One may receive the Holy Eucharist, by intinction, dry on the tongue, by spoon and by straw. Then there are different national/regional exceptions. In some countries, mostly North American and western European, communion in the hand is permitted. I believe that when it was allowed here in the US, intinction was proscribed, since then it takes away the option of receiving in the hand. Not crazy over intinction anyway. The lord said, Take, eat. Take drink." Not, “Take, dunk.” It started in the US when I was about 12 years old. That would be 25 yers ago. I remember the first weekend very well.
Historically, in the hand was the norm. I don’t recall which very early document it is, perhaps the Didache, where it is clearly described. The Holy Eucharist was to be received with one hand over the other, “so as to form a throne.” But remember that the Church was small and very strict at that time. As others began to infiltrate, some measures to protect the sanctity of the Sacrament were introduced.
Eventually, receiving under the appearence of wine was discontinued under most circumstances (and restored following Vatican II). There were very real and grave reasons for this. It is very easy to spill the Sacred Species, contaminate It, etc. Same with cultists swiping the Species of bread for desecration.
In my parish, filled with hepatitis and town drunks who listen for the consecration bells so they can come in and “drink a glass of wine” every Mass, I discontinued the practice of distributing under the Species of Wine. This situation is not new to the world; it has existed in many places since time immemorial.
Likewise in this city, we have the endless and secretive diabolical works of the Satanists, the Masons and, most especially, practitioners of Voodoo and Santaria. It is very easy for someone to infiltrate and receive the Eucharist in the hand, pretend to ingest It, and carry It off for their unmentionable sacrileges. People in the area who have been discipled OUT of these cults are clear to say that their members could be presenting themselves as pillars of the parish, daily and weekly Mass, etc etc, so they gain trust, all to get the Eucharist.
While I cannot prohibit Communion in the Hand, the EM’s and I keep very close watch on each person who receives Communion in any way (easy to receive on the tongue and do a scratching the face move while actially spitting It into the hands). You will sometimes see an EM or myself, following a person from the communion line down the aisle to tell them, “Put it in your mouth and swallow it or give it back to me.” Also, parishioners practice fraternal correction and inform myself or an EM when a person ahead of them in line apparently hasn’t consumed the Host.
Receiving Holy Communion under any form can be reverent or irreverent; it depends on the disposition of the Communicant. But some methods were recognized in the past to be particularly open to abuse or the spread of disease and so they were withdrawn.
Now, they have been restored. Restoring these forms does not challenge history or theology; both are firmly established. They have always been pastoral/practical issues. Since these practices have been restored, it is simply a matter of using additional labor to instruct the faithful, the EMs, etc., as to the proper way to receive, and to adapt to the local parrochial, diocesan or regional circumstances.
But being offensive? I know how it struck me when I was a child, and that lasted a long time. I am still not crazy over the practice, again for practical, not historical reasons. This is not an innovation. But things that are different, when we don’t understand them, can be shoicking at least, repulsive at worst. We must then think, “If the Church is allowing this, there must be a reason. I will research the reason.” In this case, we find it’s not an evil plot, nor something any more irreverant than anything else done by an irreverent person.
– Fr. L.
