Proper Ministration of Holy Communion

[otjm]

Merit has degrees. For example Pope Paul VI wrote this in Indulgentarium Doctrina, 1967. Of course the four general norms apply for reception of partial indulgences, where something is not already required. The general norms are:

• Raising the mind to God with humble trust while performing one’s duties and bearing life’s difficulties, and adding, at least mentally, some pious invocation.
• Devoting oneself or one’s goods compassionately in a spirit of faith to the service of one’s brothers and sisters in need.
• Freely abstaining in a spirit of penance from something licit and pleasant.
• Freely giving open witness to one’s faith before others in particular circumstances of everyday life.

From Indulgentarium Doctrina:

Since by their acts the faithful can obtain, in addition to the merit which is the principal fruit of the act, a further remission of temporal punishment in proportion to the degree to which the charity of the one performing the act is greater, and in proportion to the degree to which the act itself is performed in a more perfect way, it has been considered fitting that this remission of temporal punishment which the Christian faithful acquire through an action should serve as the measurement for the remission of punishment which the ecclesiastical authority bountifully adds by way of partial indulgence.

All of which has no relevance to the topic. Reception of Communion has a universal norm and an indult; using one over the other has no merit. They both accomplish the same thing and a person is not “more obedient” by using COTT as opposed to CITH, as there is no disobedience in CITH, nor less obedience. That is just a personal opinion, and as noted elsewhere, appears as a prideful decision.

One can certainly prefer one method over the other, like one and not the other, or practice one and refuse to practice the other; neither is demanded where the indult applies. But while that can be reduced to personal emotional response to one or the other, merit is the same.

Your quotes are not dispositive, nor relative to the issue of “more excellent obedience”.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

All of which has no relevance to the topic. Reception of Communion has a universal norm and an indult; using one over the other has no merit. They both accomplish the same thing and a person is not “more obedient” by using COTT as opposed to CITH, as there is no disobedience in CITH, nor less obedience. That is just a personal opinion, and as noted elsewhere, appears as a prideful decision.

One can certainly prefer one method over the other, like one and not the other, or practice one and refuse to practice the other; neither is demanded where the indult applies. But while that can be reduced to personal emotional response to one or the other, merit is the same.

Your quotes are not dispositive, nor relative to the issue of “more excellent obedience”.

Your use of the word “indult” is very telling. Where the indult does not apply, how are bishops justified in demanding one over the other if both are equally meritorious and intrinsically the same?

 

[otjm]

I was referring more to an obedience to Christ’s lordship. [/Christ’s lordship - so you are saying that He made a mistake in handing the Eucharist to the Apostles, or else made a mistake in not instructing them to not do so to the laity - that is where this leads, as the Church in the first few centuries clearly received in the hand. Or if that show doesn’t fit, then the Apostles must have been less than “more excellently obedient” by distributing the Eucharist in the hand. I don’t think either of those paths are one you wish to take; but that is where your comment leads.
Tannhauser_1509;13935844:

I think receiving on the tongue naturally inspires greater reverence, and also carries less risk of profanation because the host is always in the care of the priest or deacon.

Having been an altar boy in the 50’s through the early 60’s, I have seen enough lack of reverence to sincerely debate that point based not on what I think, but on what I have observed. And having observed numerous EMHCs over the years, I ahve yet to see a single one of them commit a single act of profanation. For centuries it was the practice of the Church that people would take the Eucharist home with them. That may have lead to instances of profanation, but that is not the issue or practice now.

People certainly can worthily receive Communion in the hand; there’s no real problem there. But I think it seems a little pastorally risky to allow the faithful to receive the Body in their own hands, seeing as how many communicants may be innocently careless and rub their hands on their pant legs or against each other (which I have seen happen in my parish). I guess I just don’t see the point of allowing the concession if it carries such a potential for profanation. The Church holds that if a particle of the Host is so small that it cannot, by normal observance, be identified as Host, then there is no Presence. You are going down the path of attributing dust particles to containing Presence. The Church does not so hold; further, to profane is to show irreverence or disrespect, which contains intent within the definition. Someone rubbing their hands together or on their pants is not an intent to disrespect the Eucharist or be irreverent.

Plus, I believe Sacramentum Redemptionis was getting more at saying that if a person asked to receive communion in the hand, then a priest or other minister could not deny the person the Body. "

You misread the passage.

 

[otjm]

Your use of the word “indult” is very telling. Where the indult does not apply, how are bishops justified in demanding one over the other if both are equally meritorious and intrinsically the same?

