Communion in the hand?

Several articles, excerpts and links....

PURPOSE OF THIS COMPOSITION: As a someone who formerly received Communion in the hand from my First Communion until Mother Angelica encouraged my family and I to receive Communion on the tongue beginning in 1993 and as a theologian with two theology degrees, I hope and pray that this composition will lead Catholics away from receiving CITH to receiving Our Blessed Savior [who is truly present in the Blessed Sacrament] on the tongue.

This issue goes beyond any branch of Catholicism that one subscribes to. In fact, CITH, though it is often described as a custom that is rejected only by so-called "rad trads", it is also rejected even by non-"rad trads", including "Novus Ordo" Catholics like Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Mother Angelica and Father Benedict Groeschel. They believe, as I do, that ending Communion in the hand and restoring the universal custom in the Latin Rite of Communion on the tongue is all about restoring a sense of the sacred among the faithful and about safeguarding the Eucharist from ongoing abuses (diocesan priests have personally told me horror stories when it comes to CITH and the abuses associated with it).

This is also not about East vs. West. Some CITH advocates will often cite examples in the Eastern Rite where the practice of CITH is maintained. This is a poor argument because as it is wrong to impose Latin Rite customs on the Eastern Rite so too is it wrong to impose Eastern Rite customs on the Latin Rite. The Eastern Catholics were greatly offended centuries ago when Latin Rite Catholics tried to impose their customs unto the Eastern Rite Catholics. This is often condemned by the East and described by scholars by the derogatory word (at least to the East), "latinization".

This composition is not about judging the spirituality of persons who prefer to receive CITH. They may be holy and humble, but the practice itself is wrong, especially when compared to how it was practiced in the early days of the Church when Catholics had to go through a ceremonial washing of the hands as Bishop Scheinder, a Patristic scholar, has often explained! They did not simply receive Jesus in their hands, shove Him in their mouths and then hurry off to their pews or head out of the Church before Mass has concluded as so many do today.

Communion on the tongue, on the other hand, has always increased reverence and it has always protected the Eucharist from abuse. This composition will prove the latter and former from the perspective of theology and history.

Whenever a person raises objections to the custom of Communion in the hand (CITH) he or she is often attacked by some people who claim that to even question this custom is heretical or a radical sign of disobedience. In fact, one person reacted to an article posted on the Catholic News Agency website by calling objections to CITH "extremist Catholicism" even though Communion on the tongue has long been considered the norm of the Church and CITH only the exception (that is, the exception only in cases when a priest is not available such as during times of persecution. The persecution of the early Church is one example when this exception took place for grave reasons).

To put this in proper context, it is important as a theologian to see precisely where this custom is placed among the Church's teachings so that those who oppose CITH will be properly perceived by their critics.

The Church makes a four-way distinction as far as the Church's teachings and disciplines are concerned. These four levels of what the Church teaches on matters of faith, morals and discipline assists theologians to make a proper distinction among the Church's teachings and the levels of assent owed to each teaching and custom by the faithful with dogma, of course, or any De fide statement being the highest level of assent that Catholics must believe to be members in good standing with God and His Church, the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Communion in the hand is not among any of the three levels that require a high form of assent. It is only considered a level four custom. Level four customs concern matters of discipline which can often be incorrect and in need of reform or rejection. Catholics are permitted according to Canon Law to question level four customs and to respectfully address their concerns to the Holy Father and the Bishops. For a thorough understanding of this topic, please click here.

Issues like CITH and altar girls are especially troublesome because they first began as acts of disobedience (that is, they were never approved yet bishops and priests were implementing these abuses within their local churches against the practice of the Church) and so it is important for the Church to put an end to these abuse to correct the current mindset that disobedience leads to approval and is therefore a good that must be safeguarded. The Church teaches truth in union with the Way, and the Truth and the Life who is Jesus our Lord and Savior.

In my opinion, one of the many problems in the Church today is the fact that there are so many priests and lay people who think they are "experts" on theological and liturgical issues that they take it upon themselves to impose faulty reasoning on others to defend the custom of CITH. For example, Catholics often quote a partial statement by St. Cyril of Jerusalem> on Communion in the hand even though the full context of his citation is very strange and it has been considered as inauthentic by some scholars (although it is certainly true that some of the Church Fathers, including those who are canonized, have made one or two theological blunders during their lifetime, but these blunders do not reflect the primary thought of these great scholars). Click here for more information on this topic.

It is too bad some people in the Church who are not scholars think they have a right to defend Communion in the hand by distorting its temporary purpose in the early Church and the teachings of the Fathers who supposedly favored CITH. They totally take the teachings of the Fathers out of context to defend a rare exception to the rule. When they cite a Church Father who supposedly favored CITH they will go so far as to claim that these teachings are infallible because the Church would never canonize someone whose writings contain errors. It is entirely wrong to think that the Church canonizes saints because she agrees with everything the saints say in their writings. As stated earlier, even the saints were known to make a few theological blunders every now and then even in their official writings. Some of their statements on the Immaculate Conception is one example. He is not among the Fathers of the Church, but Saint Vincent Ferrer once defended, albeit unknowingly, a false Pope! People who have personal experience in debates with Catholics who reject the Divine Mercy devotion know very well that the anti-Divine Mercy crowd will routinely cite alleged errors in St. Faustina's Diary and Catholics like "pascendi", formerly of the AngelQueen discussion forum, have been known to respond by citing examples of a few saints and blesseds whose writings also contain some flaws.

One Church Father who is often cited by the pro-CITH crowd is Saint Basil (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, who considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93). This is one fact that is never mentioned by anyone who cites St. Basil out of context.

This article mentions St. Cyril and St. Basil in several places: Click here As does this article: Click here

Fr. John Zuhlsdorf raises a couple of interesting points on this topic here

It is also perplexing to see Catholics who overlook recent concerns by some Novus Ordo bishops concerning CITH, including a Vatican approved book written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, a Patristic scholar, who condemns CITH and encourages Communion on the tongue as the proper tradition of the Church, i.e., Communion on the tongue has always been considered the norm. Click here to see an interview with Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Furthermore, a common yet faulty defense in favor of CITH is based on the "particles" of the Eucharist and the authority that is usually cited is St. Thomas Aquinas:

This is a gross distortion of the Angelic Doctor's teaching. He does not have in mind CITH at all. The saint is warning against becoming too "scrupulous" as far as the particles are concerned without saying that the particles themselves should not be treated with reverent care. Where does Aquinas say that the particles should be disregarded??? He certainly would agree with the Church who has always raised awareness concerning the treatment of the particles by the fact that the use of a Paten became a standard custom during the reception of holy Communion and priests always were taught as one of the rubrics of the Traditional Latin Mass that they must keep their thumb and index finger together from the Consecration until they wash their hands after Holy Communion [at the time when the sacred vessels are cleansed]. Need proof? Click here and see the entry titled "Ablution". In fact, even in the document that permitted CITH, Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969,there is this citation: 5. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered. And a few years later, this citation was mentioned in another document (which received Papal approval)...SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENTS, Instruction Immensae caritatis, on facilitating reception of Communion in certain circumstances, 29 January 1973: AAS 65 (1973) 264-271; Not 9 (1973) 157-164. 3? On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts.

To put this in context, here is what St. Thomas Aquinas says about Priests and CITH:

St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest minds the Church has ever known, writes the following regarding the Blessed Sacrament: "Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

As Michael Davies observes, “Unless we are to believe that the Holy Ghost abandoned the Church for 1,000 years [the 1,000 year period from the time of the 10^th Century, when Communion in the hand was forbidden], we must accept the fact that, under His guidance, a tradition evolved that only the consecrated hands of a priest could touch the Host; we have the witness of St. Thomas Aquinas that, by the 13th century, it was firmly established that not even a deacon could do so under normal circumstances.” (Privilege of the Ordained, p. 16)

Nota Bene: the above portion of this thread will be edited later when time becomes more available to the writer. The edited feature will contain several more citations and examples and corrections as far as grammar is concerned.

-------------------

Pope Benedict to Catholics: Kneel and Receive on the Tongue Only

Pope Benedict XVI does not want the faithful receiving Communion in their hand nor does he want them standing to receive Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. According to Vatican liturgist, Monsignor Guido Marini, the pope is trying to set the stage for the whole church as to the proper norm for receiving Communion for which reason communicants at his papal Masses are now asked to kneel and receive on the tongue.

The Holy Father's reasoning is simple: "We Christians kneel before the Blessed Sacrament because, therein, we know and believe to be the presence of the One True God." (May 22, 2008)

According to the pope the entire Church should kneel in adoration before God in the Eucharist. "Kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist is the most valid and radical remedy against the idolatries of yesterday and today" (May 22, 2008)

The pope's action is in accord with the Church's 2000 year tradition and is being done in order to foster a renewed love and respect for the Eucharist which presently is being mocked and treated with contempt. The various trends and innovations of our time (guitar liturgy, altar girls, lay ministers, Communion in the hand) have worked together to destroy our regard for the Eucharist, thus advancing the spiritual death of the church. After all, the Eucharist is the very life and heartbeat of the Mystical Body around which the entire Church must revolve.

Kneeling also coincides with the Church's centuries old ordinance that only the consecrated hands of a priest touch the Body of Christ in Holy Communion. "To priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer to the faithful, the Holy Eucharist." (Council of Trent) This teaching is beautifully expressed by St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica: "Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament."

It is for reason that Pope Paul VI in his May 1969 pastoral letter to the world's bishops reaffirmed the Church's teaching on the reception of Communion, stating that: "This method on the tongue must be retained." (Memoriale Domini) This came in response to the bishops of Holland who started Communion in the hand in defiance of the centuries old decree from the Council of Rouen (650 A.D.) where this practice was condemned as sacrilegious. "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layperson, but only in their mouths." To date this prohibition has never been overturned legally.

Today Communion in the hand is carried on illegally and has become a major tool of the enemy to destory the Faith throughout the world. For this practice serves no other purpose than to warp our conception of Jesus Christ and nourish a contempt for the sacred mysteries. It's no wonder St. Basil referred to Communion in the hand as "a grave fault."

That is to say, Communion in the hand is not tied with Catholic tradition. This practice was first introduced to the Church by the heretical Arians of the 4th century as a means of expressing their belief that Christ was not divine. Unfortunately, it has served to express the same in our time and has been at the very heart of the present heresy and desecration that is rampant throughout the universal Church. If we have 'abuse' problems today it is because we're abusing the Sacrament - it's backfiring on us!

Thanks to Communion in the hand, members of satanic cults are now given easy access to come into the Church and take the Host so that they bring it back to their covens where it is abused and brutalized in the ritualistic Black Mass to Satan. They crush the Host under their shoes as a mockery to the living God, and we assist it with our casual practice? Amongst themselves the satanists declare that Communion in the hand is the greatest thing that ever happened to them, and we do nothing to stop it?

Hence, the Holy Father is doing his part to try to purge the Church of abuse and we as members of Christ are called upon to assist him. For your encouragement we include the following quotation from Cardinal Llovera, the new prefect for the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments speaking to Life Site News on July 22, 2009: "It is the mission of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments to work to promote Pope Benedict's emphasis on the traditional practices of liturgy, such as reception of Communion on the tongue while kneeling."

Also worth considering is the recent decree from Cardinal Caffarra, the Archbishop of Bologna Italy, forbidding the practice of Communion in the hand: "Many cases of profanation of the Eucharist have occurred, profiting by the possibility to receive the consecrated Bread on one's palm of the hand... Considering the frequency in which cases of irreverent behavior in the act of receiving the Eucharist have been reported, we dispose that starting from today in the Metropolitan Church of St. Peter, in the Basilica of St. Petronius and in the Shrine of the Holy Virgin of St. Luke in Bologna the faithful are to receive the consecrated Bread only from the hands of the Minister directly on the tongue." (from his decree on the reception of the Eucharist, issued April 27, 2009)

Technically all bishops and clergy are bound to follow the Holy Father's directive on this issue, but in the meantime the faithful are not obliged to wait for the approval of their bishop in order to kneel for God. The directives of the Holy Father are not subject to the veto or scrutiny of the bishops and therefore all pastors and laity have a right and duty to put these directives into practice for the edification of their communities.

