The Ultimate Communion-in-the-Hand "what do the documents really say?" thread!!

[Lepanto]

Due to the length of this, I’ve had to chop it up into several successive posts.

Please feel free to add any additional document citations not listed here.

---

CITATIONS from MAGISTERIAL DOCUMENTS and
OTHER SOURCES REGARDING
COMMUNION in the HAND vs. TONGUE

Preface:
In some countries within the past several decades, the pertinent national conferences of bishops sought and were granted an indult to permit communion in the hand. (An indult is a dispensation, often temporary, granted by the pope to permit a local deviation from church law. By their very nature, indults may be rescinded) The dioceses of the United States received the indult for communion in the hand in 1977. The number of countries that have the indult are a minority, and communion must be received on the tongue in those countries that do not have it.

MAGISTERIAL CITATIONS:

Please note that documents of instruction from the Vatican and the USCCB are typically written in the “positive-affirmative” style, i.e., they tell us what to do, not what not to do.

Citation 1:
MEMORIALE DOMINI: Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion. Issued by by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969.
This is the document which opened the possibility of communion in the hand in the first place. Its wording shows that the universal norm is reception on the tongue. “When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It 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.”
Then further in the document it says: “The new method [hand] of administering communion should not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage…”
And it also says: “This method of distributing holy communion [tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.”
In addition, it says: “Further, the practice which must be considered traditional [tongue] 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.” 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.”
Source:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Citation 2:
DOMINICAE CENAE: On the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II to all the Bishops of the Church on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist. Issued by Pope John Paul II on February 24, 1980.
John Paul II indicates that hand is a new practice and is licit only in some countries: “In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See.”
Moreover, he does not appear to be in favor of taking by the hand: “However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to.”
Source:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

Citation 3:
Letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship to the National
Conference of Catholic Bishops. Issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship, April 3, 1985.
This document reiterates that tongue is the norm and hand is the indult. "The Holy See, since 1969, while maintaining the traditional manner of distributing communion, has granted to those Episcopal Conferences that have requested it, the faculty of distributing
communion by placing the host in the hands of the faithful… "
And further: “The faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of communion in the hand. Each one is free to communicate in one way or the other.”
Source:
adoremus.org/1101Communionhand.html

Continued next post…

 

[Lepanto]

Citation 4:
A response by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. Issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, April, 1999.
This document reiterates that tongue is the norm and hand is the indult.“Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on in the hands are acting against the norms, as are those who refuse to Christ’s faithful [the right] to receive Communion in the hand in dioceses that enjoy this indult.”
And further: “However, let all remember that the time-honored tradition is to receive the host on the tongue.”
Source:
adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

Citation 5:
Norms for the Distribution and Reception of Holy Communion Under Both Kinds in the Dioceses of the United States of America. Issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on June 14, 2001.
Article 41 of this document tangentially touches on this by using the words “may choose to receive…on the hand or on the tongue,” but unfortunately it does not clearly address the issue.
Source:
usccb.org/liturgy/current/norms.shtml

Citation 6:
General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, November 12, 2002.
Article 161 presupposes tongue is the universal norm. “The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand.”
Source:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html

Citation 7:
General Instruction of the Roman Missal Including Adaptations
for the Dioceses of the United States of America. Issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the USCCB, November 12, 2002.
This is the version of the GIRM specific to the dioceses of the United States. Article 160 is based on Article 161 of the previous citation. Here, however, the verbiage from the previous citation is here made more ambiguous: “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”
Source:
usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4

Citation 8:
Redemptionis Sacramentum On Certain Matters to be Observed or to be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 25, 2004.
Article 92 of this document is very clear. It refers to communion on the tongue as a “right” (i.e., the presumed norm) and in the hand as a “choice” where licit, (i.e., an approved exception). “Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her.”
Source:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

Continued next post…

 

[Lepanto]

NON-MAGISTERIAL CITATIONS:

Citation 9:
This is a very good analysis of Memoriale Domini by Colin B. Donovan, STL.
As seen in Article 1, the two methods are compared but Memoriale Domini shows a juridical preference for the traditional method in regions where the optional practice of receiving on the hand is permitted by local jurisdiction: "The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful have the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand.”
Source:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

Citation 10:
Another example of John Paul II personally encouraging communion on the tongue is evidenced by this (unflattering) viewer letter to the PBS documentary Frontline: "I’ve been turned off to this pope ever since I saw him, at his early visit to the American Eucharistic Congress in Chicago, refuse Holy Communion to a confused man who was holding out his hands as was normal for his diocese; when he finally got that the Pope was insisting that he receive the Eucharist only on his tongue, he was totally crestfallen, but obeyed.”
Source:
pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pope/talk/c.html

Citation 11:
Rethinking Communion in the Hand. From the “Pastoral and Homiletic Review,” March, 1997.
This is an article that gives some of the historical background and arguments against communion in the hand.
Source:
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

Citation 12:
Radical Relocation of Transcendence Changes in the Communion Rite 1977 – 2002. From the “Adoremus Bulletin,” May, 2002.
This is an article that gives some of the historical background and arguments against communion in the hand.
Source:
adoremus.org/0502CommunionRite.html

Citation 13:
The Discipline of the Eucharist: Holy See Releases Redemptionis Sacramentum, Norms for Celebration of Mass. From the “Adoremus Bulletin,” April/May, 2004.
This is an article that gives some of the historical background and arguments against communion in the hand.
Source:
adoremus.org/0404Liturgy.html

 

[pnewton]

Article 92 of this document is very clear. It refers to communion on the tongue as a “right” (i.e., the presumed norm) and in the hand as a “choice” where licit, (i.e., an approved exception). “Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her.”
Source:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html
.

Or, without the use of parenthesis.
vatican.va/roman_curia/co…mentum_en.html

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her.

And from the USCCB site

The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand

.

Simple enough. For most of us, both are allowed, with reception on the tongue being the norm and in the hand licit.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I suppose complete documents on this issue should have something about the Communion Plate. My experience is that no Communion Plate is used. When I see it used, for example when Pope Benedict XVI gives Communion, it not held by the person receiving Communion. Another person holds it under the communicant’s chin.

So the situation faced:
1: Do I receive Communion on the tongue, without a communion plate, despite the dangers this causes to the Blessed Sacrament?
2. Do I receive Communion on the tongue, in a way different to what the liturgical books have, about me holding the Communion Plate?
3. Or do I receive Communion in the hand, clearly permitted in my country, which does not require (or even enable) a Communion Plate?

Some documents on this:
2004 Redemptionis Sacramentum “[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.” 2004 Redemptionis Sacramentum, at vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html .

2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal “287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest, who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.” (Access from romanrite.com/girm.html ).

1975 General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
“117. He then takes the paten or a ciborium and goes to the communicants. If communion is given only under the form of bread, he raises the eucharistic bread slightly and shows it to each one, saying: “The body of Christ.” The communicants reply: “Amen” and, holding the communion plate under their chin, receive the sacrament.”
“246 … b. The communicants approach, make the proper reverence, stand in front of the priest, and hold the communion plate below their chin. The celebrant dips a particle into the chalice and, showing it, says: “The body and blood of Christ.” The communicants respond: “Amen,” receive communion from the priest, and return to their place.” (From adoremus.org/GIRM.html ).

 

[Kevirish01]

In 1965 Pope Paul VI issued his encyclical on the Holy Eucharist Mysterium Fidei. In this wonderful document the pope expressed great concern about the loss of devotion and proper respect for the Blessed Sacrament (in 1965! *during *the last session of Vatican II!).

Twelve years later – the bishops in the U.S. started allowing reception of Holy Communion in the hand.

Can we honestly say that communion in the hand has fostered a greater respect and more reverence towards the Holy Eucharist that Paul VI desired?

We can look at all of the Church documents on this subject until the cows come home. However, IMO, the evidence is quite clear in many of our Catholic parishes across this country. As JPII said in Ecclesia de Eucharistia:

In some places the practice of Eucharistic adoration has been almost completely abandoned. In various parts of the Church abuses have occurred, leading to confusion with regard to sound faith and Catholic doctrine concerning this wonderful sacrament. At times one encounters an extremely reductive understanding of the Eucharistic mystery. Stripped of its sacrificial meaning, it is celebrated as if it were simply a fraternal banquet. Furthermore, the necessity of the ministerial priesthood, grounded in apostolic succession, is at times obscured and the sacramental nature of the Eucharist is reduced to its mere effectiveness as a form of proclamation. This has led here and there to ecumenical initiatives which, albeit well-intentioned, indulge in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith. How can we not express profound grief at all this? The Eucharist is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity and depreciation. (from EE 10)

 

[japhy]

2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal “287. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, …” (Access from romanrite.com/girm.html ).

1975 General Instruction of the Roman Missal:
“117. … The communicants reply: “Amen” and, holding the communion plate under their chin, receive the sacrament.”
“246 … b. The communicants approach, make the proper reverence, stand in front of the priest, and hold the communion plate below their chin. …” (From adoremus.org/GIRM.html ).

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I think the practice of each communicant holding the plate is asking for trouble. If there are particles that fall onto it, it’s more likely that someone will accidentally take hold of the plate there (unless the plate has a handle). Also, with all the transferring of the plate from one person to another, there’s more likelihood for spills.

Much safer, in my estimation, to have a server holding the plate for each communicant. Y’know, the traditional way.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I always receive in the hand. Reverence is not an issue for me, and Catholics who are reverent.

However, this isn’t the case for many receiving Holy Communion these days. The irreverence being seen everywhere, is undeniable.

I feel the Church needs to take a stand on this, and make one form of receiving universal.

Holy Communion should be received on the tongue, while kneeling, either at an altar rail, or on kneeler’s, as Pope Benedict had, at the WYD Mass.

Jim

 

[Kevirish01]

Well said, Jim!

 

[pnewton]

I always receive in the hand. Reverence is not an issue for me, and Catholics who are reverent.

Ditto here, ate least on this sentence. I personally find it more reverant than when I do receive on the tongue, as I need to sometimes. I have my preference,but I could care less what the Church does and will follow either way.

I do think communion on the tongue will not be the panacea some believe it to be towards irreverence. Those that lack reverence will still lack reverence, even if it is not as visilble. Man looks on the outside, but God sees the heart.

 

[ncjohn]

Having been an EMHC for many years for the OF liturgy and an altar boy holding the patten at many a Mass pre-Vatican II, I can honestly say that I see little difference in perceived reverence between the two. I can claim no ability though to judge what might be, or have been, in the hearts of those receiving.

I can remember, even as a young altar boy, always being surprised at the seeming indifference with which people received communion. I am less surprised by it these days, though it still makes me wonder. I still do see though incredible devotion, and a joy that cannot be hidden, from a great many, regardless of which way they receive.

I truly don’t believe that the “how” of reception is the issue at all, if reverence is the question. The issue is how we increase the number of people who are truly involved in the worship. It was a problem before Vatican II and is still a problem.

Peace,

 

[Lepanto]

Hey all…please remember that this thread is not about which method is more reverent. Although obviously very important, there are many other threads that discuss that angle.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various documents, especially those from the Vatican and the national bishops’ conferences that discuss methods of reception.

 

[thistle]

Hey all…please remember that this thread is not about which method is more reverent. Although obviously very important, there are many other threads that discuss that angle.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the various documents, especially those from the Vatican and the national bishops’ conferences that discuss methods of reception.

What’s the purpose of this thread?
The Church allows receiving Communion on the tongue or in the hand and it is the choice of the person receiving. End of story.

 

[pnewton]

What’s the purpose of this thread?
The Church allows receiving Communion on the tongue or in the hand and it is the choice of the person receiving. End of story.

That’s kind of what I was wondering. Yesterday I was told that these documents were all self-evident and left no room for discussion. Perhaps what was really wanted was a one-sided discussion.

 

[ethelzguy]

Perhaps what was really wanted was a one-sided discussion.

ya think?

 

[japhy]

What’s the purpose of this thread? The Church allows receiving Communion on the tongue or in the hand and it is the choice of the person receiving. End of story.

That’s kind of what I was wondering. … Perhaps what was really wanted was a one-sided discussion.

ya think?

The topic of the thread is “what do the documents really say”. I think that is the nature of the discussion sought. if you have issue with this, take it up with Lepanto, the OP.

 

[Lepanto]

What’s the purpose of this thread?

I think the thread title is self evident. It’s about: Communion-in-the-Hand “what do the documents really say?”

Threads about how to receive communion are a staple in this forum. Everybody has an opinion, or more like ten of them. But rather than discussing opinions, why not discuss what the official Church documents say?

The Church allows receiving Communion on the tongue or in the hand and it is the choice of the person receiving.

Yes, but allowing both methods does not mean that the Church views both methods as equals. If you read the documents cited you will see that the Church clearly prefers reception on the tongue. If you know of any Church documents to the contrary please present the evidence and cite them.

End of story.

I don’t think so, since the pope prefers communion on the tongue and is taking measures to spread the practice. Stay tuned.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13051

 

[ethelzguy]

I don’t think so, since the pope prefers communion on the tongue and is taking measures to spread the practice. Stay tuned.

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13051

The fact that the Pope “prefers” COTT doesn’t mean that he intends to prohibit COTH. I suspect that the above comment is a bit of wishful thinking, and reading things into the article that aren’t there.

 

[Lepanto]

The fact that the Pope “prefers” COTT doesn’t mean that he intends to prohibit COTH. I suspect that the above comment is a bit of wishful thinking, and reading things into the article that aren’t there.

The only reason I brought up the pope’s move was in response to Thistle that the story is over. I really would prefer that this thread stay on topic of the pertinent Church documents. Thanks.

Do you have any comments on the Church documents?

 

[pnewton]

Yes, but allowing both methods does not mean that the Church views both methods as equals.

No, allowing both forms only means they are allowed.