Name me a bishop who has demanded one over the other where the indult does not apply. He does not have to demand anything; all he has to do is request the indult.

And please let me know where it has been denied; my understanding is that it is requested by the appropriate conference. If a bishop chooses to not provide the indult where it has been granted, that is irrelevant to the point at hand. He can do so for any reason or no reason at all, if that is within the authority granted to him over liturgy. If he does not have the authority to deny the indult where it has been granted to the conference, then he cannot demand anything; both are up to the individual communicant.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

The Church holds that if a particle of the Host is so small that it cannot, by normal observance, be identified as Host, then there is no Presence. You are going down the path of attributing dust particles to containing Presence. The Church does not so hold; further, to profane is to show irreverence or disrespect, which contains intent within the definition. Someone rubbing their hands together or on their pants is not an intent to disrespect the Eucharist or be irreverent.

You misread the passage.

Dust particles… That is a weighty presumption. Anyway, I am dearly inspired, as are you, by the early Church’s practice of sharing the Eucharistic meal in such an intimate and informal manner. The first Mass was a simple meal, as were they all during the apostolic era. Am I “going down a path” to say that the apostles were wrong? No. But they were Christ’s chosen friends, who walked and talked with him for three years. Others of us, who may never hear the audible voice of God, simply seek more care in approaching the paschal mystery. Thus, the development of the liturgy.

I also hear talk of my purported grotesque pride seeping into my posts. I hope I’m not seeming prideful. More so, I wish the indult didn’t exist because there’s no reason to compromise liturgical union for a mere personal preference. That’s why many countries don’t have it. It’s confusing to outsiders, especially, who wonder why we can’t agree on how to eat our Eucharist. The simple answer, as I see it, is to keep the long tradition of how the Western Church has customarily ordered the faithful to receive. Anyway, I can tell you’re frustrated with me. Perhaps I should keep my convictions about honoring our Lord to myself? I was principally inspired by St. Thomas Aquinas’ entry about ministers of Communion in his Summa Theologiae, but seeing as how that’s his own pompous opinion, I’m sorry I was inspired by it.

 

[otjm]

Dust particles… That is a weighty presumption. Anyway, I am dearly inspired, as are you, by the early Church’s practice of sharing the Eucharistic meal in such an intimate and informal manner. The first Mass was a simple meal, as were they all during the apostolic era. Am I “going down a path” to say that the apostles were wrong? No. But they were Christ’s chosen friends, who walked and talked with him for three years. Others of us, who may never hear the audible voice of God, simply seek more care in approaching the paschal mystery. Thus, the development of the liturgy.

I also hear talk of my purported grotesque pride seeping into my posts. I hope I’m not seeming prideful. More so, I wish the indult didn’t exist because there’s no reason to compromise liturgical union for a mere personal preference. That’s why many countries don’t have it. It’s confusing to outsiders, especially, who wonder why we can’t agree on how to eat our Eucharist. The simple answer, as I see it, is to keep the long tradition of how the Western Church has customarily ordered the faithful to receive. Anyway, I can tell you’re frustrated with me. Perhaps I should keep my convictions about honoring our Lord to myself? I was principally inspired by St. Thomas Aquinas’ entry about ministers of Communion in his Summa Theologiae, but seeing as how that’s his own pompous opinion, I’m sorry I was inspired by it.

The indult was granted to the US on May 29, 1969; in the United States on June 17, 1977 after 47 years after it was initially permitted, and after 39 in the US, one would reasonably think that at least one of the last 5 Popes would have responded to the cries and pleas of bishops begging them to remove the indult. And that amounts to how many bishops under which the indult has been active? Literally hundreds if not into the thousands - in my archdiocese alone there have been 9 including three auxiliary bishops; and two of the archbishops were made cardinals, one of the two being appointed to the CDF.

Not a peep. None. Nada.

Now either the whole bunch of them are at the very least incompetent fools, or they are far worse.

But I don’t think so. They have a different opinion than you do. Perhaps that is something you should contemplate, as to how and why so many of the shepherds the Church has appointed could be so seriously wrong for so many decades.

I am not and never would suggest to you, let alone tell you, to receive in the hand. That is a personal opinion, and it is each communicant’s right to determine how they will receive.

I have been involved with RCIA for over 20 years, and most of the time near the time people were entering the Church, I have taught reception of Communion. I have always taught that in the hand is by indult; that the norm is on the tongue world-wide, that the choice is theirs alone, that most receive in the hand but some choose on the tongue, and whatever they choose is perfectly fine. We then go over the mechanics of each (and for COTT, how to open the mouth wide so the Host is not flicked off the tongue by the teeth, and to stick out their tongue sufficiently that the Host can be placed on it securely).