Our Lady's Workers of Southern California

jmj4today@att.net

UPDATE (13 July 2009):

Cardinal Caffara of Bologna: in certain churches only Communion on the tongue

Bishop Athanasius Schneider calls receiving Communion on the tongue more reverent (VIDEO)

Bishop Athanasius Schneider: Historical argument favors Communion on the tongue

Dominus Est – It Is the Lord
Reflections of a Bishop of Central Asia on Holy Communion by Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Originally published in Italian by the Vatican Press, this book offers readers insights into the sacrality which ought to surround the distribution and reception of Holy Communion Relying on accurate history and good theology, the author makes a plea for a return to distributing the Eucharist to kneeling communicants on the tongue — the practice now restored at papal liturgies by Pope Benedict XVI. The book comes with the endorsement of the two highest officials in the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Ranjith on Kneeling for Communion during the liturgy and Communion on the Tongue

Kneeling for communion and communion on the tongue:
"Profound meaning," says Cardinal Cañizares Llovera

Peruvian Cardinal bans practice of Communion in the Hand

-------------

Recent News from Rome: Pope prefers Communion on the tongue, Msgr. Marini says

Excerpt:

"In interview published in the Wednesday edition of L'Osservatore Romano, Pope Benedict’s new Master of Pontifical Liturgical Celebrations, Monsignor Guido Marini, says he believes that people receiving Communion kneeling and on the tongue will become common practice at the Vatican...."

Rethinking Communion in the Hand by Jude A. Huntz

HOMILETIC & PASTORAL REVIEW
March 1997

Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence?

The time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand. In fact, the time is long past that we started doing this. It is much better to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner, than it is to receive the Sacred Host into our hands. In Canada and the United States, it is true that one may receive "on the hand," with due precautions, but it is better to receive on the tongue.

Even as we begin, it might immediately be objected: Communion in the hand is fully approved by the Church, and it is disloyal and disrespectful and therefore not allowed even to begin this discussion. In answer to that objection, let us begin with the legal aspects of the question.

1. The legal status of the two methods

It is the law of the universal Church in the Latin Rite (to which most of us belong) that we receive Communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an "indult," or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission.

Another way of illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the indult for Communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving Communion: on the tongue. Thus from the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal.

It must be further noted that the relevant legislation "strongly urges and exhorts" us all to receive Communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as "more reverent." One will search in vain for any encouragement of Communion in the hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be done reverently, but be careful!

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. (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, II)

In Memoriale Domini, which granted the original concession, and in the letter to nuncios which in each and every case accompanied the actual indult (L'instruction "Memoriale Domini"), the permission for Communion in the hand was hedged around with so many precautions, that some have concluded that even in countries where it would seem to be legal, actually, in the larger number of cases, it is still not allowed.

2. The fragments . . .

If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host in the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately to mind:

The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ. [Note 205: Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my emphasis).

The Roman Catechism put it this way:

Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each . . . . the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.

Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don't care, or don't know, etc.

To this must be added the increased danger of dropping the Host on the ground and the increased ease of stealing the Body of the Lord for superstitious or horrible purposes.

For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to Communion in the hand: "What about the fragments?"

3. Clericalism?

Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests are not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else who is receiving Communion, not even a priest, may do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest assists at Mass (and is not [con]celebrating) and if he wishes to receive Holy Communion, he does not do so by his own hand: he receives on the tongue from another priest. The same is true of a bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself.

When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own "Eucharistic minister" and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly.

4. "Communion in the hand" is a misnomer

To place the Sacred Host in the hand of a person is not to give him Holy Communion. The Sacrament of Holy Communion consists in the eating of the Bread of Life. Rather, what is happening here is that each person who receives the Sacred Host in his hand, is then giving himself Holy Communion. Each person is becoming his own (extraordinary-become-ordinary) minister of Communion. By this means the ministry of priests (and deacons) or even that of legitimate extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is becoming obscured or even dissolved.

5. Some Scriptural considerations . . .

In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than do we, it was as follows:

And [the Lord] said to me: . . . "But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you." And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it . . . And He said to me, "Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel." So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat ["And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book" - Vulgate]. And he said to me, "Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it." Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ezek. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV).

It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened his mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come down from Heaven.

In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it . . . . But Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock." "I will fill it," not "fill it yourselves."

Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in a certain direction.

Again, it is certainly eminently scriptural to refrain from touching something as a sign of reverence (and not only scriptural, but even universally human). In the case of the Ark of the Covenant, it was absolutely forbidden to touch it, under pain of death. Even when it was "necessary" to do so, as it seemed to one unfortunate ark-bearer, it was still forbidden. And the fellow paid the supreme price for his temerity in reaching out to steady the ark: "When they came to the floor of Machon, Oza put forth his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it because the oxen kicked and made it lean aside. And the indignation of the Lord was enkindled against Oza, and He struck him for his rashness and he died there before the ark of God" (II Sam. 6:6,7). We have greater than the Ark of the Covenant here.

6. The Last Supper

But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practiced in Jesus' time and which is still the case: one feeds one's guests with one's own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas's hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as "Friend" the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, "giving himself by his own hand."

7. Take and eat . . .

Did not our Lord say of Holy Communion, "Take and eat"? Yes, but these words were addressed to the apostles and not to all Christians indiscriminately. Further, even if these words had been addressed to all the faithful, they are not verified in our standardized way of receiving Holy Communion. Literalism here would require that the priest or other minister merely hold the ciborium while the faithful "took" and ate. But this practice is forbidden. (It has been practiced here and there in violation of liturgical law.)

8. The provenance of Communion in the hand

The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or "Reformation." Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a "false archaeologism": an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority.

The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ's faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the "liturgical establishment" in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion.

When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least "mis-information" was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear.

We can summarize that the practice of Communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.

9. Was it universal?

The history of Communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up-to-date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.

A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the faithful to "make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion]." This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one's hands, since just as one wouldn't let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.

According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an overemphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of his sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is.

In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the "elevation"-so the mainstream treatment of this period continues-and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of).

It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and -sad to say- was imposed.

The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the faithful to "take and eat," and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the apostles: Communion in the hand.

It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1

A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.

Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone's mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope's manner of giving Holy Communion.

These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?

We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert where they would not have the services of a priest, and would not want to give up the practice of daily Communion.

To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one's hand.

So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one's own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. "It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon" (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.

In his article on "Communion" in the Dictionaire d'Archeologie Chretienne, LeClerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all.

After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the hand persisted here and there. It was considered by Church authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed to be contrary to the custom of the apostles.

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.

10. 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?

11. 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.

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. 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.

15. 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).

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.

+ + +

Do it yourself Sacraments? by Fr. Frederick Hauser

Communion in the hand has played a part in making the priesthood less important in the eyes of many of the faithful.

Do you look at something you have seen hundreds of times and really see it for the first time? Perhaps it is a bush that has been dormant all winter and all of a sudden it's ablaze with color, or a child who you have known for years all of a sudden is an adolescent. Very often we need someone to point these things out to us or we will never see then with our mind's eye. That sort of thing happened to me recently when I read an article on Communion in the hand in which the author pointed out what should have been obvious all along: the person who receives in the hand is his own minister of the Eucharist.

Now one thing the Church has always stressed is that a sacrament is administered by a duly authorized minister. That is usually a bishop, priest or deacon, or when needed, an extraordinary minister of Communion who is a religious or a lay person. Matrimony, of course, is always administered by the couple to each other. But when a person received Communion in the hand he administers the sacrament to himself. This is not even done by the ministers of the Mass; only the celebrant or concelebrant gives Communion to himself. The assisting ministers, be they clerical or lay, have the sacrament administered to them. Canon 910 of the Code of Canon Law states: "The ordinary minister of holy communion is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon. The extraordinary minister of holy communion is an acolyte, or another of Christ's faithful deputed in accordance with can. 230 #3."

Canon 230 #3 speaks of using lay ministers when the ordinary ministers are not available. To show the incongruity of a person administering holy communion to himself, let's apply it to the other sacraments.

In the sacrament of Baptism, the priest or deacon administers the sacrament by pouring the water on the head of the recipient while saying: "I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Could you envision a priest handing the shell of water to the adult to be baptized and watching him pour the water over his own head while saying the form "I baptize me, etc."? Or in the confessional, after the penitent has confessed his sins, the priest handling him the formula while the penitent says, "I absolve me from my sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."? Can you, in your wildest fantasy, see a bishop handing the container of Holy Chrism and the formula for Confirmation to the candidate and watch him anoint himself?

And so on with Anointing of the Sick and Holy Orders. The idea is ridiculous and theologically unsound, and, of course, the sacrament would be both both invalid and illicit. But we are doing this every time we give a person Communion in the hand. But, you might say, there is a difference and that is that Christ is already present in the Eucharist. That is true, but isn't He already present in the other sacraments? In the person of the priest? The Second Vatican Council reaffirmed that the priest acts "in persona Christi" when he offers Mass or administers the sacraments. Granted Christ's presence in the Eucharist is substantial while in the priest it's spiritual but the presence is not the conferring of the sacrament. A person entering a Catholic church is in the presence of Christ but, by that fact, does not receive Holy Communion. And the reception of the Eucharist is not in its being handed to the recipient, it is in the eating of the consecrated Bread. One administers the sacrament by feeding the recipient, by placing Christ on his tongue which is the beginning of the act of eating. By placing It in his hand, he feeds himself and, therefore, administers the sacrament to himself. This is an action unknown and unheard of in any other sacrament.

However, still another anomaly occurs: the sacrament conferred by the person to himself is done without a formula of words. Every sacrament is conferred with a specific form. When the celebrant or concelebrant gives Communion to himself he uses the form: "May the body of Christ bring me to everlasting life." When a person receives on the tongue the form is,
The Body of Christ. Amen." But when the person who has received in the hand receives the sacrament by placing it on his own tongue he says nothing! No formula of words is used. Yet every sacrament is composed of matter and form. The matter in the Holy Eucharist is the Body of Christ, but there is no form here.

What of receiving under the form of consecrated Wine? Again the person could not take the chalice and drink from it without being his own sacramental minister. The priest, or other duly authorized minister, would have to place the chalice on the lips of the recipient and gently pour the Precious Blood into his mouth. Of course, this would not be a very dignified or sanitary way to proceed, and it would be better for the person to receive under the one form. Of course he could receive by intinction when the host is dipped in the Precious Blood and placed on his tongue but that also seems a bit unsanitary and risks the spilling of a drop of the Blood. Ironically, our bishops have forbidden the custom of a person dipping his own Host in the Precious Blood and consuming it, saying that the Blood is not administered to him but he administers It to himself. If they were consistent they would see he is administering the Host to himself also. Note that in the Eastern Church, the cube of consecrated Bread is soaked in the Precious Blood and then dropped on the tongue of the recipient with a golden spoon. Upon reflection I can envision the many churches where everyone receives Communion in the hand. Since everyone is his own minister of the sacrament, it would be simpler if a number of ciboria containing the Sacred Hosts and a number of chalices containing the Precious Blood were placed on tables in convenient places in the church. Then each person could minister to himself which he is actually doing now. It would save the congregation of ordinary and extraordinary ministers who, in reality, are not administering the sacrament.

