue, told me that at every Mass at least one communicant makes a false move and he comes into contact with saliva.

Have a care for our ministers, many of whom are not young! They serve several communicants at each Mass. Why expose them to so much risk? Is that charitable? Any law that does not allow for charitable exceptions is fundamentally unjust, IMHO.

 

[Brendan]

This kind of rigidity drives me crazy. It’s like handing out speeding tickets to ambulances, police cars and fire trucks responding to an emergency. Christ came to free us of unjust laws.

Which of the laws being discuss is unjust? In my Archdiocese, the Archbishop requested that, if the minister contacts the person ( either the person’s hand or their tongue), that they sanitize their hands. Is such a request unjust? Is that a burden that is too difficult for the minister?

To me, it seems a simple way to comply with Church teaching.

 

[Organist78]

If Communion on the hand is mandated, then, quite obviously, you should receive on the hand.

Canon Law does grant the faithful the right to receive on the tongue. However, Catholics understand there is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. In other words, it is one thing for a bishop to mandate reception on the hand for arbitrary reasons. It is one thing for a bishop to take away rights that are legitimately granted to the Faithful. It is quite another thing for a bishop to mandate Communion on the hand because we are in the middle of a pandemic. In this case, I do not see rights being violated because the right to receive communion on the tongue is only being suspended not taken away. When the pandemic ends, those who like to receive communion on the tongue can go back to doing so.

Quite frankly, I believe people who refuse to receive on the hand during this pandemic are thinking only of themselves rather than others. This isn’t about what is “more Catholic” vs “less Catholic.” This isn’t about what is more “orthodox” vs “less orthodox.” This isn’t about who does or does not appreciate the gift of the Blessed Sacrament more. This is about a pandemic. Exercising rights for the sake of exercising rights is contrary to the Gospel. In other words, exercising rights is all well and good; but when people exercise rights, simply for the sake of exercising a right—making a statement, I am not sure that such an attitude keeps to the Gospel values Jesus taught.

My experience with those who insist on reception of Communion on the tongue is that they are more interested in making a statement then they are any particular devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. There is nothing wrong with reception on the tongue. There is nothing wrong with respect for the Blessed Sacrament. Those are very good things. If one’s motives for reception on the tongue is that they feel God has called them to do so, fine. But if one’s motives for reception on the tongue are more about making a statement or to show off, then one needs to rethink things.

Either way, I don’t understand what the big deal is here. Just receive on the hand until the pandemic is over like the bishop has requested. The church has much bigger problems then reception on the hand vs reception on the tongue.

 

[Organist78]

He would if one’s view of the law is “letter of the law.” If one’s view of the law is rigid, sure, he would be violating the law.

There is such a thing as the “spirit” of the law. The laws are in place to protect the Faithful. But this is in normal times.

We are not living in normal times. I believe that just our rights as citizens of the US can be suspended during times of crisis, so also the bishop’s can suspend the rights of the Faithful during times of crisis in order to protect them. Right now we are in the middle of a pandemic. Reception on the tongue presents what I believe are unnecessary risks to health and well being. Thus, the bishop may suspend the right while the pandemic lasts.

I grant this is nowhere in the law, but again, I think if we adopt a less literalistic and rigid reading of the law, what I have said is reasonable.

 

[Brendan]

There is such a thing as the “spirit” of the law. The laws are in place to protect the Faithful. But this is in normal times.

Canon 16 of the Code of Canon Law accounts for that.

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

If there is a question about the spirit of the, the one who can authenticaly state that is the one who created the law in the first place. Which is appropriate, as they are the only ones who know what the spirit they intented when they drafted the law in the first place.

IanM noted that in his post from yesterday. When H1N1 was an active pandemic, the Church was asked if the spirit of the law included the denial on communion on the tongue during a pandemic.
A lay member of the Church in the UK wrote to Rome to get clarification on the issue, as his bishop had suspended COTT during the H1N1 outbreak.

The response by the the CDWDS ( the legislator of the law) indicated that the faithful still had this right, even during a pandemic.

So yes, we do need to follow the spirit of the law, and that spirit coincides with the letter.

 

[Brendan]

Also, the Archdiocese of Portland brought in Catholic medical experts to evaluate COTT

“We consulted with two physicians regarding this issue, one of which is a specialist in immunology for the State of Oregon. They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a more or less equal risk,” the archdiocese’s office of divine worship wrote March 2.

 

[Robtimus151]

They were consecrated!