When I teach, I do not have a personal opinion about it, and I have absolutely no right to have one (meaning, to express one). It is entirely their choice, and it is not for me to influence one way or the other. I am not there to give my personal opinion; I am there to teach what the Church teaches.

And the Church does not teach that one way is a “more excellently obedient” way of receiving. Everybody is entitled to opinions, and everybody is entitled to receive as they see fit. It would help if opinions coincided with facts - and those facts being what the Church teaches, not what one thinks the Church should teach.

And I suspect you don’t have any information whatsoever as to why “many countries” don’t have the indult. In an answer provided by EWTN, the preamble notes that the indult is an option for the US and “many other countries”; a partial list includes Italy, South Africa, Canada, Zimbabwe, Zambia, New Zealand, Australia, England and Wales, Papua and New Guinea, Ireland, Pakistan, Scotland, Malaysia and Singapore.

And the Last Supper was not a “simple meal”; it was the Passover Meal, which is to this day a set ritual in Judaism and differs significantly from simple meals not only in ritual but also in meaning.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

As a priest, I give thanks to Almighty God for the Extraordinary Ministers. I have been in parishes where I was the only priest. After hospitalisations, they made it possible for me to offer Mass, as they completely took over distribution of the Eucharist when I was not well enough to say Mass and also distribute the Eucharist. It was Extraordinary Ministers who, in those hospitalisations, made sure I myself had Communion. They are a wonderful reality and a great gift to the Church and cannot be praised enough.

In normal times, they assisted me in the distribution of the Eucharist to facilitate that fuller sign value that is derived from Communion being offer under both species.

I remember the days when we did not have them. Aside from emergency calls to the hospital, we made hospital rounds twice per week…more if another priest volunteered to lend a hand. The shut ins got Communion once per month. With all the Extraordinary Ministers available, the shut-ins are receiving weekly, at least. Some even more often, thankfully. Hospitals have daily coverage.

As a Thomist, I have never had a qualm about Communion in the hand.

The Eucharist assuredly does not emerge from a “simple meal”…it emerges from the matrix of the Passover Rite, which gives it its proper theological meaning and significance and places the new rite and the new covenant in its proper context. Indeed, it is not possible to properly understand the Eucharist in all its facets without seeing it through the lens of Passover.

In point of fact, the liturgy and sacraments writ large could not be understood without looking back to the rites of the Hebrew Scriptures, which foreshadow the liturgy and sacraments of the new covenant.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

The indult was granted to the US on May 29, 1969; in the United States on June 17, 1977 after 47 years after it was initially permitted, and after 39 in the US, one would reasonably think that at least one of the last 5 Popes would have responded to the cries and pleas of bishops begging them to remove the indult. And that amounts to how many bishops under which the indult has been active? Literally hundreds if not into the thousands - in my archdiocese alone there have been 9 including three auxiliary bishops; and two of the archbishops were made cardinals, one of the two being appointed to the CDF.

Not a peep. None. Nada.

Now either the whole bunch of them are at the very least incompetent fools, or they are far worse.

But I don’t think so. They have a different opinion than you do. Perhaps that is something you should contemplate, as to how and why so many of the shepherds the Church has appointed could be so seriously wrong for so many decades.

I am not and never would suggest to you, let alone tell you, to receive in the hand. That is a personal opinion, and it is each communicant’s right to determine how they will receive.

I have been involved with RCIA for over 20 years, and most of the time near the time people were entering the Church, I have taught reception of Communion. I have always taught that in the hand is by indult; that the norm is on the tongue world-wide, that the choice is theirs alone, that most receive in the hand but some choose on the tongue, and whatever they choose is perfectly fine. We then go over the mechanics of each (and for COTT, how to open the mouth wide so the Host is not flicked off the tongue by the teeth, and to stick out their tongue sufficiently that the Host can be placed on it securely).

When I teach, I do not have a personal opinion about it, and I have absolutely no right to have one (meaning, to express one). It is entirely their choice, and it is not for me to influence one way or the other. I am not there to give my personal opinion; I am there to teach what the Church teaches.

And the Church does not teach that one way is a “more excellently obedient” way of receiving. Everybody is entitled to opinions, and everybody is entitled to receive as they see fit. It would help if opinions coincided with facts - and those facts being what the Church teaches, not what one thinks the Church should teach.