From the time of the Council of Trent in the 16th century the Church has administered Holy Communion only under the species of Bread and only on the tongue of the recipient. It was the Protestant "reformers" who in denying the priesthood of the ordained, insisted that all shared equally in the priesthood of Christ and all should receive communion under both the forms of bread and wine and should communicate themselves. The Protestant notion has crept back into the Church by giving Communion under both species and in the hand. It has helped blur the distinction between the priesthood of the laity and that of the ordained minister. I believe it has also played a part in making the priesthood less important in the eyes of many of the faithful. But that has been spoken of before. The important point to consider is that sacraments are administered by another. We cannot administer a sacrament to ourselves. That is not an option we can extend to anyone. When this is done in the Holy Eucharist it is in clear violation of Canon 910 and is, therefore, illicit. We must get back to administering Holy Communion on the tongue and under the form of Bread alone. The sacrament is received in the eating of the Body of Christ not in the holding of It in one's hand. Our Blessed Lord said "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has life everlasting and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink." May we receive this great sacrament reverently and licitly in accord with the laws of the Church.

Reverend Frederick Heuser is the pastor of St. James Parish in Kenosha, Wis. He has a B.A. in philosophy and an M.Div. from St. Francis Seminary in Milwaukee and an M.A. in speech from Marquette University. After ordination, he taught in a high school, and then became Associate Director of the Catholic Family Life Program of Milwaukee before assuming his present position. His last article in HPR appeared in January 1995.

+ + +

LINK: Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds by Michael Davies

+ + +

Some Considerations on Communion on the Hand by Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald, Parish Priest

Historical Considerations on Communion on the Hand

Link to Original

Here are some patristic and historical considerations on our theme,as well as an additional aspect.

Was it Universal?

The history of communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up to date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm. A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the Faithful to “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion]”. This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one’s hands, since just as one wouldn’t let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord. According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an over emphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of His sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is. In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the “elevation” [so the mainstream treatment of this period continues] and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of). It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and sad to say was imposed. The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the Faithful to “take and eat”, and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the Apostles: communion in the hand. It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving It from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.[1] A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers, does not support the assertion that communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of communion on the tongue. Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion. Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith” [2]. The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well established fact. A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice ( according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion. These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonablely say that communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving communion on the tongue is a medieval invention? We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the Faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the Faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert, where they would not have the services of a priest, and, would not want to give up the practice of daily communion.

To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one’s hand. So St. Basil(330-379)says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give It. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon” (Letter 93, our emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault [3]. The Saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion. In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologie Chretienne, Leclerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all. After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of communion in the hand persisted here and there. It was considered by Church authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed to be contrary to the custom of the Apostles. 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.

What about St. Cyril? 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. Dr. 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 on to proposes 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 favour 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. Clericalism? Is it not a form of clericalism to allow the priest to touch the Sacred Host and to disallow the laity to do the same? But priests were not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament except out of necessity. In fact, other than the celebrant of the Mass itself, no one else receiving Communion, not even a priest, could do so in the hand. And so, in the traditional liturgical practice of the Roman Rite, if a priest were assisting at Mass (and not celebrating) and if he wished to receive Holy Communion, he did not do so by his own hand: he received on the tongue form another priest. The same would be true of a Bishop. The same is true of the Pope himself. When Pope St. Pius X, for example, was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church. This confirms a basic point: out of reverence, there should be no unnecessary touching of the Sacred Host. Obviously someone is needed to distribute the Bread of Life. But it is not necessary to make each man, woman and child into his own “eucharistic minister” and multiply the handling and fumbling and danger of dropping and loss of Fragments. Even those whose hands have been specially consecrated to touch the Most Holy Eucharist, namely the priests, should not do so needlessly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes

[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.

VALID OBJECTIONS TO COMMUNION IN THE HAND

There time has come to begin to do everything we reasonably and licitly can to discourage the practice of Communion-in-the-Hand. In fact, the time is long past that we started doing this. It is much better to receive Holy Communion in the traditional manner, than it is to receive the Sacred Host into our hands. In Canada and the United States, it is true, that one may receive “on the hand”, with due precautions, but it is better to receive on the tongue. Here are twelve reasons why.

1. The legal status of the two methods It is the law of the universal Church, in the Latin Rite, (to which most of us belong) that we receive communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an “indult”, or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission. Another way of illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the indult for communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving communion: on the tongue. Thus, the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal. It must be further noted that the relevant legislation “strongly urges and exhorts” us all to receive communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as “more reverent”. One will search in vain for any encouragement of communion in the hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be done reverently, but be careful! 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 behaviour 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. (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, 11) In Memoriale Domini, which granted the original concession, and in the letter to nuncios which accompanied the actual indult in each and every case, the permission for Communion in the hand was hedged around with so many precautiions, that some have concluded that even in countries where it would seem to be legal, actually, in the larger number of cases, it is still not allowed.

2. The provenance of Communion in the hand The origin of the current practice of communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation”. Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case, that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and His Church, and of the reality of the Catholic Priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy. It is well known that communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical= authority. The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s Faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion. When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear. We can summarize that the practice of communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.

3. The Fragments... If we examine the practice of placing the Sacred Host in the hand of the communicant, one dogma of the Church comes immediately to mind: The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.[Note 205: Cf. Council of Trent: DS 1641.] (CCC, 1377, my emphasis). The Roman Catechism put it this way: Christ, whole and entire, is contained not only under either species, but also in each particle of either species. Each, says St. Augustine, receives Christ the Lord, and He is entire in each portion. He is not diminished by being given to many, but gives Himself whole and entire to each.... the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread.=20 Therefore, very great reverence, respect and care is to be taken of these fragments. Since this is the case, why would we multiply immensely the number of persons who are handling the Sacred Host, some of whom are clumsy, or cannot see well, or don’t care, or don’t know, etc., etc. For those who believe with lively faith, this question ought to be enough to put an end to communion in the hand: “What about the Fragments?”

4. 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?

5. “Communion in the hand” is a misnomer. To place the Sacred Host in the hand of a person is not to give him Holy Communion. The Sacrament of Holy Communion consists in the eating of the Bread of Life. Rather, what is happening here is that each person who receives the Sacred Host in his hand, is then giving himself Holy Communion. Each person is becoming his own (extraordinary-become-ordinary) minister of Communion. By this means the ministry of priests (and deacons) or even that of legitimate extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion is becoming obscured or even dissolved. It has been suggested that this practice ought to be renamed as “common manual self-communication”. 6. 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 withe them, this seems to be a very unwise thing to associate with the Most Holy Eucharist.

7. Its fruits... We must be rigorously honest with oursleves. Has this practice really strengthened and clarified our faith in the Real Presence? Has it resulted in greater prayerfulness, graeter love, and a more abundant fraternal charity? Are we as a people more and more awe-struck at taking the Lord’s Body nto our hanads? At least one fruit has manifestly not come from the introduction of this practice. And this is a feature also of the larger liturgicla 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 fo rthe decline among Catholics in belief in the Real Presence.

8. Was it universal? To show that communion in the hand was once a universal practice a particular text of St. Cyril of Alexandria is habitually quoted, as to how we ought to make a throne of our hands to receive the King. What is not usually noted, though, is what any reliable patrologist could verify: this text is of dubious origin. In fact, it is more likely from Bishop so and so, a Nestorian bishop. Further, we have texts of Leo the Great... and Gregory the great... and St. Basil, as well as...

9. The Last Supper But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the Apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops. But we must not forget a traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, which was practised in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did He place this wet morsel into Judas’ hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend”, the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving Himself by His own hand”.

10. Scriptural Considerations... In Holy Communion, we receive the Word-made-Flesh. When Ezekiel received the word of God, in a wonderful yet lesser manner than do we, it was as follows: And [the Lord] said to me: ... “But you, son of man, hear what I say to you; be not rebellious like that rebellious house; open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it ... And He said to me, “Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel.” So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat [“And I opened my mouth, and He caused me to eat that book” =97 Vulgate]. And he= said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey. (Ez. 2:1,8,9; 3:1-3, RSV). It does not say that the prophet stretched out his hand, but that he opened His mouth. And is this not very fitting, since we are to receive the word as little children, whether it be the bread of doctrine or the Bread come down from Heaven. In another place, in a psalm with clear prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us,=20 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it ... But Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock.” “Iwill fill it,” not “fill it yourselves”. Now admittedly, this is not in itself a proof. But it points us in a certain direction.

11. 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 favour 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 “childish”. 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.

12. 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 recently in the Vatican Basilica. 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. And it has never been denied, and implicity reaffirmed that Mother Teresa, when asked what worried her most of all in this world, answered: “communion in the hand.”

Conclusion

St. 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).

Rev. Fr. Paul J. McDonald, Parish Priest

+ + +

The following article by Dietrich von Hildebrand, entitled "Communion in the hand should be rejected," was published November 8, 1973:

There can be no doubt that Communion in the hand is an expression of the trend towards desacralization in the Church in general and irreverence in approaching the Eucharist in particular. The ineffable mystery of the bodily presence of Christ in the consecrated host calls for a deeply reverent attitude. (To take the Body of Christ in our unanointed hands—just as if it were a mere piece of bread is something in itself deeply irreverent and detrimental for our faith.) Dealing with this unfathomable mystery as if we were merely dealing with nothing but another piece of bread, something we naturally do every day with mere bread, makes the act of faith in the real bodily presence of Christ more difficult. Such behavior toward the consecrated host slowly corrodes our faith in the bodily presence and fosters the idea that it is only a symbol of Christ. To claim that taking the bread in our hands increases the sense of the reality of the bread is an absurd argument. The reality of the bread is not what matters—that is also visible for any atheist. But the fact that the host is in reality the Body of Christ—the fact that transubstantiation has taken place—this is the theme which must be stressed.

Arguments for Communion in the hand based upon the fact that this practice can be found among the early Christians is not really valid. They overlook the dangers and the inadequacy of re-introducing the practice today. Pope Pius XII spoke in very clear and unmistakable terms against the idea that one could re-introduce today customs from the times of the catacombs. Certainly we should try to renew in the souls of Catholics today the spirit, fervor, and heroic devotion found in the faith of the early Christians and the many martyrs from among their ranks. But simply adopting their customs is something else again; customs can assume a completely new function today, and we cannot and should not simply try to re-introduce them.

In the days of the catacombs the danger of desacralization and irreverence which threatens today was not present. The contrast between the saeculum [secular] and the holy Church was constantly in the minds of Christians. Thus a custom which was not danger in those times can constitute a grave pastoral danger in our day.

Consider how St. Francis regarded the extraordinary dignity of the priest which consists exactly in the fact that he is allowed to touch the Body of Christ with his anointed hands. St. Francis said: “If I were to meet at the same time a saint from heaven and a poor priest, I would first show my respect to the priest and quickly kiss his hand, and then I would say: ‘O wait, St. Lawrence, for the hands of this man touch the Word of Life and possess a good far surpasses everything that is human.’”

Someone may say: but did not St. Tarcisius distribute Communion though he was no priest? Surely no one was scandalized because he touched the consecrated host with his hands. And in an emergency, a layman is today allowed to give Communion to others.

But this exception for emergency cases is not something which implies a lack of respect for the holy Body of Christ. It is a privilege justified by emergency—which should be accepted with trembling heart (and should remain a privilege, reserved only for an emergency).

But there is a great difference between this case of touching the consecrated host with our unanointed hands and that of taking Communion in the hand as a matter of course—on all occasions. To be allowed to touch the consecrated host with unanointed hands is in no way presented to the faithful as an awe-inspiring privilege. It becomes the normal form of receiving Communion. And this fosters an irreverent attitude and thus corrodes faith in the real bodily presence of Christ.

It is taken for granted that everyone receives the consecrated host in his hand. The layman to whom the great privilege is granted for special reasons has to touch the host, of course. But there is no reason for receiving Communion in the hand; only an immanent spirit of paltry familiarity with Our Lord.

