Receivng Communion on your Hand

[Ockham]

Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.” The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

Of course, the promoters of “Communion in the hand” generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.

Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”

There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.

It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth century.

1. Who promotes Communion in the hand?
   (This argument might be accused of the logical fallacy of “guilt by association.” But that argument is not necessarily false.) Those in the mainstream liturgical establishment (and their followers) who promote Communion in the hand are the same persons who, for the most part, have a distaste in general for worship of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist, and perpetual adoration in particular. A due, strong emphasis on the personal, bodily Real Presence of Christ our God in Holy Communion is not something which modern liturgists are noted for. Indeed, they even discourage it. Our attention is to be on the community, they say. In general, we can apply to the distorters (knowing and unknowing) of the Catholic doctrine and practice with respect to the Mass the following words of G. K. Chesterton: they are guilty of “the idolatry of the intermediate to the oblivion of the ultimate.” Well, these are the promoters of Communion in the hand. And they dislike and discourage the traditional manner of reception. Why?

 

[Ockham]

1. Communion in the hand is too casual
   What kind of foods do we eat with our hands? Often, in our “culture,” it is food to which one pays no attention. We eat pop-corn with our hands, paying it no attention while our eyes are fixed on the movie screen. We munch on snacks at a party, while engaged in conversation. Particularly with children, but not only with them, this seems to be a very unwise thing to associate with the Most Holy Eucharist.
2. To possess and control God?
   It is consoling to hear our Creator say to us, “I have carved you in the palm of My hand.” It is of primary importance to recall that “He made us, we belong to him.” But what is Communion in the hand saying at a symbolic level?

Often something is placed in our hands as a sign of ownership and control. The consummation of the purchase of a new home or automobile is in the handing over of the keys. We might even toss them in the air and triumphantly catch them. But should we take him (unnecessarily) into our hands whom the earth and the sea cannot contain?

1. Authentic inter-ritual and ecumenical considerations
   If we glance around the Catholic world, at the twenty-one rites of the true Church, we must ask, “how do they receive Holy Communion?” If the present writer is not wrong, they do not or hardly ever receive Communion in their hands. And under those rare circumstances that they do, on particular days, they receive in a far different manner than ourselves, taking pains to purify their hands both before and after.

We must further ask if some of the propaganda in favor of Communion in the hand, on the part of modern liturgists, is not deeply offensive to our fellow Catholics, such as when the traditional manner of receiving Communion is said to be “childish” (or when intinction is criticized).

And if we take a look at those of our separated brethren who share with us an explicit, and orthodox belief if the Holy Eucharist, we must ask ourselves: “How do they receive Communion?” Further, is true Christian unity promoted by the present decadent state of our Eucharistic practice, of which a significant part is Communion in the hand?

 

[Ockham]

1. Its fruits . . .
   We must be rigorously honest with ourselves. Has this practice really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence? Has it resulted in greater prayerfulness, greater love, and a more abundant fraternal charity? Are we as a people more and more awe-struck at taking the Lord’s Body into our hands?

At least one fruit has manifestly not come from the introduction of this practice. And this is a feature also of the larger liturgical reform in general: unity has been injured. It seems to this writer, at least, that Communion in the hand must share part of the blame for the decline among Catholics in belief in the Real Presence.

1. The Pope . . . and Mother Teresa of Calcutta
   It is well known that the Holy Father is not a promoter of Communion in the hand. In his native Poland, the practice is still illicit, as indeed it is at the level of the universal Church. It was also illicit until very recently in the Vatican Basilica. And he has even refused to do it in countries where the practice has been granted by the Holy See.

The most remarkable example of this last is the time when the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d’Estaing approached the Pope for Holy Communion with hands outstretched. He ignored those hands and placed the Sacred Host into her (astonished) mouth. (Actually, she need not have been astonished; explicit instructions had been given that the Pope would not give Communion in the hand.)

The Missionaries of Charity have no qualms about touching Christ in the guise of the poor, lifting him out of the gutters, and cleaning his maggot infested wounds. They choose, however, not to touch him in his Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament. All of Mother Teresa’s sisters are united both in their many hours of prayer before the Blessed Sacrament and in their manner of reception of Holy Communion: on the tongue.

Mother Teresa herself evidently regards the practice in a somewhat negative light:

I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her-I don’t know why-“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?” She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."4

Thomas Aquinas reminds us that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. By baptism, the Christian has been consecrated to receive the Lord in Holy Communion, but not to distribute the Sacred Host to others or unnecessarily to touch it. “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” (Dominicae Cenae, 11).