 

[Mountie]

I personally choose to receive our Lord on the tongue. However, as churches are beginning to open back up, we were told that Communion would only be distributed on the hand. My option was to either receive the Eucharist on my hand or not receive Jesus sacramentally at all. I chose the former. While uncomfortable since I am so used to receiving on the tongue, the graces received from the Eucharist are far greater than any discomfort.

As provocative as it may sound given our current spiritual climate, our bishops are a gift from God that serve to help us grow in our own spiritual life. I may not always prefer the decisions my local bishops makes, but I will obey his decisions as I believe they are in good faith. If we can’t follow our bishops, who hold apostolic authority, how can we follow Jesus? St. Ignatius of Antioch wondered the same thing.

 

[Usige]

I believe that just our rights as citizens of the US can be suspended during times of crisis, so also the bishop’s can suspend the rights of the Faithful during times of crisis in order to protect them.

You are free to believe it just as you are free to beleive 2 + 2 = 7. Unfortunately in either of those cases what you believe does not make it true.

 

[OraLabora]

They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a more or less equal risk,”

Key words: if done properly. As my monk friend said, not everybody can be counted on to « do it properly ».

Prevention is always better that after-contact sanitary measures.

The Sabbath was made for Mankind, not Mankind for the Sabbath. Laws that are so rigid they cannot be overruled for a sanitary emergency are unjust.

Of course those who insist on receiving only in the hand can still receive only in the hand, but they may have to wait a few months to receive communion. That’s one way of rigidly applying the « letter » of the law.

 

[c4csp]

I have always received in the hand my whole life but my thoughts are changing. There are small crumbs more than half the time in my hand that I must inspect my hands to consume any crumbs. These crumbs are going to the floor at mass more than we could ever imagine. That is our Lord Jesus! Then when I hear clergy make light of these matters, it just makes me cringe thinking something is just not right.

 

[Brendan]

Key words: if done properly. As my monk friend said, not everybody can be counted on to « do it properly ».

Prevention is always better that after-contact sanitary measures.

So the solution is good training for the ministers, or some simple procedures, NOT disobedience to the Church.

Where would the disobedience stop? If a bishop makes such a declaration, in opposition to the law of the Church, would a priest have a similar ability to disregard the law, or a Deacon disregard the pastor? Can they too disregard

In our parish, the solution was simple, all those who desire COTT are to sit in a particular section, and that section would be served by the priest. Others may sit where they please.

In another parish, all those who desire COTT are to wait until the end of communion.

All of those are simple means of compltying with the sanitary emergency, even though, as the Archbishop of Portland noted, the risk is similar. Post event sanitation would be needed in the case of ANY contact, hand or tongue.

If you are concerned about the law itself being unjust, the CDWDS would be the place to bring the request to, as they made the law. The are the ones who reiterated the law. If it is to be changed, or ‘wiggle room’ created, it HAS to happen there. A local bishop, priest, deacon, or member of the faithful cannot just choose to change or ignore it on their own.

 

[Organist78]

Well, then, I must respectfully disagree with Rome on this point.

 

[goout]

Generally speaking, the modern spirit of disobedience is a way bigger problem than mode of reception.

 

[MNathaniel]

If communion in the hand is mandated what should those who normally receive on the tongue do?​

… Receive in the hand.

Honestly, as a convert to Catholicism, it blows my mind that anyone with the opportunity to receive Jesus, would reject receiving Jesus in the Eucharist unless they’re allowed to receive him in their favourite posture.

I get that receiving on the tongue is reverent. I’ve preferred it in the past, too. But that is literally Jesus in front of you, inviting you to become one with his body through Communion. And you’re gonna say: “No.”?

And Jesus instituted his Church with authority figures who have a right to exert their authority in certain ways and expect humble obedience from us.

I honestly feel sad when I try to get inside the head of someone who would rather go without Jesus, instead of humble themselves to receive Jesus in a way that isn’t their personal preference.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

But the Church allows communion in the hand (and currently recommends it, or only offers this option). If it’s allowed, there’s no problem.

You are right that currently Communion in the hand is allowed, even now it is an exception to the rule. USA and some other countries have it allowed as exception but normative form of Liturgy as well as Canon Law do not allow to receive in the hand. Bishops can dispense from that (lawfully), but fact is that it isn’t the normative choice or about preference unless that is met. In my country, before COVID crisis you wouldn’t be able to receive in the hand anywhere.

Of course, during crisis or when Bishops allow it for whatever reason, it is alright to receive like that. My point is that there is probably reason why Church forbids it otherwise (and why preferred form is on the tongue).

 

[Mark121359]

This kind of rigidity drives me crazy.

Hmmmm. Now where have I heard that word before?