It is incomprehensible why some insist on a way of receiving Communion which opens the door to all sorts of accidental and even intentional abuses.

First, there is a much greater possibility that some particles of the consecrated host may fall. In former times the priest watched with great care whether or not some particles of the host fell, in which case he would immediately take greatest care that the sacred particles would be reverently picked up and consumed by himself. And now without any apparent reason, many want to expose the consecrated host to this danger in a much greater degree than before—this at a time when the host is made more and more to resemble bread and to crumble more easily.

Second, and this is an incomparably worse problem, the danger exists that a communicant, instead of putting the consecrated host into his mouth, will place it in his pocket or otherwise conceal and not consume it. This unfortunately has happened in these days of revived Satanism. Consecrated hosts are known to have been sold for blasphemous uses. In London, the price is said to be 30 pounds for one, which reminds us of the 30 pieces of silver for which Judas sold the Body of Our Lord.

Is it believable that instead of applying the most scrupulous care to protect the most sacred consecrated host, which is truly the Body of Christ, the God-man, from all such possible abuses, there are those who wish to expose it to this possibility? Have we forgotten the existence of the devil “who wanders about seeking whom he may devour”? Is his work in the world and in the Church not all too visible today? What entitles us to assume that abuses of the consecrated host will not take place?

The greater our respect, and the greater our love, the greater our realization of the ineffable holiness of the Eucharist—the greater will be our horror of its being abused; and our eagerness to protect it from all possible blasphemous abuses.

Why—for God's sake—should Communion in the hand be introduced into our churches when it is evidently detrimental from a pastoral viewpoint, when it certainly does not increase our reverence, and when it exposes the Eucharist to the most terrible diabolical abuses? There are really no serious arguments for Communion in the hand. But there are the most gravely serious kinds of arguments against it.

+ + +

Communion on the tongue eventually became the universal norm in the Church because of "growing respect for the Eucharist" as Father Joseph Jungmann cited in his book "The Mass of the Roman Rite" and it became the norm after times of persecution ended.

+ + +

On November 1st, 1997, at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, there was a panel discussion in which Fr. John Hardon was one of the speakers who fielded various questions from the audience. One of the questions was about Communion in the hand. The following is the response of Fr. Hardon

"We were at concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand, Communion in the hand began, in the hand, with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody's permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the [U.S.] bishops' conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.

"In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.

And the American hierarchy took most—three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

- Fr. John Hardon, S.J., November 1st, 1997 Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, panel discussion

+ + +

There is ample testimony to the fact that the liturgical "renewal" has been accompanied not simply by a decline in Mass attendance, but by a decline in reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament. It is not only traditionalists who testify to this.

Cardinal Heenan, in common with so many bishops, gave way on the question of allowing lay ministers of Holy Communion. On February 2, 1974, he used the occasion of commissioning a group of these ministers to lament the decline in reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament:

"At one time it would have been unthinkable for anyone without anointed hands to touch the Sacred Species. In this century there has been a steady diminution of outward signs of respect for sacred objects. When I was a boy there was a scale of values. It was understood that anyone could handle a ciborium or monstrance, but only the priest could touch the chalice because it was consecrated. Until recent times we priests kissed each sacred vestment as we put it on, we genuflected before and after touching the Sacred Host. The new rubrics abolished the kissing and reduced genuflections to a minimum. . . . the loss of outward marks of respect lead the simple-minded to lose their sense of reverence. Some have begun to ignore the Blessed Sacrament. They do not genuflect to the Blessed Sacrament and do not kneel in adoration when they come into church."

+ + +

Pope Paul VI: "It [Communion in the hand] 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."

Consilium, 1965: “The Holy Father [Pope Paul VI] … does not consider it opportune that the sacred Particle be distributed in the hand and later consumed in different manners by the faithful, and therefore, he vehemently exhorts [that] the Conference offer the opportune resolutions so that the traditional manner of communicating be restored throughout the world.” (October 12, 1965 letter of the “Consilium” to Bernard Cardinal Alfrink, Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands)

Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise (San Luis, Argentina): “With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some Particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful…. Let us speak clearly: whoever receives Communion in the mouth not only follows exactly the tradition handed down but also the wish expressed by the last Popes and thus avoids placing himself in the occasion of committing a sin by negligently dropping a fragment of the Body of Christ.”

Bishop Bernard D. Stewart (Sandurst, Australia): “Children are known to have fiddled with the Sacred Host placed into their hands at Holy Communion; adults have been seen to pass the Blessed Sacrament from one to the other in a queue. Rightly does the Sacred Congregation ask whether such people who act like this really believe in the Real Presence of Christ. One must pass over in appalled silence the unspeakable abominations of demonism when the Sacred Host is sacrilegiously carried off to the satanic rituals of black masses. Sacrileges have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. But today the Holy See testifies that they are numerous and widespread; it also says that Communion in the traditional manner [on the tongue] is a better safeguard against adulteration of doctrine and profanation.”

Cardinal Carberry: “We are facing again another struggle in our Bishops’ Conference in May [1977]. It has been decided, for the third time now, that we have to talk about Communion in the hand…. So I would be grateful beyond words for any way that you could possibly help by prayer. I’m thinking, I know I can use a great deal of canonical reasons and law and the rest of it, but you don’t get very far with these. People don’t seem to want to listen to this kind of reasoning. But some kind of reasoning that would reach into the hearts of the Bishops, and to place it, I hope, on the basis of danger of irreverence to the Most Blessed Sacrament which is growing and growing and growing throughout our country. And if any of you have any reading matter on this, or any thoughts on how it could be presented; ways that it could be presented; ways that it could be presented before us, I would be so grateful to hear and receive any suggestions. And I pray most earnestly to our Most Blessed Mother that the beautiful prayer, ‘O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine’ might be an ejaculation of all of us who want to preserve the reverence and devotion by the traditional way of receiving Communion, which has the blessing of our Holy Father, the Pope.” (Cardinal Carberry, St. Louis, Missouri, March 12, 1977)

St. Thomas Aquinas: “… because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed Sacrament], nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency" (SummaTheologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13).

Mother Teresa of Calcutta: “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand."

Dietrich von Hildebrand: "Is it believable that instead of applying the most scrupulous care to protect the most sacred consecrated host, which is truly the Body of Christ, the God-man, from all such possible abuses, there are those who wish to expose it to this possibility? Have we forgotten the existence of the devil who wanders about seeking whom he may devour'? Is his work in the world and in the Church not all too visible today? What entitles us to assume that abuses to the consecrated host will not take place?"

Fr. John Hardon, SJ: “Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”

+ + +

The Catholic News Agency reported on October 4, 2005:

The interventions of the Prelates present at the synod during the first general congregations of the Synod on the Eucharist, indicated their concern of the trivialization of the sacrament within ecclesial communities.

On Monday, during his talk, Cardinal Francis Arinze, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Cult and the Discipline of Sacraments, approached this Tuesday the theme of receiving communion in the mouth or in the hand, reminding how receiving the communion in the hand has led to abuses, “that could happen, and that already happened, like the use for satanic rituals, the auction on the Internet and other wrongs.”

The prelate didn’t propose an answer to this dilemma, but invited for “greater vigilance for celebrants, in order to ensure that it is consumed.

Msgr. Peter Kang, of Cheju (Korea), warned that the participation of children in the Eucharist is decreasing dramatically along with the age. The children that don’t come to Mass say that Mass is boring and not interesting. As well, adults say the same, and don’t feel motivated to participate.

Our priority is to justify and make grow the heart of the Catholics, their desire and aspiration to participate in the Eucharist. In order to transmit to the modern people the Eucharistic mystery, it is not sufficient to reinforce vigorously the rules and regulations of Eucharistic celebration

+ + +

The Catholic News Service reported on October 6, 2005:

It was not listed as a topic for discussion, but the question of Communion in the hand versus Communion on the tongue received attention at the Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist.

Cardinal Janis Pujats of Riga, Latvia, was the first to raise the issue, telling the synod Oct. 3 that he thought Catholics should receive Communion on the tongue -- while kneeling. When communicants stand, Cardinal Pujats said, he feels like a dentist looking into their mouths.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, who heads the Vatican's worship congregation, responded by saying that arguments could be made for both Communion practices, in the hand and on the tongue, according to information released by the Vatican. Ultimately, he said, it's up to bishops' conferences to decide what is best in each country, but he added that Communion in the hand needs better catechesis.

Cardinal Arinze said non-Catholics in particular sometimes fail to understand Communion in the hand. He related a story about one person who went up and received Communion and then took it home and kept the host in his scrapbook.

The cardinal added that Communion in the hand does make it easier for sacrilege against a consecrated host. He reminded bishops that a host reportedly received at a papal Mass in 1998 was put up for sale on eBay earlier this year before being withdrawn by the seller.

Speaking Oct. 4, Archbishop Jan Lenga of Karaganda, Kazakhstan, called Communion in the hand a "fad." He proposed that the Vatican issue a universal norm to gradually do away with it and return to Communion on the tongue while kneeling.

The archbishop said Muslims in his predominantly Islamic country consider it disrespectful to receive Communion in the hand while standing. He said Catholics could learn a lot from Orthodox Christians and Muslims about how to show reverence to God.

He added that Communion in the hand adds to the risk of host fragments breaking off and falling to the ground and to the risk of profaning the consecrated host.

One synod participant noted that objections to Communion in the hand were coming from bishops in Eastern Europe, where the liturgical changes introduced by the Second Vatican Council have been implemented only recently.

+ + +

The following excerpts are from the Pastoral Statement on the Manner of Distributing and Receiving the Sacrament of Holy Communion (issued for the Diocese of Sandhurst, Australia, by the Most Reverend Bishop Bernard D. Stewart, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, 1976)

Decline and abolition [of Communion in the hand]

Communion by hand stayed in use for nearly nine centuries. Already earlier it had begun to grow less common when reservation of the Blessed Eucharist became limited to churches and administration of the Sacrament restricted to priests and deacons. It lost favor when the doctrine of the Real Presence was doubted or denied by a number of ecclesiastics.

To make clear that at the moment of consecration the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, though the outward appearances of taste, color and form remain, to inculcate that the Sacred Host is not ordinary bread; to foster a sense of reverence and adoration of Our Lord invisibly but actually present, Communicants were not allowed to touch the Blessed Sacrament with their hands.

This major rubric should not be considered just a negative safeguard against error; it was a positive disposition to develop faith, adoration and humility in the communicant, as the Holy See has explicitly stated:

Later on, with a deepening understanding of the Truth of the Eucharistic Mystery, of its force, of the presence of Christ therein … with a driving sense of reverence for this Most Holy Sacrament and with a compelling attitude of humility in receiving it, the custom was established that the minister himself should place a Particle of the Consecrated Bread on the tongue of those receiving Communion (Instruction, Memorial of the Lord, May 29th, 1969).

For these reasons, Communion on the tongue, in use from ancient times, superseded Communion on the hand and become the only method of receiving the Blessed Eucharist, and so it has remained, sacred and unchanged, for more than a thousand years.

Four hundred years ago certain protesting sects of the West fell away from the total Eucharistic faith of the Catholic Church; they gave up the belief that at Mass the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Our Blessed Lord; they gave up adoration of the Blessed Sacrament; they abandoned the Mass and introduced a communion service by hand, standing or sitting….

Shocking Sacrileges

Doctrinal errors quickly produce practical abuses. The Holy See tells us that the irreverence's coming from faulty Eucharistic theology are many in number and spread through many places.

Numerous and widespread abuses have appeared, sometimes so serious that they cast doubts on the very Faith in the Real Presence, on the adoration and reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament (Instruction on Worship of the Eucharist, May 15th, 1969).