 

[Ockham]

A practical course of action ought to be undertaken or these reflections would be next to useless. A minimal thing to do would be to broadcast far and wide the legal status of Communion in the hand and the urgent desire of the Church that we in fact not receive Communion in that manner. A thorough and well understood catechesis in the integral Catholic Faith should lead to a rejection of the practice. In particular, we should include a renewed and due emphasis on the Divinity of Christ, the burning love of his Sacred Heart for us, the Real Presence and the adoration due it, and the need for reparation.

Adult converts and catechumens and children preparing for First Communion have habitually been denied in many places even knowing about the traditional manner of receiving the Lord, let alone being allowed to choose that method. Without coercion, they should gently be guided towards what is objectively superior and a very important safeguard for their delicate faith.

Priests should refuse “Communion in the hand” unless it is manifestly being done with great care and correctness, including astute attention to the fragments. They should question their penitents as to their manner of receiving the Sacred Host, and, if the penitent receives in the hand, he should be encouraged to at least think about a healthy change for the better.

We have of course not argued that Communion in the hand is in itself evil or sacrilegious. And, together with the Pope we acknowledge that it can be done with reverence and care. But this practice has been the occasion of great harm to the Church and to souls. It has expedited “indifference, outrages and sacrileges” towards Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.

It is implicated in the manifest lessening of faith in the Real Presence which we see in our times.

Reparation is needed. In addition to heartfelt prayer, let us make every effort, according to the light which the Lord has given us, and according to our state in life, and our resources, to contribute to the day when it will only be a reference in the history books.

---

1 Sess. 13, c. 8: “Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from priests; but that priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained.” In sacramentale autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a Sacerdotibus communionem acciperent; Sacerdotes autem celebrantes seipsos communicarent: qui mos, tamquam ex traditione Apostolica descendens, jure, ac merito retinere debet.

2 “Hoc enim ore sumiter quod fide creditur.” Serm. 91.3.

3 Just as if I were to say, “It is not a grave fault to miss Mass on a Sunday, if one has to take care of sick person.” This implies (what we already know) that when there is no such excusing cause, it would be a grave fault.

4 Fr. George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989, sermon at St. Agnes Church, New York City.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Steave]

My husband disagrees with me that I receive the Body of Christ on my hand while he says he is not worthy of holding Him and sticks out his tongue.
I am an extraordinary minister and better than 90 percent of the parishioners get it on their hand. I was not told by our pastor (nor does our parish enforce) that we should receive our Lord on our tongues only.
Is there a church teaching on this? When I was growing up, everyone got it on their tongues and everyone knelt in front of and around the altar (this was in the Philippines in the 60s and maybe 70s).
Any thoughts?

This is what makes you worthy to hold the Lord? The king of the universe came not to be served but to serve good lady. Jesus Christ would have never have spoken like that, and NO YO U ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE PERIOD! Thank God for your graces and give the glory back to him, we are all sinners, WE ARE ALL SINNERS in need of a savior.

 

[Ockham]

I posted that entire article because although I posted a link to it earlier it is abundently clear some either didn’t bother to read it or choose to ignore it.

After several pages of debate in this thread and previous, it seems the two arguments boil down to this: On the one hand “it’s in the GIRM!” and on the other hand centuries of teaching from popes, saints and theologians. It is my choice to follow the tradition of the Holy Church and avoid the whims of recent years.

A couple years ago I received Holy Communion in hand while standing from an EMHC because I didn’t know any better. That’s how I was taught at my Sacrament of Holy Communion and it’s what everyone else did in my parish. Upon taking some time to learn the history of this subject I can’t make excuses for those who should know better. I’m willing to bet the vast majority of those who attend weekly Mass and receive Holy Communion in hand while standing don’t know any better either.

Those who advocate CITH seem to base their argument on populism - it’s the hip thing to do. As I mentioned earlier, our current bishops were young priests during the Age of Aquarius and Spirit of Vatican II. When they are gone to their reward they will be replaced with the young priests of today. Enrollment in seminaries is miniscule, not at sustainable levels, except for the FSSP and SSPX who have waiting lists. Judge yourselves accordingly.

p.s. Obedience to our bishops is important but we have a duty to ensure it is correct. The Canadian Councel of Catholic Bishops denied Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae.

Famed Fr. Corapi Calls Canadian Bishops’ Dissent from Humanae Vitae “Catastrophic”
“The majority of Canadian bishops signed the infamous Winnipeg Statement that just categorically rejected Humane Vitae. That kind of rebellion is catastrophic.”
catholicanada.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=782&Itemid=91

 

[ncjohn]

In no way am I passing judgement. A couple years ago I received Holy Communion in hand while standing from an EMHC. Then I did some reading and discovered the better way. This isn’t my preference, it is the Church’s preferece.