And I suspect you don’t have any information whatsoever as to why “many countries” don’t have the indult. In an answer provided by EWTN, the preamble notes that the indult is an option for the US and “many other countries”; a partial list includes Italy, South Africa, Canada, Zimbabwe, Zambia, New Zealand, Australia, England and Wales, Papua and New Guinea, Ireland, Pakistan, Scotland, Malaysia and Singapore.

And the Last Supper was not a “simple meal”; it was the Passover Meal, which is to this day a set ritual in Judaism and differs significantly from simple meals not only in ritual but also in meaning.

I’m not a bishop of the Church, but that doesn’t mean I’m brainless. You have spoken sufficiently condescendingly to me, I think. I am especially struck that you call communion-in-the-hand a Church teaching. It’s an indult. It has been allowed in the Church precisely because bishops were disobedient to the very magisterium you encourage me to contemplate. It’s precisely the problem that bishops aren’t begging for the indult to be removed: the goal of making concessions is to lead people more peacefully away from their previous disobedience. I’m especially concerned because the specifications Rome gave for granting the indult have not really been met, especially their requirement that communion-in-the-hand should continue to encourage, not diminish, faith in the Real Presence. Quite the opposite trend is occurring, however, nationwide, in which only 30% or so of Catholics have been surveyed to believe in the Real Presence. With the emerging Protestant trend of further relaxing their practice of the Lord’s Supper, this is the last thing the Church needs.

As for the popes who have uttered “not a peep” over the years since the indult was granted: they have, in fact, voiced their opinions on the matter, especially St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the latter of whom ministered communion exclusively in the traditional way. John Paul II said in Dominicae Cenae, “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.” Anointing a priest’s hands is only relevant if one believes that hands should be formally consecrated to handle the species. He said also, “There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for [communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it,” in an interview from 1980.

The teaching of the Church is communion-on-the-tongue while kneeling. The indult is communion-in-the-hand. Therefore, they are not to be considered, or chosen to perform, on an equal basis. In fact, I think emphasizing the former method of ministration (the universal law of the Church, not its exception) is, contrary to popular thinking, more pastorally beneficial in the long run. As Pope Benedict XVI said, communion-on-the-tongue “better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and introduces more easily the sense of mystery — aspects which, in our times, pastorally-speaking, it is urgent to highlight and recover.”

 

[Vico]

All of which has no relevance to the topic. Reception of Communion has a universal norm and an indult; using one over the other has no merit. They both accomplish the same thing and a person is not “more obedient” by using COTT as opposed to CITH, as there is no disobedience in CITH, nor less obedience. That is just a personal opinion, and as noted elsewhere, appears as a prideful decision.

One can certainly prefer one method over the other, like one and not the other, or practice one and refuse to practice the other; neither is demanded where the indult applies. But while that can be reduced to personal emotional response to one or the other, merit is the same.

Your quotes are not dispositive, nor relative to the issue of “more excellent obedience”.

I agree that my post was not about one form over the other, rather it is merely an answer to "I have never heard anyone suggest that someone could be “more excellently obedient. One either was obedient or one was not.”

We sometimes have a choice:

“The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant.” GIRM (2011)

We are to be obedient to the second commandment as given in the Catechism, which is to bear witness, so this may have degrees of perfection, which will apply to either chosen:

2145 The faithful should bear witness to the Lord’s name by confessing the faith without giving way to fear.76 Preaching and catechizing should be permeated with adoration and respect for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Phemie]

As a priest, I give thanks to Almighty God for the Extraordinary Ministers. I have been in parishes where I was the only priest. After hospitalisations, they made it possible for me to offer Mass, as they completely took over distribution of the Eucharist when I was not well enough to say Mass and also distribute the Eucharist. It was Extraordinary Ministers who, in those hospitalisations, made sure I myself had Communion. They are a wonderful reality and a great gift to the Church and cannot be praised enough.

Father, I didn’t mean to imply that EMHCs should not exist. I know they are important as many places do not have priests and their presence allows the faithful to receive Communion when they otherwise couldn’t. In my present parish they are useful when our Pastor is away ministering to a further isolated parish and can’t get back in time for Sunday. And yes, they allow us to receive under both species.

That said, it wasn’t that long ago that we had three priests who concelebrated every Mass and then two sat down and allowed the EMHCs to distribute Communion. An EMHC would distribute when there were fewer than 30 at Mass and we weren’t receiving under both species. It was at that point that I decided I could no longer exercise this ministry.