There is ample evidence of consecrated Hosts being discarded into a bin; because, so it is said, “the Presence does not remain when the meal is finished”; sometimes these Hosts are re-consecrated. Priests are known to genuflect at the Communion but not at the Consecration; because, they hold, “Christ is present only at the meal”. Some have affirmed publicly that they do not genuflect before the Tabernacle; because “one does not adore a box”.

Children are known to have fiddled with the Sacred Host placed into their hands at Holy Communion; adults have been seen to pass the Blessed Sacrament from one to the other in a queue.

Rightly does the Sacred Congregation ask whether people who act like this really believe in the Real Presence of Christ.

One must pass over in appalled silenced the unspeakable abominations of demonism when the Sacred Host is sacrilegiously carried off to the satanic rituals of black masses.

Sacrileges have occurred in the past and will occur in the future. But today the Holy See testifies that they are numerous and widespread; it also says that Communion in the traditional manner is a better safeguard against adulteration of doctrine and profanation.

When Faith in the Eucharist is deep and strong, acts of reparation for all these sins are made monthly on the first Friday and annually on the feast of the Sacred Heart.

Reprehensible neglect of Eucharistic Rubrics

When Faith wavers, reverence weakens and sacred ritual becomes a travesty. Actions, words and gestures designed to foster Eucharistic piety are set aside, and rubrics with no ecclesial authority have been put in their place, often to the indignation of right-minded people.

Without leave Tabernacles have been removed from their proper place on the altar (yet permission must be first obtained from the bishop); they have been perched precariously on columns or put in out of the way places (yet the rubrics require that they be positioned firmly in accessible places nobly adorned); the Sacrifice of the Mass has been offered in refectories, libraries, commons rooms of religious houses (yet it should be in the chapel, officially dedicated as it is to divine worship); people have been urged to stand around the altar (yet the Missal reserves this sanctuary area for ministers); the assembly has been invited to join in the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic prayer (yet the rubric restricts it to the priest); celebrants have divided the Sacred Host at the Consecration (whereas it should be done only at the Communion); it is taken for granted that it is obligatory to offer Mass facing the congregation (yet there is no such obligation); but the real recommendation to make an external act of adoration when receiving Holy Communion standing is frequently ignored, the religious significance of the sign of peace often yields to mundane or profane or romantic salutations; the latest hit tunes frequently replace sacred music; behavior in church sometimes reflects the conduct of the market place or coffee bar rather than that of a house of prayer.

The list makes painful reading, but not to everyone. People who approve these happenings are gladdened; those who disapprove feel offended. But everyone is astonished at the speed with which it happened. Only by looking back does one see the pattern of deed and omission which brought it about.

The impetus comes first from the heralds of new Eucharistic thinking, based, they claim, on Vatican II even though the Holy Father rejected a lot of it. The Pope also said that ideas calculated to upset the faithful were deliberately propagated by writing and by word—and that includes the current technique of aid-texts, seminars and workshops. Once the ideas were sown, the desire for experimentation followed; but on a limited, controlled scale, it was said. Instead the gates were opened wide by a rush to do “what everyone else is doing”.

One might ask why it is not stopped by those who have the capacity or the authority to stop it. The will to stop it might have been weakened by human respect, especially when those who do try become isolated and denigrated....

Comparison between the two methods

From what has been said especially by the papal and official documents quoted above, the following considerations clearly emerge.

First, the traditional method is a matter of most ancient customary law which holds in every diocese of the Church; the new method is an exception from this law and is lawful only with permission granted for proper reasons.

Second, the Holy Father earnestly exhorts all bishops, priests and faithful to keep to the traditional method; but in order to help Episcopal conferences to discharge their difficult pastoral office he permits the new method under certain circumstances. (Where these conditions are judged by the bishops not to exist the new method is not permitted, as it is not permitted for example in Italy, the United States, Eire.)

Third, the new method was introduced illegally; an indult was given in places where it had become an accomplished fact and could not be easily removed.

Fourth, no Bishop may disallow the traditional method in his diocese, but even with the papal indult any bishop may disallow Communion in the hand; he may withhold the permission from certain people and certain places; if given it may be withdrawn, as has happened.

Fifth, one may promote the traditional manner; for, it is normal and customary: one does not promote the exceptional method. [emphasis added]

+ + +

Sermon of the opening mass of the 8th colloquium. Mgr Juan Rodolfo Laise, emeritus bishop of San Luis

Dear CIEL friends,

It is, as always, a great joy to be with you again on the occasion of your Annual Congress. This year you have chosen the theme of The Sacred. It seems to me that that is of the highest importance. Nowadays everything is desacralized. ‘God is dead’, they say; but if God is dead, so is man.

As you can see, man is worth nothing in contemporary society. From birth to death, his life is in constant danger. Will he be allowed to be born? Will he be helped to die more quickly than Providence intended? And between those times, what will happen to him in a world where people talk more about war than about peace? Yes, my dear brothers and sisters, if man no longer counts for anything, that is because he no longer sees anything as sacred.

I believe that your association has a mission of very great importance in promoting the traditional Roman Rite, which is, in its own field of liturgy, the most sublime manifestation of the sacred; through its rich & beautiful ornaments; through its language, which does not belong to the everyday; through all the signs and symbols which clearly show that, beneath all that, there is a reality which must be respected and adored. The desacralization of the liturgy, the banalization of the rites, the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand have all contributed greatly and in a culpable manner to the desacralization of the ‘Holy of Holies’: God, and the worship which mankind must give Him by their obedience to the first three of the Ten Commandments.

May the Most Holy Virgin, who bore in her sacred womb the Word of God – she who is entirely pure and entirely consecrated to her Lord – may she give you, firstly to you priests, a true sense of the sacred, a true awareness of what you are and of what you do; and to you, dear faithful, the grace of approaching the manifestations of God in the liturgy, as Moses did, with reverence and awe.

+ + +

A BRAVE BISHOP!

When the Holy See gave the hierarchy of Argentina permission to introduce Communion in the hand, the Bishop of the Diocese of San Luis, Juan Rodoffo Laise, decided not to permit the practice in his diocese. He wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for confirmation. The reply read:

Since you have judged unnecessary the application of the said per-mission for the territory of the Diocese of San Luis, your Excellency has wished to consult this Congregation of whether by this decision you have acted in derogation of ecclesial communion with the dioceses that have received the indult.

As to this, you are informed by this dicastery that an attentive study of the documents of the Holy See in this matter shows clearly that you, in deciding to maintain immutable the tradition of distributing Holy Communion in the mouth, have acted in conformity with the law and therefore have not broken with ecclesial communion. In truth, Your Excellency has done no more than fulfill the duty demanded of every bishop by the instruction De Modo Sanctam.

Dear God! Bless us with more Bishops like Laise.

+ + +

Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise of San Luis, Argentina banned Communion in the hand in his diocese. Below are several quotes from his book, Communion in the Hand: Documents and History, explaining his decision to ban this sacrilegious practice:

"Although the Church recognizes legitimate change, it nonetheless considers that 'the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof'. We must keep in mind that reversing the course of a development and returning to a previous phase, is not a development but rather a corruption.

"Therefore, to say that 'Communion in the hand is not a novelty', that 'we only do it as the Apostles, as the first disciples did, and as the Christians did for almost one thousand years' (The Living Bread, p. 15) with the purpose of 'dispelling fears', is not a valid argument. It is not true that we will 'only' do it as the Apostles did. As we have just seen, the return to an ancient manner is not in itself a reason for tranquility. Even less so when that manner was first abandoned and finally forbidden, due to its imperfection."

"Retired from his Vatican positions, Archbishop Bugnini, in his work The Liturgical Reform, gives us abundant data on the history of the introduction of that practice, of which we summarize the principal parts: starting with the liturgical reform, the practice of giving Communion in the hand of the faithful was abusively introduced in some nations (Germany, Holland, Belgium, France). From the beginning there was a firm opposition from the Holy See. On October 12, 1965, the 'Consilium' wrote to Cardinal Alfrink: 'preserve the traditional manner of distributing Holy Communion [...] the Holy Father ... does not consider it opportune that the sacred Particle be distributed in the hand and later consumed in different manners by the faithful, and therefore, he vehemently exhorts [that] the Conference offer the opportune resolutions so that the traditional manner of communicating be restored throughout the world.' 'But--says Bugnini--these and other claims had no effect.'

"Because the Bishops found it difficult to contain the introduced practice, the consultations continued. On May 8, 1968, the Sacred Congregation of Rites had answered 'non expedire' [trans. note: 'it is not expedient']. But due to the insistent requests, the Holy Father decided that the concession be granted 'to the Episcopal Conferences that had requested it with the due cautions and under the care of the same.' The letter from the Secretary of State dated June 3, 1968 reads: 'His Holiness considers, in effect, that the bishops must be reminded of their responsibility so that they may prevent, with opportune norms, the inconveniences and moderate the indiscriminate spread of this practice which is not contrary to the doctrine but, in practice, is very disputable and dangerous. That is why when similar requests are received, they must be put to the consideration of the Holy Father and the eventual concession will be made through the Sacred Congregation of Rites.'"

"There is no doubt that Paul VI considered the change from Communion in the hand to Communion in the mouth as a real progress, and the primitive practice as a surmounted phase, not as something forgotten that we should 'rediscover'.

"'This way of distributing Holy Communion... must be preserved'. Before speaking to the Episcopate on the survey, the position of the Holy See is anticipated: the practice must be preserved for two reasons.

a) Because it is based on a practice transmitted through a tradition of many centuries. This alludes to a principle that goes back to [the times] of Aristotle: 'For the law has no power to command obedience except that of custom, which can only be given by time, so that a readiness to change from old to new laws enfeebles the power of the law.' (Politics, II, c. 5, 1269a); this same doctrine is later restored by Saint Thomas (cf. S. Th., I-IIae, q. 97, a. 2).

b) But above all, because that liturgical gesture 'means the reverence of the faithful Christian toward the Eucharist.' Note the force of this expression used after saying that the Church 'affirms by the very rite itself its faith in Christ and its adoration of Him' (MD, [1]). This meaning of reverence was so well known that Protestant reformers, such as Martin Bucer, counsellor of the Anglican reform, strove to change the practice and introduce Communion in the hand so that their faithful would not think that Christ was present under the form of bread.

"It would be to deceive the faithful to make them think that receiving Communion in the hand would identify them more with the spirit of the primitive Church."

"In relation to what 'each form can express', according to the Magisterium, Communion in the mouth expresses 'the reverence of the faithful' and 'Communion not of common bread and wine but of the Body and Blood of the Lord', while Communion in the hand can come to express irreverence or erroneous doctrines toward the Real Presence or the priesthood."

"'taking into account the warnings and advice from those whom 'the Holy Spirit has placed as Bishops to rule the Church', the Supreme Pontiff has not considered it opportune to change the manner which was received a long time ago (...), of administering Holy Communion.' In synthesis, this is what the Instruction Memoriale Domini wants to communicate, that is to say, the purpose of the document; everything that comes before is arranged in order to explain 'the reasons and circumstances that support the manner in which the Apostolic See proceeds' (MD [Previous clarification], p. 7). The consultation has done nothing more than confirm the Pope's opinion already expressed in [8]. This is affirmed by Paul VI himself in the autographed draft in which he ordered that Memoriale Domini be written and in which he says that 'they give' the results of the bishops' consultation which confirm the thought of the Holy See concerning the inopportunity of the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand of the faithful, indicating the reasons (liturgical, pastoral, religious, etc.). Therefore, the norm in force remains confirmed.'

"This decision agrees with the doctrine of Saint Thomas, who teaches that 'human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect' and this occurs: 1) when a very great and evident benefit is provided by the new enactment; 2) when there is great necessity; 3) when the law in force contains a manifest iniquity; 4) when its observance is harmful to many (S. Th., I-IIae, q. 97, a. 2 c.). None of those motives were given to change the law on the manner of administering Communion.