It’s astonishing to read your accusation of me thinking I’m superior while you are the one refusing to humble yourself in front of God.

And here exactly you prove my point. Those who receive according to a legitimate option offered by the Church are not “humbling themselves in front of God.”

What an outrageous and ridiculous judgment and accusation. On what basis could you possibly know any such thing? And what an incredible insult to the centuries of saints and martyrs, not to mention all those Catholics for whom the NORM is (and always has been) receiving standing and in the hand!

*Thank you Lord for not making me like those others who don’t humble themselves before you! *

And yes, I read your article in the beginning. Interesting opinion piece but with no standing whatsoever beyond that. You can choose to believe it has some kind of force of law or that the Church is urgently calling for people to stop, but the simple facts are that there is no such statement from the Church beyond an occasional bishop or cardinal expressing their preference.

I’ll not waste any more of your time. It clearly makes no difference to cite history, tradition, or law, or even to simply request the same level of respect for someone else’s devotion that you demand for yourself.

Peace,

 

[Ockham]

It clearly makes no difference to cite history, tradition, or law,

Sad but true.

 

[Joannm]

This is what makes you worthy to hold the Lord? The king of the universe came not to be served but to serve good lady. Jesus Christ would have never have spoken like that, and NO YO U ARE NOT BETTER THAN ANYONE PERIOD! Thank God for your graces and give the glory back to him, we are all sinners, WE ARE ALL SINNERS in need of a savior.

The OP was not saying she is better than anyone. She stated that better than 90% of parihsioners receive in the hand…meaning that more receive in the hand.

 

[Geremia]

Why would the tongue be any better or cleaner than the hand?

It has nothing to do with physical cleanliness; the laity’s hands are not priestly, consecrated hands.

 

[diggerdomer]

It has nothing to do with physical cleanliness; the laity’s hands are not priestly, consecrated hands.

And their tongues are not priestly consecrated tongues.

 

[diggerdomer]

After several pages of debate in this thread and previous, it seems the two arguments boil down to this: On the one hand “it’s in the GIRM!” and on the other hand centuries of teaching from popes, saints and theologians.

Probably a good summary. Both support communion in the hand.

Those who advocate CITH seem to base their argument on populism - it’s the hip thing to do.

Can you point out one comment on this thread that has argued that?

p.s. Obedience to our bishops is important but we have a duty to ensure it is correct. The Canadian Councel of Catholic Bishops denied Pope Paul VI’s Humane Vitae.

The practice of communion in the hand is not an independent decision of a conference of bishops, it’s approved by the Holy See. You don’t have to follow it.

 

[Ockham]

Can you point out one comment on this thread that has argued that?

“It’s in the GIRM. Our bishop approves it”

The practice of communion in the hand is not an independent decision of a conference of bishops, it’s approved by the Holy See. You don’t have to follow it.

It is an indult - an exeption to the rule. Honestly, I can’t keep bring this point to you.

 

[ncjohn]

It is an indult - an exeption to the rule. Honestly, I can’t keep bring this point to you.

No, you can’t because the basic premise is wrong.

It may not be the norm, or the ordinary form, but it is a specifically approved practice of the Church where it is granted.

By your argument, the EF was “wrong” for all those years that it was only offered by indult. There are many things that are offered by indults. That doesn’t make them wrong in any way, just another optional way of doing things.

Can you give us a reason why it is that how someone else receives communion so infuriates you? Do you really not accept the possibility that other people can be reverent and devoted while doing things differently from the way you prefer? I just truly can’t get my arms around what it is about this that has you in such an uproar.

 

[Ockham]

Can you give us a reason why it is that how someone else receives communion so infuriates you? Do you really not accept the possibility that other people can be reverent and devoted while doing things differently from the way you prefer? I just truly can’t get my arms around what it is about this that has you in such an uproar.

What makes you think I’m in an uproar or infuriated?

All I’ve done is made the case why Communion is best received on tongue while kneeling. I have cited saints, doctors of the Church, popes and theologians. You and the others rely on a couple irrelevant notes of history and your personal preferences. Show me the pope who said it’s better to receive otherwise. Why do you avoid all the quotes I’ve listed? Why do you think our current Pope only distributes Communion to those on their knees and directly unto their tongue?

Why is it you prefer to meet your God standing and receive him in your hand? Outside of the “it’s in the GIRM” response. Why don’t you want to show as much reverence as possible?

It seems to me it’s the “Progressives” that are easily infuriated. Perhaps you see the writing on the wall - the dusk of the Age of Aquarius.

