Is Receiving The Body Of Christ In The Hand A Liturgical Abuse?

[rkwright]

I was told tonight that reception in the hand is a liturgical abuse.

It was laming up the chat board so bring it here!

[cmotherofpirl]

Since the church allows it its not an abuse.

[thessalonian]

JP II put out a document regarding liturgical abuses. It was not on that list. My local bishop allows it as well.

[Nihil Obstat]

It's allowed by the Church currently, but IMO this is imprudent and harmful. The extent of its harm is obviously up for debate, but I personally argue towards a more serious end of the spectrum.

[HisChildForever]

I always thought reception on the hand was "on par" with veiling. One can receive on the hand, just as a woman does not have to veil, but to receive on the tongue and to veil are "preferred". I have heard or read that both acts were started as a rebellion and because they became so widespread the Church permitted them - else a slew of Catholics would have been in trouble with God. But don't quote me on that.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1295323576' post='2201239']
I always thought reception on the hand was "on par" with veiling. One can receive on the hand, just as a woman does not have to veil, but to receive on the tongue and to veil are "preferred". I have heard or read that both acts were started as a rebellion and because they became so widespread the Church permitted them - else a slew of Catholics would have been in trouble with God. But don't quote me on that.
[/quote]
That's definitely true about Communion on the hand. I don't know if that's why veiling was allowed though.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295323259' post='2201238']
It's allowed by the Church currently, but IMO this is imprudent and harmful. The extent of its harm is obviously up for debate, but I personally argue towards a more serious end of the spectrum.
[/quote]


[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1295323576' post='2201239']
I always thought reception on the hand was "on par" with veiling. One can receive on the hand, just as a woman does not have to veil, but to receive on the tongue and to veil are "preferred". I have heard or read that both acts were started as a rebellion and because they became so widespread the Church permitted them - else a slew of Catholics would have been in trouble with God. But don't quote me on that.
[/quote]

Interesting comments. But its hard to see where you're actually coming down on this - so liturgical abuse or not?

[Cam42]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1295321143' post='2201229']
Since the church allows it its not an abuse.
[/quote]

The Church tolerates and allows a lot of abuses....

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1295323784' post='2201242']
Interesting comments. But its hard to see where you're actually coming down on this - so liturgical abuse or not?
[/quote]
Well it depends how you want to define liturgical abuse. I don't really want to say anything besides what I already stated- that it's currently allowed, but IMO imprudently so. If your definition of liturgical abuse is "that which is not explicitly allowed by The Church", then no, it's not that. On the other hand, if your definition of liturgical abuse is something along the lines of "that which decreases respect for the Holy Eucharist", then we have a whole different story.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295324489' post='2201248']
Well it depends how you want to define liturgical abuse. I don't really want to say anything besides what I already stated- that it's currently allowed, but IMO imprudently so. If your definition of liturgical abuse is "that which is not explicitly allowed by The Church", then no, it's not that. On the other hand, if your definition of liturgical abuse is something along the lines of "that which decreases respect for the Holy Eucharist", then we have a whole different story.
[/quote]

I agree with this.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1295324489' post='2201248']
Well it depends how you want to define liturgical abuse. I don't really want to say anything besides what I already stated- that it's currently allowed, but IMO imprudently so. If your definition of liturgical abuse is "that which is not explicitly allowed by The Church", then no, it's not that. On the other hand, if your definition of liturgical abuse is something along the lines of "that which decreases respect for the Holy Eucharist", then we have a whole different story.
[/quote]


[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1295324602' post='2201249']
I agree with this.
[/quote]

So then there is no objective measure of what a liturgical abuse is? I mean if we can just start defining liturgical abuse in any way we want, then anything or nothing can be a liturgical abuse. That seems a little off...

Edited January 18, 2011 by rkwright

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1295324924' post='2201254']
So then there is no objective measure of what a liturgical abuse is? I mean if we can just start defining liturgical abuse in any way we want, then anything or nothing can be a liturgical abuse. That seems a little off...
[/quote]
I don't know how we're defining it in this thread, and I don't specifically know how it's been defined in the past. Heck, I hardly have a specific definition in my own head, although if you want I'll come up with one that makes sense to me.