"Furthermore, in the 'status quaestionis' sent to the bishops, they were warned: 'It seems that this new practice instituted here and there is the work of a small number of priests and lay persons who seek to impose their own point of view on the rest, and to force the hand of authority. To approve it would be to encourage these people who are never satisfied with the laws of the Church.'"

"Cardinal Gut, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship who signed MD [Memoriale Domini], in an interview published on July 20th, 1969 also gave testimony of those difficult times: 'Until now, bishops were allowed to authorize practices, but the limits have frequently been violated and many priests have simply done whatever they wanted to do. In this case, what has sometimes occurred is that they have imposed their own points of view. These initiatives, taken without authorization, frequently could not be suppressed because they had spread too widely. With his great kindness and prudence, the Holy Father has frequently ceded, and many times he has done so against his will.' When remembering the situation of the Church during those years, we understand why MD said that the pastoral work is 'much more difficult than ever because of the current situation.'"

"If the legislation did not change [that Communion on the tongue is the lawful practice], the obvious conclusion is that the only reason for the extension of the rite [of the practice of Communion in the hand] is that the Bishops did not listen to the vehement exhortation of Paul VI to diligently submit to the law in force and again confirmed (MD[16])."

"In conclusion, even if there should exist a General Decree of the Conference of those spoken of in c. 455 '1, this decree could never modify the restriction placed by the Instruction but it should always be maintained within the frame placed by the delegating authority. But the case does not apply here because the Pastoral Letter ('En réponse'), by which the indult is conceded, does not give the faculty of applying it to the Episcopal Conference, but rather to the bishop for his diocese. Besides, if he does not do so, the universal law that forbids Communion in the hand remains in force. Therefore, when a diocese does not accept the indult, it is not the bishop who forbids Communion [in the hand], but rather the Pope. This is what is deduced from 'an attentive study of the documents'."

And now the reasons that militate against receiving Communion in the hand:

1. It is an important disciplinary change that runs the risk of disorienting many of the faithful who do not see the need, and who have never met with this problem. There are already many changes in the field of liturgy and of the sacraments that have yet to be completely assimilated by all of the Christian community; the establishment of a new manner of receiving Communion would require a serious catechetical instruction that cannot be carried out at the same time all over.

2. It appears that there is a new practice established here and that it is the work of a small number of priests and laypersons that look to impose their own point of view on others, and force the hand of authority. To approve it would be to encourage these persons who are never satisfied with the laws of the Church.

3. And above all a decrease of respect to the Eucharistic worship should be feared. To receive Communion in the hand would seem to many to be less dignified and less respectful. Will everyone who will receive Communion in the hand have clean hands? The children also?

4. One should also ask oneself, with uneasiness, if the fragments of the Consecrated Bread will always be picked up and consumed with all the respect It deserves. If even now, when a paten is used, it is so easy that fragments fall and are dispersed, what will happen to the Particles in the hands of the faithful, of those who do not have the delicacy and the awareness to quickly pick them up?

5. Furthermore, should not an increase of desecrations and irreverences on the part of ill-intentioned persons be feared, or of those of little faith? Ill-prepared and poorly instructed people who receive the Eucharistic Bread in their hand, will they not end up equating It to ordinary bread, or to simply blessed bread?

6. By easily giving in to this very important point of Eucharistic worship, the danger exists that the audacity of the 'renovators' will dare so much as to be directed towards other sectors, which would bring about an irreparable damage to the faith and worship of the Eucharist."

"With all of this information we are able to know with clarity the mind of the legislator which we could express with the same words used by Paul VI (which he signed) and in which he ordered the writing of Memoriale Domini: 'give a summary notice of the results of the consultation of the bishops which confirms the thinking of the Holy See as to the inopportunity of distributing Holy Communion in the hand to the faithful, indicating the reasons (liturgical, pastoral, religious, etc.). Therefore, the norm in force remains confirmed.'"

"The 'fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical.' It is said in Fundamentos: 'we find ourselves surrounded by countries which have already accepted the use of the two praxis. To limit ourselves to Communion in the mouth attracts attention and generates confusion...'. If that 'fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical' would have always been kept in mind, and by all, the Episcopal Conferences would have heard the vehement exhortation of Paul VI to 'diligently submit to the law in force and again confirmed' keeping in mind 'the common good of the Church' (MD [16]) and the practice would not have spread. Knowing the history of this clandestinely reintroduced rite, and spread based on equivocations and confirmed through incessant disobediences, we cannot doubt that 'the fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical' is what was lacking in those who, throughout twenty-seven years, have been imposing a practice that the Pope did not want to authorize because he considered it dangerous for the good of the Church (MD [12]), until they finally achieved the spreading of it throughout the world."

"Therefore, the habitual reading of the document is false according to which, in face of the diverse petitions and the results of the consultation to the bishops, the Pope decided to concede the practice of both rites to the Episcopal Conferences that requested it. In reality, the purpose of MD was not to be instrumental for the adoption of Communion in the hand but rather to maintain its prohibition. All of the reasons adduced to by the Pope for this are of great weight; they have a solid basis and enjoy permanent validity as they confirm the preoccupation to avoid all that has the appearance of irreverence towards God, really present in the Eucharist. The introduction of this change is of enormous importance because, given that the treatment of the Eucharist is pedagogic, the lack of preoccupation for the Particles damages the doctrine. Communion in the mouth, on the other hand, is a sign of the real and substantial presence of the Lord and of the essential distinction between the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial priesthood.

"The danger of desecration is frequently minimized, saying that it always existed.

"Concerning involuntary profanations of Communion in the mouth, the risk is practically nonexistent with the use of the Communion paten, the prescribed purifications in the missal and the natural care when giving and receiving the sacred Species. With Communion in the hand, a miracle would be required during each distribution of Communion to avoid some Particles from falling to the ground or remaining in the hand of the faithful.

"As to the voluntary profanations no one can deny that the circumstances are considerably facilitated for whoever wishes to steal a consecrated Host. It is said that during all epochs inevitable sacrileges were committed and this is true, but in such a scarce number that it did not motivate a special legislation on the part of the Holy See, because the manner itself of giving Communion impeded removal of the Hosts. Whereas now, as prior to the 10th Century, special recommendations from the ecclesiastical authorities are necessary to avoid it.

+ + +

John Paul II: "There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it." (responding to a reporter from Stimme des Glaubens magazine, during his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980.)

+ + +

Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds by Michael Davies


Protestant Reformers Insist on Communion in the Hand

The Protestant Reformers were particularly sensitive concerning the symbolism of liturgical ceremonies, and particular attention was therefore paid to eliminating anything which could perpetuate belief in a sacrificing priesthood possessing powers denied to the laity or in the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. In his 1549 Communion Service, Cranmer allowed the Sacrament to be placed on the tongue of the communicant by the minister. This was severely criticized by Martin Bucer, who demanded that Communion should be given in the hand. Cranmer complied and changed the rubric for his 1552 Prayer Book, to bring it into line with Protestant practice on the Continent. The reasons Bucer gives for insisting on this change are quite unambiguous:

"I cannot see how the seventh section requiring the bread of the Lord to be put not in the hand, but in the mouth, of the recipient, can be consistent. Certainly the reason given in this section, namely, lest those who receive the bread of the Lord should not eat it but take it away with them to misuse it for superstition or horrible wickedness, is not, it seems to me, conclusive; for the minister can easily see, when he puts the bread in the hand, whether it is eaten or not. In fact, I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honour they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The Lord undoubtedly gave these, His sacred symbols, into the hands of the Apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in doubt that this was the usage observed in the churches until the advent of the Roman Antichrist.

"As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman AntiChrist is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed-----as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth-----which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.

"In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand." 21

It will be noted here that the consecration of the priest's hands is seen as indicating the privilege of handling the Host, something denied in such propaganda tracts as Take and Eat. The fact that the Protestant Reformers introduced Communion in the hand specifically to deny the Catholic doctrines on the priesthood and the Real Presence invested the practice with an anti-Catholic signification from that time onwards. This was a signification it did not possess in the early centuries. This practice is, then, totally unacceptable in Catholic worship, and can never become acceptable. Contemporary Protestants would certainly not change to the reception of Communion on the tongue to accommodate Catholics, and so, in the interests of a spurious ecumenism, Catholics are being made to accept what is now a specifically Protestant practice in order to remove any remaining vestige of external respect for the Blessed Sacrament which those who consider it to be no more than bread would find offensive. This is something which should not surprise us-----it is simply a logical continuation of the pattern which began with the destruction of the Mass of St. Pius V.

21) This is an original translation but Bucer's Censura has now been republished with the Latin text and an English translation on parallel pages: Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, ed. E. C. Whitaker (Mayhew-McCrimmon, Essex, England).

+ + +

Communion in the hand and the threat of death by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
8 June 2006 @ 2:57 pm

Fellow patristicist and blogger … hmmm… patristiblogger Mike Aquilina posted a nice riff over at his place. I tip my biretta to him. o{]:¬) It got me thinking (which nearly always results in trouble). Here is the blurb that got me going, but you should read the whole piece.

Tarcisius was a boy of third-century Rome. His virtue and devotion were so strong that the clergy trusted him to bring the Blessed Sacrament to the sick. Once, while carrying a pyx, he was recognized and set upon by a pagan mob. They flung themselves upon him, trying to pry the pyx from his hands. They wanted more than anything to profane the Sacrament. Tarcisius’ biographer, the fourth-century Pope Damasus, compared them to a pack of rabid dogs. Tarcisius “preferred to give up his life rather than yield up the Body of Christ.” Even at such an early age, Tarcisius was aware of the stakes. Jesus had died for love of Tarcisius. Tarcisius did not hesitate to die for love of Jesus.

I always uphold the legal right, according to the Church’s legislation, of people to receive Communion in the hand, if they choose. I don’t like it, but it is (for now) a right in those places where it is permitted (it isn’t everywhere) and according to the manner described by competent authority.

Where am I going with this? People will often defend Communion in the hand by coming unto my turf (Fathers of the Church). They site beautiful texts, not without a measure of sentimentality and with no concomitant reference to social history. Mike’s blurb, though hagiographical, points to something really important: the social context.

When people say, "But Father! But Father! Back in the early Church people received in the hand! St. Cyril says so!"

Okay, that was then and this is now. The passage about Tarcisius reminds us that people could be KILLED for their relationship to the Church and possession of the Blessed Sacrament.

I think I would have very little problem with Communion in the hand in an environment in which we could be killed for receiving Communion. There is nothing like the threat of death to sharpen the mind.

However, when I see the way most people receive Communion in the hand I have to ask myself, are these people ready to DIE for what is going on in this church today? Is Mass something "to die for", to borrow a phrase?

While the Fathers are a critical source for our theological reflection, in the centuries that followed our understanding of the Eucharist deepened. Kneeling and reception on the tongue developed for good reason. In this day of reduced understanding of the Blessed Sacrament and even belief in the Real Presence, in this age of "me, my, mine, I, I, I", we need to reinforce what we confess through physical gestures.

+ + +

Communion in the hand was permitted only in times of persecution according to St. Basil or in places such as the desert monasteries where priests were often unavailable.

Communion in the hand came to an end due to the 1. Peace of Constantine and 2. because of a "growing respect" for the Eucharist in general according to the noted liturgist Fr. Josef Jungmann (The Mass of the Roman Rite (London, 1959), 510). This is also why churches were later built featuring kneelers and Communion rails.

Anytime theologians come across a text, for example, by St. Basil, that supposedly endorses Communion in the hand we read it in its historical context (place and time) and in comparison to other contradictory texts. That's why it is wrong for the modern, pedestrian mind to look at the early Church as a better way (Pius XII addressed this error in Mediator Dei) of celebrating Mass because so much of our way of worship was suppressed or restrained to some extent due to persecution. And that's precisely why it is wrong to point to the early Church to support the modern innovation of Communion in the hand.