 

[Ockham]

By your argument, the EF was “wrong” for all those years that it was only offered by indult. There are many things that are offered by indults. That doesn’t make them wrong in any way, just another optional way of doing things.

That’s a whole other debate I’d gladly have some time.

 

[I_Believe]

The Eucharist began at the Last Supper and finalized the next day on the Cross. As Jewish custom, Jesus may very well have placed a piece of bread directly onto the apostles’ tongues. If not, they were our first bishops, thus consecrated hands.

Got anything else?

 

[ncjohn]

What makes you think I’m in an uproar or infuriated?

Well, usually when one can only respond by continually insulting others and by making frustrated condescending remarks it’s a pretty good indication. Of course I notice that you don’t answer the question though about why it bothers you how someone else receives in complete accordance with what the Church allows.

All I’ve done is made the case why Communion is best received on tongue while kneeling. I have cited saints, doctors of the Church, popes and theologians. You and the others rely on a couple irrelevant notes of history and your personal preferences.

I have cited no preferences whatsoever as I have none. I do what is the norm for the parish so as to not stand out or draw attention to myself or draw others into judgment.

As to irrelevant footnotes, etc, when the ENTIRE church for centuries received in the hand, I’d hardly consider that irrelevant. When a Pope gave specific instructions on how to do so I’d hardly consider that irrelevant. Countless saints and martyrs received that way. Maybe that is unimportant to you but clearly a large percentage of Catholics don’t agree and the Church has seen fit to allow the option.

If it was simply a matter of you making a case for what you thought was better I would not even be taking issue with you as I have no opinion of “better” on the subject. It is the insulting tone of denigrating others as being wrong for availing themselves of what they find more reverent for them.

Why do you avoid all the quotes I’ve listed? Why do you think our current Pope only distributes Communion to those on their knees and directly unto their tongue? Why is it you prefer to meet your God standing and receive him in your hand? Outside of the “it’s in the GIRM” response. Why don’t you want to show as much reverence as possible?

I have avoided no quotes. I simply disagree with the opinion pieces you have posted, as I have stated along with my reasons.

I’m sure the Pope has his reasons, including attempts to preclude souvenir hunters and the like. They are simply his preferences at this point though as he has done absolutely nothing to preclude those who prefer CITH from doing so outside his private Masses, including at his public Masses.

And again, where do you get off making any assumption that I am not being as reverent as I can in the way I receive? “Showing” reverence is meaningless. “Being” reverent is quite another thing and has absolutely nothing to do with posture, as hard as you seem to find that to believe.

And as much as you don’t like the “it’s in the GIRM” response, it is the validation that the Church accepts it, whether you approve of or understand why or not.

So I’ll ask one more time…Why is it that it so concerns you that people prefer something different than you that is completely acceptable in the eyes of the Church?

 

[Layman]

So I’ll ask one more time…Why is it that it so concerns you that people prefer something different than you that is completely acceptable in the eyes of the Church?

[My emphasis]

I don’t think the faithful were ever polled about the introduction of CITH. In some cases, I hear, they were quite distressed to see their altar rails dismantled or, also in some cases, I hear, smashed.

Odd behaviour in the temple of the King of Kings.

Where did the impetus come from to introduce CITH?

Kind of odd, the changes, post Vatican II, in the light of tradition. Priest turning his back on the East, removing prayers, doing it in the common language, smashing altars, letting unvested laity in the sanctuary, letting the laity handle the sacred Matter, etc.

All these ‘improvements’ helping The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to assuage the wrath of God against a sinful people? Hmmm.

If you heard that some other religion was doing this you’d think they were going through a period of iconoclasm.

 

[ncjohn]

ncjohn:

So I’ll ask one more time…Why is it that it so concerns you that people prefer something different than you that is completely acceptable in the eyes of the Church?

[My emphasis]

I don’t think the faithful were ever polled about the introduction of CITH. In some cases, I hear, they were quite distressed to see their altar rails dismantled or, also in some cases, I hear, smashed.

Odd behaviour in the temple of the King of Kings.

Where did the impetus come from to introduce CITH?

Kind of odd, the changes, post Vatican II, in the light of tradition. Priest turning his back on the East, removing prayers, doing it in the common language, smashing altars, letting unvested laity in the sanctuary, letting the laity handle the sacred Matter, etc.

All these ‘improvements’ helping The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to assuage the wrath of God against a sinful people? Hmmm.

If you heard that some other religion was doing this you’d think they were going through a period of iconoclasm.

Interesting. You too quote the question and then completely ignore it and go on with your usual rant.

I’ve had enough. It’s just the same old stuff recycled over and over with nothing new to say. I’ll just carry on with my life now where it’s the Church in charge instead of those above the Church.

Peace be with you all.