It’s interesting. During the H1N1 virus outbreak a few years ago, Communion from the Chalice was discontinued and the Pastor distributed Communion all by himself. Not one single person complained that Communion took too long. It was from that point on that no EMHC was scheduled to help with the distribution of the Hosts, except at the Christmas Eve 6 p.m. Mass which has the largest attendance of the year and at a funeral where a large number of mourners are expected. The Precious Blood is not offered at funerals or at daily Mass. One is still scheduled to offer the Precious Blood at the Saturday evening Mass and two at the Sunday morning Mass.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I’m not a bishop of the Church, but that doesn’t mean I’m brainless. You have spoken sufficiently condescendingly to me, I think. I am especially struck that you call communion-in-the-hand a Church teaching. It’s an indult.

“It’s an indult,” you say. You speak of indults dismissively…as if they indicate something of second class. When I, as a priest, offered the vetus ordo Mass for those who had petitioned for it, it was by indult…many years before Summorum Pontificum

It is by an indult that, for example, married clergy from the Anglican Communion are ordained as Catholic priests. An indult makes something to be fully within the law, just as the Anglican cleric, by an indult, becames lawfully capable of receiving ordination and thus be every bit a priest as I am…although married and with children

The former Anglican cleric is not second class because he becomes a Catholic priest by an indult. The vetus ordo Mass was not second class because it was offered by an indult. The indult in this instance makes Communion in the hand equal in law to Communion on the tongue

It has been allowed in the Church precisely because bishops were disobedient to the very magisterium you encourage me to contemplate

The bishops constitute the Magisterium. If you’re here to judge the bishops, I have no wish to engage with you. The rules of the forum do not admit of any lay person accusing the bishops of disobedience, as you have just done

It’s precisely the problem that bishops aren’t begging for the indult to be removed: the goal of making concessions is to lead people more peacefully away from their previous disobedience. I’m especially concerned because the specifications Rome gave for granting the indult have not really been met, especially their requirement that communion-in-the-hand should continue to encourage, not diminish, faith in the Real Presence. Quite the opposite trend is occurring, however, nationwide, in which only 30% or so of Catholics have been surveyed to believe in the Real Presence. With the emerging Protestant trend of further relaxing their practice of the Lord’s Supper, this is the last thing the Church needs.

There’s no reason to remove the indult. What “the Church needs” is the decision of the bishops and of the Holy See

As for the popes who have uttered “not a peep” over the years since the indult was granted: they have, in fact, voiced their opinions on the matter, especially St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the latter of whom ministered communion exclusively in the traditional way. John Paul II said in Dominicae Cenae, “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.” Anointing a priest’s hands is only relevant if one believes that hands should be formally consecrated to handle the species. He said also, “There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for [communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it,” in an interview from 1980.

No. The relevance of my hands is not tied solely to distribution of Communion. My hands were anointed with the sacred chrism at my ordination as priest. They were not anointed when I was ordained as transitional deacon and I handled the Sacred Species then. Permanent deacons do so all their lives as ordinary ministers of Holy Communion

• It is with my hands, anointed with sacred chrism, as a priest that the epiclesis occurs, by which the Holy Spirit is called down
• The hands anointed with sacred chrism that I have as a priest are the hands I place on the heads of those I am confirming and which I use to anoint them on the forehead with the sacred chrism
• When I join the bishop in laying hands on those to be ordained to the priesthood, it is with the hands anointed with sacred chrism
• The hands anointed with sacred chrism are the hands which I raise in blessing and when I absolve from sin
• The hands anointed with sacred chrism are the hands I that use to impart the sacrament of the sick as I anoint the ill; they are what I use to anoint the baptised with the oil of catechumens and with the sacred chrism
• The palms of the hands anointed with sacred chrism remind the priest that he is configured to Christ Crucified in a singular way, ontologically, as he ministers In Persona Christi Capitis, which the deacon does not

The teaching of the Church is communion-on-the-tongue while kneeling. The indult is communion-in-the-hand. Therefore, they are not to be considered, or chosen to perform, on an equal basis. In fact, I think emphasizing the former method of ministration (the universal law of the Church, not its exception) is, contrary to popular thinking, more pastorally beneficial in the long run. As Pope Benedict XVI said, communion-on-the-tongue “better highlights the truth of the real presence in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful, and introduces more easily the sense of mystery — aspects which, in our times, pastorally-speaking, it is urgent to highlight and recover.”

Communion on the tongue has its symbolism and its sign value. Communion in the hand has its symbolism and its sign value. Both are approved forms of receiving the Eucharist. I would hope that the Catholic Answers Forum manifests its support for its own proper diocesan bishop on this issue and for all the conferences of bishops where this practice is fully approved and has the force of law and is commended by the bishops

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, I didn’t mean to imply that EMHCs should not exist.

My response was not directed to what you had written.