Reception of Christ in the Eucharist

[franciscanheart]

[size=5][b]Last time I'm going to say it: If you want to discuss procedures for reception of the Eucharist, move it to another thread. If you continue to post on it, I will move them myself.[/b][/size]

[catholimaniac]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1198093' date='Feb 17 2007, 01:30 PM']Exactly.

The fact is that EMHCs are not necessary.[/quote]

That's why they are called 'extra'.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1198152' date='Feb 17 2007, 02:15 PM']All you are doing is avoiding the subject - Tradition and writings from the Church over the centuries all point to only priests touching the Eucharist and only priests allowed to distribute the Eucharist as well as receiving in the hands as being unacceptable.[/quote]
The early church had communion in the hand. In fact they actually carried some home for later in the week.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1198177' date='Feb 17 2007, 01:42 PM']The early church had communion in the hand. In fact they actually carried some home for later in the week.[/quote]
: heh... rock on cmom.

[Moneybags]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1198177' date='Feb 17 2007, 01:42 PM']The early church had communion in the hand. In fact they actually carried some home for later in the week.[/quote]

Not from all of the quotations already provided.

If they did indeed just carry the Eucharist home and set it down in their house to last all week, that is seriously wrong.

[ReinnieR]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1198152' date='Feb 17 2007, 01:15 PM']All you are doing is avoiding the subject - Tradition and writings from the Church over the centuries all point to only priests touching the Eucharist and only priests allowed to distribute the Eucharist as well as receiving in the hands as being unacceptable.[/quote]
church says it is acceptable

[KnightofChrist]

First off the term "Lay Ministers" is a [b]incorrect[/b] term, the Correct term would be [b]Extraordinary Ministers[/b].

And Extraordinary should be a key word to most of us. Only in Extraordinary events can Extraordinary Ministers be used. When there are thousands of people coming to receive communion, or the priest is sick or too old, things such as these. A regular mass with just around 100 people is not Extraordinary. And for the ashes "Pope John Paul II urges priests not to allow lay people to do their work for them."

Now at my parish we do use Extraordinary Ministers, we usally have four lines of people receiving communion. There is on the weekends about oh 80 people maybe, anyway it takes about what 8-10 minutes for everyone to receive and go back to their place. But we have two priest always on hand. So if we take out the extraordinary ministers there would only be two lines. And I would guess it would only take double the time so 16-20 minutes for everyone to receive and go back to their place. Now is another 10 minutes that big of deal to wait for Jesus Christ and obey Mother Church without using Extraordinary Ministers? Is another ten minutes really that much of an Extraordinary event? I would say, No.

Anyhow read the article below Hiester does a much better job of explaining it than I.

[quote][b]Lay ministers of the Eucharist are supposed to be [u]'extraordinary'[/u][/b]

by Noelle Hiester

Source [url="http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/II,7,1-12-1997/Hiester.htm"]http://www.theuniversityconcourse.com/II,7...997/Hiester.htm[/url]

The scenario is the same in almost every parish: it is communion time and the extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, commonly called eucharistic ministers,(1) are on hand to assist the priest in the distribution of Communion. Because the scene is so common, sensitivity to it has been blunted. I do not mean to imply that lay men and women may never distribute Holy Communion. However, I wish to caution against a too facile acceptance of and a too common use of a practice Church writings indicate should be [u]strictly limited[/u], lest we fail in obedience as well as in right reverence for the holy sacrament.

At Franciscan University, where hundreds of people receive Communion daily, dozens of lay men and women are commissioned as Extraordinary Ministers, and they are active at virtually every Mass. Clearly on our campus the constant use of extraordinary ministers has not had the disastrous effect of reduced respect for the Eucharist found in many places where it is a frequent practice, but it nevertheless does cause scandal, because of its apparent conflict with the teachings of the Church.[b] And those who are not scandalized (because they do not know the Church directives in this area) are misled into thinking that there is nothing abnormal in lay people regularly distributing Holy Communion. [u]This is not right.[/u]
[/b]
Priests are the ordinary ministers of Communion. Pope John Paul II urges priests not to allow lay people to do their work for them. Ineastimabile Donum, prepared by the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship and approved by the Holy Father, states that it is a "reprehensible attitude"(2) where priests leave their primary tasks to the laity. That he considers distribution of Holy Communion among these primary duties of priests is clear from a letter to he wrote to Bishops:

"But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them."(3)

Lay eucharistic ministers have become such a familiar sight in our churches that we have ceased to be aware of their proper place. Again, Inaestimabile Donum states: [b]"The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of the Mass excessively long."[/b](4)

It is this last condition, allowing for the length of the Mass, which is usually invoked as justification for the use of "eucharistic ministers." And here is where the debate lies. How long is too long? Our modern American society puts a high priority on speed and convenience. Fast food chains, MAC machines and parcel delivery services all instance the increasing demand for faster service, so that we do not have to wait a second longer than necessary. Yet, how many people will gladly go to a Mass to hear Fr. Michael speak, though the homily may last close to an hour? Who would think of getting out of line at the cafeteria? The line may be long, but we put up with it because we want to eat. The point is that there are some things which we value enough to sacrifice our time. And, in most cases, waiting in line for Communion does not require much time--only a minute or two.

Frequently, especially on weekdays, the time saved by the presence of an extraordinary minister can be measured in seconds.[b] If Communion lasts eight minutes rather than five minutes will it make all that much difference?[/b] [b]Can we really call that excessive in length?[/b] Of course the definition of "excessive" will vary in particular cases, which is why the Church does not herself specify a length of time. However, we must be careful not to allow our cultural tendency to value what is expedient above what is right to govern our interpretation of the Church's instructions.

[b]The presence of extraordinary ministers under conditions that do not meet those set forth by the Church is clearly a form of disobedience to the Church.[/b] If we disobey the Church, how can we hope to give due respect to the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is at her heart? Whether it comes from ignorance or deliberate disregard, disobedience to the Church is disobedience to Christ, and therefore a weakening of the relationship with Christ.

Reception of the Eucharist is, among other things, a symbol of our unity with the Church. Protestants and members of other sects are not allowed to receive the body and blood of our Lord in Communion precisely because they do not accept all the teachings of the Church. While the everyday use of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist is not to be compared to the great dissension of heretics past and present, it does represent that little disobedience which opens the way for greater things. It allows a slight separation which in time can become a great chasm.

Noelle Hiester is an alumna of the class of '95, and a student in the University's MBA program.

Footnotes:
1 The term "eucharistic minister" is misleading. Priests are the ordinary ministers of the Eucharist and therefore are Eucharistic ministers, in a fuller sense than any lay person can be. The term also gives no indication of the true nature of the ministry performed, in addition to never being used in any of the Church documents on the subject. Indeed, the term Eucharistic Minister is used in the Catechism to refer to priests.
2 Inaestimabile Donum, Instruction Concerning worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, 1980, 8
3 'On the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist,' John Paul II, 1980, 28
4 Inaestimabile Donum, 8[/quote]

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1198184' date='Feb 17 2007, 03:01 PM']If they did indeed just carry the Eucharist home and set it down in their house to last all week, that is seriously wrong.[/quote]

Why? The Church decides the discipline of how things are done. In the early church Communion in the hand was the NORM, and people did take Eucharist home for later in the week.
You think the Church magically appeared at Trent or something?
Kindly give the Church credit for occasionally knowing what she is doing... you may not like Communion in the hand or the laity giving out sacramental ashes, but it is not your call.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1198189' date='Feb 17 2007, 03:40 PM']Why? The Church decides the discipline of how things are done. In the early church Communion in the hand was the NORM, and people did take Eucharist home for later in the week.
You think the Church magically appeared at Trent or something?
Kindly give the Church credit for occasionally knowing what she is doing... you may not like Communion in the hand or the laity giving out sacramental ashes, but it is not your call.[/quote]


i do not mean to be rude, but can you prove this?




[quote][b]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.[/b][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”[/quote]


the bold would indicate that receiving in the mouth has always been the norm.
From what i have read communion in the hand was NOT the norm before the middle ages, despite what some say.

[Didymus]

The problem I've seen with Extraordinary ministers is when they enter the sanctuary before they're suppose to.

other than that, its in the germ, #100:

"...they [lay ministers] may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers."

I think its taken from [i]Immensae Caritatis[/i]?

Edited February 17, 2007 by Didymus

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

to clarify what Cmom said:

is that what you meant?

[quote]
However, during times [b]of persecution[/b], when priests were not readily available, and when t[b]he Faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand[/b]. In other words, [b]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[/b]. 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.[/quote]

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1198223' date='Feb 17 2007, 04:15 PM']The problem I've seen with Extraordinary ministers is when they enter the sanctuary before they're suppose to.

other than that, its in the germ, #100:

"...they [lay ministers] may also be deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers."

I think its taken from [i]Immensae Caritatis[/i]?[/quote]
haha you spelled it phonetically like how people say it... germs are gross

GIRM
General Instruction on the Roman Missal

[Moneybags]

This was a post on my blog concerning reception of the Eucharist in the hands:

[quote]Before you receive your next communion in hand, be aware of the following facts.

St. Thomas Aquinas

"Out of reverence towards this Sacrament (Blessed Sacrament), nothing touches it but when it is consecrated" -Summa, Pt III Q, Q2 Art. 3-

Holy Scripture

It is recorded that only Levite priests were allowed to carry the Ark of the Covenent (1 Chronicles 13:2) But when a non-Levite priest touched the Ark of the Covenent he was struck dead. (1 Chronicles 13:9)

History of Communion on Hand

It was orginally a disobedience to the pope to receive communion on hand.

The practice 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.

Pope Paul VI

In Memoriale Domini, the Pope reconized that communion on the tongue was more conducive to faith, reverence and humility. "This method, on the tongue, must be retained." (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II

He had a sign pasted in 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 tongue.

Pope John II only gave communion on tongue during private Masses in the Vatican. Concelebrating priests were told to do the same.

He said, "I do not revoke what one of my predecessors has said about this... ... here, my dear priests and my dear brothers and sisters, only Communion on the tongue and kneeling is allowed. I say this to you as your bishop!" (Homily March 1 1989, SS Nome Di Maria Church)

Although there is a valid apostolic letter giving special permission for the reception of communion on hand, Pope John Paul II was "never in favour of it... ... neither did he recommend it" (Nov. 1980, Germany)

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. (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997 pg 24) Likewise for a canon lawyer who was present at the 1981 Papal Mass in Chicago.

"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, 1980, end of paragraph 11).

Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcultta

"Whereever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receiving Communion in the hand" (New York, 1989)

Further it is the custom in our Society, and my known wish, that the Sisters receive Holy Communion on the tongue, which to my knowledge they are doing everywhere. (India, 1995)

Bishop Juan Laise of San Luis, Argentina

He warns that, "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." (Communion in the Hand: Document and History)

Mike Warnke

A former satanist high priest who converted to Christianity, Mike warned the U.S. Bishops that Communion in the hand was a mistake, as it would allow satanist easier access in procuring the sacred Host, which is described at satanic services.

St. Basil (330 - 379 AD)

This great Saint considered Communion in the hand a "grave fault"

Council of Rouen (650 AD)

"Do not put the Eucharist in the hans of any layperson, but only in their mouths"

Council of Constantinople (695 AD)

The council prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themelves. It decreed an excommunication of one week's duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

Council of Saragozza (380 AD)

It was decided to punish with excommunication, anyone who dared to receive Communion in hand.

Council of Trent

"To priests alone have been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest"

In Memoriale Domini

Pope Paul VI stated that, "The Apostolic See therefore vehemently urges bishops, priests and laity to carefully submit to the law (Communion on Tongue) which is still valid and which has been confirmed" (#16)

The Beauty and Spirituality of the Traditional Latin Mass by David Joyce, Latin Mass Society of England and Wales

"...when the faithful themselves receive Communion, they receive It kneeling at the altar rail, and directly onto their tongue. This is very significant. