Vatican official suggests reconsidering Communion in the hand

[benedictgal]

---

Create a distorted view of the Church and Faith —well It seems there are many Popes and Saints who fall within your description.

Of course, our beloved Pope Benedict XVI and Francis Cardinal Arinze would also fall under that category, as would St. Pio, Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen and Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.

Walking Home, aren’t you glad that we are in there company?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

My friend, you said it happened so often that many priests reported it. Which is it? It happens a lot, so much that many priests report it or just that it happens on occasion?

,Make up your mind.

Or at least be consistent.

It happened often enough for the priests to comment on and advise us (as in training) that it does happen.

I have heard it directly from priests, other EMHC I have met have heard it directly from priests.

Are you finished straining for reasons to be rude and critical or are you pretending this is a debate with documented information to draw upon?

 

[palmas85]

It happened often enough for the priests to comment on and advise us (as in training) that it does happen.

I have heard it directly from priests, other EMHC I have met have heard it directly from priests.

Are you finished straining for reasons to be rude and critical or are you pretending this is a debate with documented information to draw upon?

 

[palmas85]

It happened often enough for the priests to comment on and advise us (as in training) that it does happen.

I have heard it directly from priests, other EMHC I have met have heard it directly from priests.

Are you finished straining for reasons to be rude and critical or are you pretending this is a debate with documented information to draw upon?

That is a far cry from what you originally posted, but it does explain the basis of your statement which is all I asked you to do.

As far as straining for reasons to be rude, I don’t quite understand. Just because I see you for what you are, a staunch anti-traditionalist, and won’t let you off the hook on certain statements you make doesn’t mean that I.m rude.

As for being critical, yes. When someone stakes out a position such as yours in the manner that you often do, yes, I will be critical. Merely throwing out statements doesn’t make them true. As I said, I don’t have to agree with what you say nor blindly accept that everything you write is 100% accurate. Sorry, thats just the way this game is played.

In the matter at hand, ie: receiving communion in the hand, it was pointed out to you not only by me but by others that yes, reception in the hand was permitted in the early church, but for a totally different reason than today. A reason that actually made sense given the practices of the day… The practice was stopped I might add due to abuses and a lack of reverence. Your retort and I quote

**LOL that naughty primitive church!! Not only communion in the hand BUT encouraging self communicating!!

**
To me seems to be very petulant and displays a lack of understanding of the development of eucharistic theology.

Reception in the hand these days has never been fully explained by the Church and I think that by itself is the reason so many don’t like the practice. Especially since most of our separated brethren receive that way and they do have a totally different understanding of communion and what it truly represents.

There is a BIG difference in Christian communion and Catholic Communion, which as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, I would certainly hope that you are aware of…

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Reception in the hand these days has never been fully explained by the Church and I think that by itself is the reason so many don’t like the practice.

If “so many don’t like the practice” they have issues.

Does one trust the Church or not?

Does anyone think the Church would approve a practice that diminishes anything of the Faith?

If so - have they lost faith that the gates of Hell will not prevail?

 

[AlexV]

Why do some people insist on turning everything into a “gates of hell will not prevail”-type issue?

Get a grip.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Why do some people insist on turning everything into a “gates of hell will not prevail”-type issue?

Get a grip.

When some suggest the HMC would ever allow options that diminish or deny any aspect of the Faith then the reference is painfully appropriate.

 

[japhy]

If “so many don’t like the practice” they have issues. Does one trust the Church or not?

Does anyone think the Church would approve a practice that diminishes anything of the Faith?

“So many” have issues about the 1962 liturgy. I guess they have issues. Don’t they trust the Church?

And communion in the hand was re-introduced into the Church in part because of disobedient pastors who were already allowing it.

Clearly, communion in the hand was possible without diminishing the faith, but I see people consuming the Host like it’s popcorn. I’ve seen the Host fall on the floor, and the EMHC and the communicant don’t know what to do. I’ve seen a kid receiving the Host have it fall on the floor, after which he picked it up and just looked at it and held it and walked back to his seat. Our resident Sister had to track him down.

Contrast that with one time I was receiving on the tongue and the host fell. I was devastated. I received a new Host in my hands (after the first one had been picked up and placed on the paten apart from the others) and my hands were shaking.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

“So many” have issues about the 1962 liturgy. I guess they have issues. Don’t they trust the Church?

And communion in the hand was re-introduced into the Church in part because of disobedient pastors who were already allowing it.

That sounds like the Church rewarded the disobedient and that does not makes sense at all.

 

[japhy]

That sounds like the Church rewarded the disobedient and that does not makes sense at all.

Have you read Memoriale Domini and En réponse à la demande? You should.

Here are some quotes from MD, written by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. (Moderators, please be kind.)
*n recent years [there has been] the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence.

…

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 there are statistics given which show that the majority of the bishops polled a) were against promoting Communion in the hand over and above the traditional practice of Communion on the tongue, b) were against experimenting with Communion in the hand in small communities, and c) doubted that the faithful would “receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation”.

So what did Pope Paul VI decide?
[T]he Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions.

So the Pope did not wish to change the universal practice (which is still in force today: you cannot be denied Communion on the tongue!), and urged bishops to “obey carefully the law”. Then he went ahead and let the places where the “contrary usage” had (illegally) been practiced figure out for themselves if they wished to continue (so long as they could get a majority vote in their conference and approval from Rome).

So in order to have Communion in the hand, it seems your diocese had to be illegally practicing it in the first place, after which you needed to get approval. Stellar.*

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Have you read Memoriale Domini and En réponse à la demande? You should.

Here are some quotes from MD, written by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. (Moderators, please be kind.)
*n recent years [there has been] the desire to return to the ancient usage of depositing the eucharistic bread in the hand of the communicant, he himself then communicating, placing it in his mouth.

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval* having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence.

…

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 there are statistics given which show that the majority of the bishops polled a) were against promoting Communion in the hand over and above the traditional practice of Communion on the tongue, b) were against experimenting with Communion in the hand in small communities, and c) doubted that the faithful would “receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation”.

So what did Pope Paul VI decide?
[T]he Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

In such cases, episcopal conferences should examine matters carefully and should make whatever decisions, by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority, are needed to regulate matters. Their decisions should be sent to Rome to receive the necessary confirmation, accompanied with a detailed account of the reasons which led them to take those decisions.

So the Pope did not wish to change the universal practice (which is still in force today: you cannot be denied Communion on the tongue!), and urged bishops to “obey carefully the law”. Then he went ahead and let the places where the “contrary usage” had (illegally) been practiced figure out for themselves if they wished to continue (so long as they could get a majority vote in their conference and approval from Rome).

So in order to have Communion in the hand, it seems your diocese had to be illegally practicing it in the first place, after which you needed to get approval. Stellar.

All that does not make the practice less reverent as some claim.

 

[japhy]

All that does not make the practice less reverent as some claim.

(There’s really no need to quote the whole post, y’know.)

First, let’s deal with what you proposed, that it wouldn’t make sense for the Church to reward the disobedient. After reading MD and ER, would you agree that the Church allowed an illegal practice to gain approval instead of enforcing existing (and confirmed) law?

Second, let’s deal with the reverence issue. (Did you read the two documents I suggested to you? Your reply came so very quickly, I’m not sure you did. Maybe you’d already read them.) Let’s see what MD says about the history of the practice:
However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it” As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it." “For it is the Body of Christ.”

…

Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained… especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine” that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord…

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional 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.”

So the Church has said that receiving on the tongue is more reverent than receiving in the hand: “the practice which must be considered traditional [that of placing of the Host on the tongue] ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity.” More effectively than what? Than another method, namely, that of receiving in the hand. History has shown that, because receiving in the hand was phased out because of the abuses associated with it. What abuses are there associated with communion on the tongue? When was it phased out? (It wasn’t.)

So let’s turn to the second document, En réponse:
The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and of any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist.

…

1. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. … Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.
2. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. … It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord’s Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

…

1. [C]are must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.
   There is clearly concern on the part of the CDW here! Receiving in the hand must not allow irreverence to take hold. I don’t see why pastors can’t (re-)catechize their flocks about the practice and remind them that receiving on the tongue is the universal practice. Speak to them of reverence, of behavior and demeanor, of the Real Presence.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Since I switched parishes, I have only received one in the hand and that is when I was visiting family in VA.

At my parish, Communion is on the tongue using intinction while kneeling at the Altar Rail (and this is an Ordinary Form not Extraordinary Form of the Mass).

I have been going to daily Mass at another parish which is closer to work and I have been receiving on the tongue while standing.

It seems to be easier to receive while kneeling than it is standing (especially if the priest is shorter than I am)

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Regarding your first question - I am not going to answer because my full and truthful answer will cause an uproar here.

But to clarify - while the practice was not approve the disobedience I had in mind was the deliberate defaming of the Eucharist by reintroducing an older, no longer used traditional practice.

It is this deliberate defaming that I am also alluding to with the 'gates of hell prevailing" remark in an earlier post.

In terms of the 2nd question – the potential for abuse is not the same as the practice itself being abusive. So while I can respect the various concerns I don’t give them much weight.

Something I agree with is that we all need reminders - and ongoing reinforcement about the Real Presence is never wrong or inappropriate.

 

[Brendan]

It seems to be easier to receive while kneeling than it is standing (especially if the priest is shorter than I am)

I’ve noticed it’s actually a lot faster as well

I still go to your old parish when I can for noon Mass. I’m amazed how they have half the people, twice the ministers than our parishes noon Mass, and it STILL takes them longer to distribute Holy Communion.

 

[japhy]

First, let’s deal with what you proposed, that it wouldn’t make sense for the Church to reward the disobedient. After reading MD and ER, would you agree that the Church allowed an illegal practice to gain approval instead of enforcing existing (and confirmed) law?

I am not going to answer because my full and truthful answer will cause an uproar here.

But to clarify - while the practice was not approve the disobedience I had in mind was the deliberate defaming of the Eucharist by reintroducing an older, no longer used traditional practice.

“[T]he Church allowed an illegal practice to gain approval instead of enforcing existing (and confirmed) law?” That was my question. I think Memoriale Domini answers that question with a resounding yes. If you think otherwise, “uproar” or no, please explain why you think so; you say you have a “full” answer. I’d like to hear it.

Can you explain what you mean by “the disobedience I had in mind was the deliberate defaming of the Eucharist”? Certainly I don’t think the Church approved a practice with the intent of deliberately defaming the Eucharist. But I do not know why certain bishops or priests introduced the practice; what was their motivation?

Second, let’s deal with the reverence issue.

…

So the Church has said that receiving on the tongue is more reverent than receiving in the hand: “the practice which must be considered traditional [that of placing of the Host on the tongue] ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity.” More effectively than what? Than another method, namely, that of receiving in the hand. History has shown that, because receiving in the hand was phased out because of the abuses associated with it. What abuses are there associated with communion on the tongue? When was it phased out? (It wasn’t.)

[T]he potential for abuse is not the same as the practice itself being abusive. So while I can respect the various concerns I don’t give them much weight.

As Pope John Paul II wrote in Dominicae Cenae, n. 11:
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. 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. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.
So he agrees as well that the practice of receiving in the hand is not itself abusive, but he received word of enough “cases of deplorable lack of respect” that he wrote about it, in the second year of his pontificate, to all the Bishops of the Church.

You say that while you can “respect the various concerns” you “don’t give them much weight”. Why don’t you give them weight? Why is a practice which does not intrinsically lend itself to irreverence to the Eucharist being practiced with noticeable irreverence?! Perhaps because the “concerns” were overlooked. No (real) catechesis was given. The Real Presence isn’t taught (well). See what happens when the concerns aren’t given much weight?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Can you explain what you mean by “the disobedience I had in mind was the deliberate defaming of the Eucharist”? Certainly I don’t think the Church approved a practice with the intent of deliberately defaming the Eucharist. But I do not know why certain bishops or priests introduced the practice; what was their motivation?

THAT answer is can only come from those involved. I can’t read hearts nor minds of anyone.

You say that while you can “respect the various concerns” you “don’t give them much weight”. Why don’t you give them weight? Why is a practice which does not intrinsically lend itself to irreverence to the Eucharist being practiced with noticeable irreverence?! Perhaps because the “concerns” were overlooked. No (real) catechesis was given. The Real Presence isn’t taught (well). See what happens when the concerns aren’t given much weight?

I have seen many - particularly recently in these forums - misuse these concerns as outright condemnations of the practice.

Should there be better catechesis? Yes.

Should there be ongoing reinforcement? Yes.

But just focusing on these ‘concerns’, being able to quote this one and that one about them, does NOTHING unless all involved takes the next steps to get better catechesis out there and to create ongoing regular reinforcement of that catechesis.

Saying the practice should just be dumped does nothing positive because it would ultimately be the lazy way out.

 

[japhy]

I have seen many - particularly recently in these forums - misuse these concerns as outright condemnations of the practice.

But just focusing on these ‘concerns’ … does NOTHING unless all involved takes the next steps to get better catechesis out there and to create ongoing regular reinforcement of that catechesis.

Saying the practice should just be dumped does nothing positive because it would ultimately be the lazy way out.

But those who are opposed to the practice in the Church today look not only at the concerns and the fruits of the practice, but also at the means by which the practice re-entered the Church: disobedience. They also look at the response from the Pope: on one hand, he urged the Bishops to follow the law, but on the other hand, where the illegal practice had sunk in, he did not uproot it but allowed it to continue under certain conditions.

How did the practice get approved in the United States? Well, clearly, it must have been happening illegally. And no small surprise there, since Memoriale Domini opened the back door: practice Communion in the hand illegally and get it approved!

http://www.aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/hand.html:

In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it. Outside these circles of dissent, however, the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in one’s hand was rare. In truth, only a handful of self-styled “progressive” parishes had disobediently introduced the practice and the only demand for it came from dissenting clergymen and chancery apparatchiks.

Despite the fact that communion-in-the-hand could hardly be considered a prevailing practice in the United States, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin … , then president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce the practice in 1975 and 1976, stating that communion-in-the-hand had become universally popular as a natural expression of the pious sentiments of the faithful.

In the Spring of 1977 at Archbishop Bernardin’s last meeting as president of the NCCB and with San Francisco’s Archbishop Quinn acting as the chief designated lobbyist for communion-in-the-hand, the bishops’ vote again fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever, bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Soon thereafter the practice of communion-in-the-hand spread rapidly throughout the country, and in a few years the new practice became normative amongst American parishes.

(And I would still like to hear your yes/no answer, with explanation.)

 

[Eilish_Maura]

If the practice was brought back via the ‘back door’ it could well be that was the work of the Holy Spirit.

That the indult has not been taken away could well be the work of the Holy Spirit.

Now where abuses are seen, folks locally need to get off their spiritual duffs and start work on correcting them including education.

 

[rpp]

INow where abuses are seen, folks locally need to get off their spiritual duffs and start work on correcting them including education.

Would you be the first student?