[Nihil Obstat]

You can't say though, that "anything or nothing" can be liturgical abuse. Nobody on the planet will define kneeling and receiving on the tongue at a Latin-rite Mass to be liturgical abuse, because it glorifies Christ in the Eucharist and contributes to an environment of respect and reverence.

[Cam42]

Communion in the hand was illegally introduced in Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the United States well before Pope Paul VI wrote Memoriale Domini. The Holy See firmly opposed this disobedient and abusive practice from the very beginning. On October 12, 1965, the “Consilium” wrote to Bernard Cardinal Alfrink, Archbishop of Utrecht, Netherlands: “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.”

Pope Paul VI’s concession was the document Memoriale Domini (May 29, 1969), which recognized that Communion on the tongue was “more conducive to faith, reverence and humility.” The Holy Father also warned that 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."

Pope John Paul II some years back had a sign posted on St. Peter's Basilica specifying that all priests who celebrated Mass in St. Peter’s, no matter where they came from, were to give Communion only on the tongue. When the wife of the President of France, Madame Giscard d’Estaing, came before the Holy Father with outstretched hands, he placed the Host in her mouth (see Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997, p. 24). Likewise, a canon lawyer present at the 1981 papal Mass in Chicago witnessed the mayor of Chicago approach the Holy Father with outstretched hands. The Holy Father said, “the Pope doesn’t do that,” and proceeded to give her holy Communion on the tongue.

Many Catholics hold the erroneous view that Communion in the hand is just another way of receiving, that it doesn’t matter how one receives Holy Communion. A June 3, 1968 letter from the Secretary of State reads:

[quote]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 [Communion in the hand] which is not contrary to the doctrine but, in practice, is very disputable and dangerous.[/quote]

Pope Paul VI again repeated in Memoriale Domini that the Holy See’s position on this matter was not a neutral one:

[quote]He should not forget, on the other hand, that the position of the Holy See in this matter is not a neutral one, but rather that it vehemently exhorts him to diligently submit to the law in force [Communion on the tongue], and once more confirmed (Memoriale Domini, #16).[/quote]

His Excellency Juan Rodolfo Laise, in his book Communion in the Hand: Documents and History, describes three major reasons why Communion in the hand spread throughout the world:

[quote]Episcopal Conferences did not follow the conditions outlined by Pope Paul VI: “It is true that the practice spread but this was due only to the fact that the Episcopal Conferences allowed its introduction without the demanded conditions being in existence and without taking into consideration the exhortation of Paul VI.” [/quote]

[quote]The bishops did not want to submit to the law in force (Communion on the tongue): “If the legislation did not change, the obvious conclusion is that the only reason for the extension of the rite [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.”[/quote]

[quote]The “fundamental sense of the ecclesiastical” was lacking in many bishops: “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 [as of 1997] 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.”[/quote]

Pope Paul VI established several hurdles to slow this disobedient practice from spreading. In Memoriale Domini he stated four restrictions:

[quote](a) the indult could only be requested if Communion in the hand was an already established custom (i.e., disobedient abuse) in the country, and

(b) if “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority” the episcopal conference petitions Rome,

(c) then Rome would grant the necessary permission,

(d) once the permission was granted, several conditions had to exist simultaneously (among these conditions, no loss of sacred particles and no loss of faith in the Real Presence), or Communion in the hand was not permitted, even with the indult. These conditions are outlined in “En réponse à la demande,” which is attached to the Memoriale Domini instruction.[/quote]

Here is how the American bishops evaded Pope Paul VI’s restrictions: the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, president of the United States NCCB, initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce Communion in the hand in 1975 and 1976. But it was in May 1977 that Communion in the hand was illegally and formally introduced into the United States. The NCCB’s own minutes of the May 3-5, 1977 General Meeting in Chicago, Illinois gives us many of the details.

a) The Holy See’s requirement to prove an already established, prevailing custom of Communion in the hand in the given country:

The agenda for the meeting was presented by Archbishop Bernardin, and he noted that the Administrative Committee had placed the question of Communion in the hand in the open session of the meeting. Bishop Mugavero (interestingly enough, the Bishop responsible for failing to investigate Our Lady of the Roses apparitions), moved that the agenda be approved. Bishop Blanchette and five other bishops objected, and proposed in writing the following amendment to the agenda item concerning Communion in the hand:

“I. A written vote by the Ordinaries as to whether the contrary usage, that of placing Holy Communion in the hand, prevails in this country as is required by the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion [Memoriale Domini] of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship, 29 May, 1969, before a vote is taken to see if a national conference of bishops is to seek a dispensation from the common usage;

II. and that the agenda be adopted with the stipulation that the vote on Communion in the hand be taken only if the vote mentioned above is affirmative.”

Bishop Blanchette also moved that the amendment be adopted by a written ballot. The Chair indicated that this would be done, since five bishops had seconded the motion. What Bishop Blanchette wanted to make clear to the assembled American bishops was that Pope Paul VI specifically stated that they could not vote on the matter without first establishing that Communion in the hand was the “prevailing” custom in the United States (which it was not). As Bishop Blanchette told the National Catholic Register:

[quote]I said, we are now going to discuss and probably vote on whether we want to petition the Holy See, and we have not established that a contrary usage prevails. I said a simple way to do that would be to ask the ordinaries to indicate whether in their dioceses the contrary usage prevails. The ordinary should know, he is the shepherd of the diocese. He has been asked to obey and his priests have been asked to obey, and his laity have been asked to obey, so if anybody knows whether the contrary usage prevails, he should. And so I asked that the agenda be amended so that the first step—finding out whether or not the usage prevails—could be verified, and if it were verified, then we could go on with the rest of the agenda. But if the first step is not verified, how can we logically go on to the second step? That was my motion. (National Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12, 1977) [/quote]
At this point, the game of deception and disobedience began.

An appeal was then made to declare Bishop Blanchette’s motion out of order. A[b] show of hands was made, and it was declared that the motion was out of order.[/b] Recalling this incident, Bishop Blanchette stated:

“As you know it [the motion] was seconded, it was supported in writing by five bishops, which therefore permitted a written vote, and it was sustained by the parliamentarian. It was sustained by the president of the conference, and it was only by an appeal from this that it was ruled out of order, and it was not done by voice vote because from voice vote there was an inconclusive answer. It was done by show of hands or standing up, and the answer came out was that it seems the majority of the bishops present consider the chair to have erred in ruling the amendment in order. You heard Cardinal John Krol state that he thought a parliamentary device was used to get rid of a valid motion that would’ve enabled us to discern the conditions that actually prevail in our country.” (National Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12, 1977)

The NCCB’s own minutes report:

“Cardinal Krol said that he was distressed that on the previous day a parliamentary device had been employed to deprive the bishops of a survey, suggested by Bishop Blanchette, of the Ordinaries on the current extent of the practice of giving Communion in the hand. [b]He feared that the bishops were beginning a policy of legalizing any abuse of law, and said that far from being an abuse of freedom, law is in reality a protection of freedom[/b].”

The minutes also record the opposition of Cardinal Carberry:

“Cardinal Carberry cited the view of the Holy See expressed in 1969 that the long-received manner of giving Communion to the faithful not be changed. He noted that a picture in L’Osservatore Romano which appeared to show the Holy Father giving Communion in the hand was explained upon inquiry, as showing the presentation of the Rosary. He said that there was great danger of irreverence in administering Communion in the hand, and in this connection mentioned the concerns of both the Holy Father and of Cardinal Knox. To adopt the Committee’s propose he felt would only contribute to the desacralization of the Eucharist. Finally, he deplored the lack of a survey to determine the wishes of the faithful in this matter. He noted the extraordinary volume of mail sent to the bishops opposing the introduction of the optional practice and said that there was no mandate from Catholic people for the Committee’s proposal.”

(b) The Holy See’s requirement that the bishops determine “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority” to petition Rome for the indult:

[b]Even though Pope Paul VI had expressly stated that the indult could not be requested where the disobedient practice of Communion in the hand did not prevail, the American bishops nevertheless went around this requirement and put it to a vote.[/b] From the NCCB’s own minutes:

“Later in the meeting Archbishop Bernardin reported that the vote had fallen short of the required two-thirds of all de jure members and that the matter could not be concluded until the absent bishops were polled.”

[b]What Bernardin really meant by “the matter could not be concluded” was that they were going to get Communion in the hand one way or another, even if it had just been voted down.[/b] To get around the lack of votes, bishops who were not present, bishops who were retired and bishops who were dying were “polled”. According to Fr. Kunz, a canon lawyer, using a proxy vote of absent bishops would invalidate the petition for the indult and it would thus have no status. The maneuver employed by Cardinal Bernardin to get the necessary votes was therefore invalid, as only the members present at the meeting could vote.

Fr. John Hardon, S.J. declared on November 1, 1997 in Detroit, Michigan:

“To get enough votes to give Communion on the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be an affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

Cardinal Bernardin played a pivotal role in manipulating the American bishops into promoting Communion in the hand. As Our Lady’s warned on July 15, 1978:

"Again and again I wander to and fro directing My children to remain close to the Eucharist, the Bread of life. But do not become misguided: Do not accept My Son's Body in your hands. Satan, Lucifer, came as an angel of light and set his agents among the hierarchy of My Son's Church and deluded them. All manner of abominations are being committed upon My Son's Body now." - Our Lady, July 15, 1978

(c) The Holy See grants permission for the indult:

Bishop Blanchette told the National Catholic Register:

[quote]What bothers me is that in the minds of many it will seem that disobedience is being rewarded. And that troubles me because if people persist in being disobedient—and that is used as a reason for changing the discipline—then we’re very close to chaos or what I would call selective obedience, which is no obedience at all. (National Catholic Register, “Bishop Blanchette: A Clear Call for Obedience,” June 12, 1977)[/quote]

As Fr. Alfred Kunz has pointed out, permission given under deceit is no permission at all.


(d) Conditions in the indult:

If the American hierarchy had legitimately fulfilled the Holy See’s requirements up to this point, there would still be several conditions that would have to be met in each instance of Communion in the hand, or no permission could be given. Included in these conditions are that no irreverence, sacrilege, or loss of faith occur as a result of Communion in the hand. Five conditions follow:

1. The new manner of giving Communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted, every one of the faithful have the option to receive Communion on the tongue, even when others receive Communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving Communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.

2. The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this manner of Communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning, within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis, so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the Sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.

3. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic Bread in their hand and putting it in their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding It as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Instead this option must increase in them a consciousness of the dignity of the members of Christ's Mystical Body, into which they are incorporated by Baptism and by the grace of the Eucharist. It must also increase their faith in the sublime reality of the Lord's Body and Blood, which they touch with their hand. Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing.

4. [Condition #4 was eliminated on the occasion of the publication of De sacra Communione et du cultu Mysterii Eucharistichi (n. 21), July 21, 1973].

5. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the Eucharistic Bread to fall or be scattered. Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples.

6. In the case of Communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the Host that has been dipped in the Lord’s Blood.

It is naïve to think that these conditions are being followed.

[Cam42]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1295324924' post='2201254']
So then there is no objective measure of what a liturgical abuse is? I mean if we can just start defining liturgical abuse in any way we want, then anything or nothing can be a liturgical abuse. That seems a little off...
[/quote]

The first place to start is the rubrics. What do the rubrics say?

From there, we look to see if the rubrics are just. Because we are not obliged to participate in something that is not just. Forcing the participation or the expectation that a thing is to be tolerated or promoted which is not just is an abuse.