I suggest reading the following chapter from Michael Davies' Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds: What Was the Ancient Practice?

+ + +

From Jeremy Dobbs:

Quote:

St. Bede writes in his Eccleisatiscal History of England:

"Nevertheless," said he, "bring me the Eucharist." Having received It into his hand, he asked, whether they were all in charity with him, and had no complaint against him, nor any quarrel or grudge.

Dobbs: Was "he" a priest or deacon?

Quote:

St. John Damascene who writes in De Fide Orthodoxa:

"Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One":

Dobbs: This says nothing about receiving in the hands. The hands could have been on the breast for all that says.

Quote:

"let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divind gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."

Dobbs: Who receives the species of bread from a vessel of gold or the species of wine from their hands? Something is amiss here.

+ + +

Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View

from the May-June 1996 issue

Link to Original

If you are among the many who have wondered over the past decade just how the practice of communion-in-the-hand originated and for what reasons, the following provides a concise history as well as a brief look into what has resulted from the institution of this curious practice.

The History

The practice of communion-in-the-hand was "first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Holy Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops" (Von Hildebrand, The Latin Mass Society, Nov 1995).

In 1969, Pope Paul VI polled the bishops of the world on the question of communion-in-the-hand and subsequently proclaimed that, while there was no consensus for the practice worldwide, in those areas where a different practice prevails it may be introduced by a two-thirds vote of the bishops (of each conference).

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 (now cardinal archbishop of Chicago), 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.

The Results

Frequently it is said that those who place any importance on how the Blessed Sacrament is received are no better than the biblical Pharisees who focused upon the externals of faith rather than the internals. For the Pharisees the external replaced the internal, but it does not follow that the lack of external reverence today can be divorced from the internal disposition of the faithful.

The consequences of introducing this practice are far-reaching, and one need only look to the parish Mass for proof. Not the least of these consequences is the common lack of respect shown for the Blessed Sacrament. Only with the belief that the Holy Eucharist is not supernatural, can this practice of communion-in-the-hand not matter. Since it is truly the most extraordinary substance on earth, surely our comportment should reflect that? Surely our faith in the Holy Eucharist, which deserves our greatest reverence, should reflect into our actions in actually receiving the sacrament?

Alas, it is not so! Communion-in-the-hand weakens faith in the Real Presence. The consequences are profound. May we make up in our love of the Eucharist for all the outrages and indifference which now surround Our Lord’s magnificent gift to us.

+ + +

Case for Communion on the Tongue by David L. Vise

Revision 2: November 4, 1995 (Feast of St. Charles Borromeo)

Link to Original

The Bible Speaks

"After David had taken counsel with his commanders of thousands
and of hundreds, that is to say, with every one of his leaders,
he said to the whole assembly of Israel: 'If it seems good to
you, and is so decreed by the Lord our God, let us summon the
rest of our brethren from all the districts of Israel, and also
the priests and the Levites from their cities with pasture
lands, that they may join us, and let us bring the ark of our
God here among us, for in the days of Saul we did not visit it.
And the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the idea was
pleasing to all the people.

Then David assembled all Israel, from Shihor of Egypt to Labo of
Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jaerim. David and
all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jaerim, of
Judah, to bring back the ark of God, which was known by the name
"LORD ENTHRONED UPON THE CHERUBIM". They transported the ark of
God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab; Uzzah and Ahio
were guiding the cart, while David and all Israel danced before
God with great enthusiasm, amid songs and music on lyres, harps,
tambourines, cymbals, and trumpets.

As they reached the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah stretched out his hand to steady the ark, for the oxen were upsetting it. Then the Lord became angry with Uzzah and struck him; he died there in God's presence, because he had laid his hand on the ark. David was disturbed because the Lord's anger had broken out against Uzzah. Therefore that place has been called
Perez-uzza even to this day.

David was now afraid of God, and he said, 'How can I bring the ark of God with me? Therefore he did not take the ark back with him to the City of David, but he took it instead to the house of
Obed-edom the Gittite. The ark of God remained in the house of Obed-edom with his family for three months, and the Lord blessed Obed-edom's household and all that he possessed".

(1 Chronicles 13: 1-14)

The Church Speaks

The first paragraph in the above quotation is strikingly similar to the text of Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion, published by the Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969, and signed by the Holy Father Paul VI, where it states:

"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."

Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops. Up to March 12 the following responses had been received:

1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which,
besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy
Communion in the hand would be permitted?

Yes: 567
No: 1,233
Yes, with reservations: 315
Invalid votes: 20

2. Should experiments with this new rite first take place in
small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?

Yes: 751
No: 1,215
Invalid votes: 70

3. Do you think that the faithful, after a well planned
catechetical preparation, would accept; this new rite willingly?

Yes: 835
No: 1,185
Invalid votes: 128

From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.

After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.

The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church."

The "Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire Latin Church should be asked his opinion concerning the appropriateness of introducing this rite" in a way remarkably similar to the way that David consulted "with everyone of his leaders". The opinions were obtained and the following was decreed: "The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church." This statement is so clear and direct that no equivocation is possible. Just as in the response of the commanders summoned by David that "the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the idea was pleasing to all the people" so also it happened in Memoriale Domini that "after he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed."

The Loophole

So what happened? Why do we see this practice in our churches?. The answer is found in the penultimate paragraph of Memoriale Domini, where it states:

"If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the
hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the
episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's
often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the
conferences the duty and function of judging particular
circumstances, if any. They may make this judgement provided
that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false
opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of the
faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed."

Thus, we see that the same document requiring the zealous observance of Communion on the tongue for the "common good of the Church" provided a condition we designate as a Loophole that has become the pervasive practice, when it was intended to be only in "particular circumstances" and only if the practice "has already developed in any place" with the provision that "any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of the faithful." What we have in the United States is an abuse, for this practice (Communion in the hand) was not "already developed" in our land at the time of the promulgation of Memoriale Domini, nor could we consider honestly our case a "particular circumstance." It is not surprising then, that we see more and more individuals who disbelieve in the Real Presence of our Lord in the sacraments. Anticipating this, the Holy Father (Paul VI) warned us by saying: "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."

The Angelic Doctor

His holiness Paul VI was not alone in his concerns, for we can go as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) who in his Summa Theologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13 states: "Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the
ground, or else in some other case of urgency."

The Ark of the Covenant as Precursor of the Eucharist

We started this article on a biblical note to establish the close relationship between the Ark of the Covenant and the Eucharist. The Ark was holy because the Spirit of the Lord overshadowed it and His presence was around it and its contents, which were the manna, Aaron's rod and the tablets of the Law. The Ark of the Covenant is considered the archetype of the Blessed Virgin, for she carried within herself the only person perfectly representing all the contents of the Ark, Christ. He is the true bread from heaven. He is the bread of life that performs miracles and signs as was the case with Aaron's rod, and He by being the Word of God personifies the commandments, which are the Will of the Father. We Catholics believe that, after consecration, the resurrected Lord is actually present in the host. The Lord does not overshadow the consecrated host but the host is the Lord Himself. Our God is Holy, Holy, Holy and our hands should not touch the host, the Lord, just as in a similar fashion God showed us that the ark should never be touched, except by priests consecrated to the service of the Lord.

Continuing now with our Biblical reading of the book of 1st Chronicles, we observe that David declared that:

"No one may carry the ark of God except the Levites, for the
Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to
him forever." (1 Chronicles 15: 2)

And David told the heads of the Levitical families that:

"Because you were not with us the first time, the wrath of the
Lord our God burst upon us, for we DID NOT SEEK HIM ARIGHT" (1
Chronicles 15: 13).

David properly ascertained what occurred with Uzzah when:

"he [Uzzah] died there in God's presence, because he had laid his hand on the ark" (1 Chronicles 13: 10).

As the head of his people, David corrected the wrongdoing. Namely, only priests consecrated to the service of the Lord were allowed to handle the sacred, in his case the ark, in our case, the consecrated bread. As we continue to read, we notice in 1 Chronicles 15: 14-15 that,

"Accordingly, the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves
to bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. The Levites
bore the ark of God on their shoulders with poles, as MOSES HAD
ORDAINED ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF THE LORD".

Here we see that the problem was one of improperly following the directives set up by Moses who spoke as the representative of God on earth. As it pertains to our case, is it not known that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ? Is it not known that the Seat of Moses was replaced by the Chair of Peter? And, did he not say in his Memoriale Domini that "the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED"?

We also notice that David takes part in the celebrations of bringing the ark to Jerusalem, and in 1 Chronicles 15: 26-28 it states:

"While the Levites, with God's help, were bearing the ark of the
covenant of the Lord, seven bulls and seven rams were
sacrificed. David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as were
all the Levites who carried the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah,
the leader of the chant; David was also wearing a linen ephod."

David was not only partaking of the celebrations but was clothed like the Levites in fine linen, and, as if this were not enough, he was wearing the linen ephod which was reserved only for the successor of Aaron, the high priest (see Exodus 28: 1-43). David was thus acting as the high priest of the God of Israel, the God Most High. Prior to the existence of Israel, we find the first priest ever mentioned in the Bible in Genesis 14: 18-20:

"Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and
being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these
words: 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven
and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes
into your hand.' Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything."

David is acting in full the part of Melchizedek, for he is the king of [Jeru]Salem, bringing the ark of the covenant of the God of Israel while

"he blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributed
to every Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf of
bread, a piece of meat, and a raisin cake" (1 Chronicles 16:
2-3).

Both the priesthood of Melchizedek and David are antecedents to the true priesthood "according to the order of Melchizedek", to the true King of Peace (Salem), the true Son of righteousness, the Son of David (see Hebrews, chapter 7), our Lord Jesus Christ. Melchizedek is not only the first priest mentioned in the Bible, nor did he just introduce the bread and wine as offerings that our Lord Jesus later consecrated as His Body and Blood of the New and Everlasting Covenant, but Melchizedek is also the common theme between Christ and David. This theme is brought up by both, first by David in Psalm 110 where he states in verse 1:

"The Lord says, to you, my Lord: 'Take your throne at my right
hand, while I make your enemies your footstool'."

This is verbatim the verse in Matthew 22: 44 that Jesus uses to explain that He is the Messiah of whom David spoke. Psalm 110, verses 2 & 3, establish the Kingship of the Messiah:

"The scepter of your sovereign might the Lord will extend from
Zion. The Lord says: 'Rule over your enemies'. Yours is
princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor
before the daystar, like the dew I begot you."

The priesthood is established in verse 4:

"The Lord has sworn and will not waver: 'Like Melchizedek you
are a priest forever'."

The titles and privileges of being at the same time King and Priest is shared by the three of them and it is this commonality that helps us understand the commonality of the Ark and the Eucharist, and why the Pope calls us to avoid any "lessening of reverence toward the noble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine."

The Mass, The Sacrifice and the Eucharist

In chapter 16 of 1 Chronicles we see in an incipient form all the components now present in the Eucharist. A key issue in our faith is our emphasis on the concept of offering an acceptable sacrifice to our Father in heaven. Christ as the new and everlasting covenant offers himself in an unbloody sacrifice and as the only acceptable sacrifice to His Father every time Mass is offered. (Here also lies a big difference between us and our separated brethren since we not only pray to our God but to Him and only Him we offer sacrifice.)This principle of our faith is visited in 1 Chronicles 16: 1, where we read:

"Then they offered up holocausts and peace offerings to God."

We recall that during the last supper when our Lord instituted the Eucharist,

"He took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 22:
19).

As David

"blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributed to
every Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf of
bread ..." (1 Chronicles 16: 2-3).

The Last Supper was celebrated during the Passover, not by accident but by design. (This is clear in Luke 22:15, "I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer".) For our Lord wanted to establish the connection, without a doubt, between His sacrifice and the lamb offered during Passover (the lamb with the unbroken bones which the Israelites were commanded to eat for the "salvation" of their firstborn).

A great blessing comes during Communion when we take the Host which is the body and blood of Christ as commanded by our Lord in John 6, and specifically in John 6: 41:

"I AM the bread that came down from heaven."

This is anticipated in the "loaf of bread" in the passage from 1 Chronicles 16:2-3. He also said in John 6: 53:

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you".

The "flesh" correlates with the sacrificial "piece of meat" and the blood with the "raisin cake" (as raisins are dried grapes and wine is also made from grapes, and we know that Christ stated in Luke 22: 17-18 "Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and said, 'Take this and share it among yourselves; for I tell you that from this time on I shall not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes'"). Another pertinent point is that David understood the Will of the Father regarding the holiness of the ark and thus "He now appointed certain Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, to celebrate, thank, and praise the Lord, the God of Israel." Our Catholic Church has a special sacrament reserved for those that will perform the priestly responsibilities, known as Holy Orders. Via this sacrament, the priest is given, by the hierarchy of the Church, a unique position among the believers and he is able to perform certain functions within the Church that no one else can, such as the consecration of the host. For this reason, only the priest should be allowed to touch the consecrated bread.

The Son of David and the Catholic Church

In 1st Chronicles, chapter 17, which is critical in this study, we see that David becomes anxious to build a suitable permanent house for the ark of the covenant and is given permission by Nathan to proceed (1 Chronicles 17: 2):

"Do therefore, whatever you desire, for God is with you."
.
However, the Lord had other plans and communicates them via Nathan to David telling him (1 Chronicles 17: 4):

"It is not you who will build a house for me to dwell in."

The Lord establishes at that very moment a covenant with David, stating:

"I will make your name great like that of the greatest of the
earth" (1 Chronicles 17: 8),

and, He explains how He planned to accomplish that task in 1 Chronicles 17: 11-15:

"So that when your days have been completed and you must join
your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you who will
be one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. HE
IS IT WHO SHALL BUILD ME A HOUSE, AND I WILL ESTABLISH HIS
THRONE FOREVER. I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM, AND HE SHALL BE A
SON TO ME, AND I WILL NOT WITHDRAW MY FAVOR FROM HIM AS I
WITHDREW IT FROM HIM WHO PRECEDED YOU. BUT I WILL MAINTAIN HIM
IN MY HOUSE AND IN MY KINGDOM FOREVER, AND HIS THRONE SHALL BE
FIRMLY ESTABLISHED FOREVER. All these words and this whole
vision Nathan related exactly to David."

The common and obvious meaning of the passage is humanly partially fulfilled by Solomon, David's son, in the actual building of the temple. The divine house that the Lord spoke about is confirmed by Him in Matthew 16: 18 when the Father reveals to Simon Peter the identity of His Son, and Jesus then utters:

"Therefore I say to you, you are the Rock (Peter) and upon this Rock I will build my Church" (House).

David understood well the depth of that promise for he says:

"O God! For You have made a promise regarding your servant's
family reaching into the DISTANT FUTURE, and you have looked on
me as henceforth the most notable of men, O Lord God. What more
can David say to you? You know your servant. O Lord, for your
servant's sake and in keeping with your purpose, you have done
this great thing" (1 Chronicles 17: 17-19).

David continues his exaltation of the Lord all through the remaining verses of this chapter. This promised covenant becomes flesh in the New Covenant that Christ establishes upon Himself. He is the New Covenant, the Son of David, that we eat during the Eucharist and as such is the living tabernacle, who, like the Ark, should not be touched by human hands.

As Catholics we are called to understand the sacrament of Communion as a gift so holy that our liturgy compels us to utter, prior to receiving the Eucharist, the words "Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed", and as Catholics we are to signify what we say. This point becomes a source of contradiction when we receive the Eucharist in the hand. Either we skip those words and take Communion in the hand or keep them and take Communion in the mouth, for either we are worthy or we are not.

Indeed, we are to be like newborns receiving our spiritual food in the mouth, and should avoid being like Napoleon taking the crown from the bishop's hands and crowning ourselves Emperors of all France.

Christ promised us everlasting life when He introduced the mystery of transubstantiation in John 6: 51 and 53-57 respectively:

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats
this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is
my flesh for the life of the world."

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and
I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food,
and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father
sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one
who feeds on me will have life because of me."

Christ, the consecrated host, is that bread of life that we as Catholics so much desire, for we believe in Him and what He said. This life is reflected also in His Church as a whole, and, when we pay no heed to the advice of Paul VI, "that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of the faithful", we run the risk of Holland.

A Case in Point

Father Ken Roberts informs us that Holland used to be a very Catholic country and was a vital source of missionary priests, but now its vitality has been robbed when we see that after they adopted the procedure of taking Communion in the hand, other things followed (removal of crucifixes and other images, as well as removal of kneelers, the tabernacle, etc.). This became very patent when he saw that on one occasion at Holland's cathedral when Mass was celebrated by their cardinal, only eight (8) faithful were present. We in America have not yet reached this pathetic stage and are not too late to halt the advances of the evil one who will stop at nothing in his drive to destroy our Church. "Liberal theology" and politically correct agendas will continue to undermine our faith if we do not take a stand armed with the truths given to our Church by Christ. We must oppose anything that seeks to erode our faithful following of the Vicar of Christ so that we as good children of Mary whom the devil "wages war against" (Apocalypses 12: 17) can prevail and claim the sublime promise of eternal life with our Creator and Father in the company of our heavenly family.

An Attempt to Justify the Abuse

In an attempt to justify taking Communion in the hand, it could be argued that the hand is not more sinful than the tongue and that all that is being done is taking Communion as it was done during the Last Supper...Someone else may even say that holding the host in theirhands (and some kiss it before eating it) gives them a more intimate relationship with Jesus and it is as if they were holding baby Jesus in their arms. Let us dispose of the last argument first. The consecrated host is not baby Jesus but the resurrected and glorified Lord; as such, His sacramental presence is not equivalent to the privilege given to Jesus' contemporaries. A more fitting relationship to the Real Presence is the reaction of St. Thomas who kneels and exclaims: "My Lord, and my God" (John 20:28), or the encounter that the apostle John had with Jesus in heaven as related in the book of Revelations Chapter 2, verse 17: "When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead"; this is the very apostle who once "was lying close to the breast of Jesus" (John 13:25), the "beloved disciple." The apostles show us, as if in anticipation of the present irreverence, the proper attitude vis-a-vis the resurrected Lord.

We see the motivation for the change by reading "Memoriale Domini" where it states "in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's often difficult situation". Some bishops, in an attempt to bridge that gap, encroached against "the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion", for the dangers that it warned against have not been avoided. Namely, of "insufficient reverence and false opinions of the Holy Eucharist." It is not the purpose of this paper to establish that the hand is any less or any more sinful than the mouth, but to indicate that receiving Communion in the hand introduces a de facto watering down
of our faith, as well as possible desecration.

Historically speaking, we have already established that Saint Thomas Aquinas, all the way back in the 13th century, spoke authoritatively and sternly about not touching the consecrated bread. We can thus conclude that the practice of Communion in the hand was well established by then. When we search further back in history, we see that Communion in the hand was viewed as an abuse at the Synod of Rouen in the year 650. Communion on the tongue is then, as the Holy Father Paul VI says, "a very ancient and venerable tradition."

In order to dispose of the more insidious argument for taking communion in the hand, namely that the apostles received in the hand during the Last Supper, thus entitling anyone to receive the Eucharist in this manner, we need to do a quick tour in biblical exegesis that will indicate that the apostles were already priests when they received the Eucharist.

Holy Orders and Washing of the Feet

Rituals in the Jewish tradition had both an immediate and a spiritual significance; for instance, it was customary to wash before eating together, starting with their feet. The feet were first, since in those days the roads were dusty and the feet were evidently the most affected by it. This constituted the practical and immediate significance. From the spiritual perspective, the feet were washed as a symbol of respect to someone of spiritual dignity; for instance in the case of Abraham receiving the three men after he had seen God in Mamre (Genesis 18:3): "My Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and WASH YOUR FEET." This ritual is repeated when the two angels sent by the Lord to destroy Sodom, due to the homosexual depravity of the city inhabitants, encounter Lot and he said: "Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant's house and spend the night, and WASH YOUR FEET; then you may rise early and go on your way." This concept is well in line with the passage in Isaiah 52:7 that states:

"How beautiful upon the mountains are THE FEET of him who brings good
news", referring to the Messiah.

This apparent fixation on the feet is explained by the Hebrew euphemism that referring to the feet is equivalent to what occurs between them, namely the procreative act. This point is clearly seen in the passage where David, after having impregnated Uriah's wife, is intent in making her pregnancy appear the act of her husband by forcing him to lie with her: "Go down to
your house, and WASH YOUR FEET" (2 Samuel 11:8), followed by the response of Uriah: "Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink, and to LIE WITH MY WIFE?" The Hebrews understood well the correlation of procreation and fatherhood, which had both the physical
significance as well as the spiritual one; indeed, the spiritual fatherhood is of greater importance. The washing of the feet thus establishes the understanding that the person who is being washed has this spiritual fatherhood, which consists in the bringing of the good news and the establishing of the covenant with the one Father in heaven. Obviously, this concept could be discussed in a deeper fashion, but it is brought here up only schematically to illustrate that what was in operation during the washing of the feet of the apostles was indeed their reception of Holy Orders from Jesus, the One whose feet were anointed with very expensive perfume.

Indeed, the ministry received from Jesus in this fashion is such that, if the feet were not washed, Jesus could say to Peter: "If I do not wash you, you have no PART with me." The Greek word used by Jesus for the word "part" is "æ " which is the same one used by the apostle Peter (previously Simon) with another individual having the name Simon who proposed to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:21), a presumptuous intention to which Peter responds: "You have no PART or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God." This condemnation is again very similar to what the Lord said about Judas during the washing of the feet (John 13:11): "For He knew who was to betray him; that was why He said, You are not all clean.'"

In summary, the God who established the order in the universe establishes the proper order at the Last Supper when He ordained His priests prior to giving them the command:

"This is my body which is given up for you. DO THIS in remembrance of me."

The Lord does not have to subject himself to this particular order. His mere command to do so entitles the apostles to their ministry; however, in the same humility with which He washes their feet, He subjects Himself to a proper order of events, in order to fulfill all righteousness. It is in understanding this mystery that the laymen are called to refuse a non-reality, and acknowledge that they have not received Holy Orders, and reject any pretensions to take the Holy body of the Lord in our hands as if we were priests.

Conclusion

All laymen should take to heart what the apostle St. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 10:23:

"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things
are lawful, but not all things edify."

Communion in the hand, though lawful, is not profitable, because it dilutes the significance of the center of our faith. Communion in the hand can lead to a cheapening of what we must exalt. It can weaken our understanding of the sacrifice on Calvary. We note with solace that our present Pope, John Paul II, has prohibited the giving of Communion in the hand in Saint Peter's Basilica (see the appendix.) In summation, I would like to restate the well known assertion "Where Peter is, you will find the Church", but would like to modify it by adding 'and where the Church
is, you will find the truth' (in a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 3:15: "the Church is the pillar and foundation of our truth.") My desire is for priests to align themselves with the Vicar of Christ in discouraging Communion in the hand in their parishes. A vigorous teaching on this matter could also be undertaken by the bishops so that all priests have an opportunity to meditate on this matter and inform their parishioners, accordingly, of the mind of the Church. To the laymen reading this article, I would like to appeal to their true reverence for the host. Aligning ourselves with the Pope, we should resolve to take Communion, as he wishes us to take it, in the mouth.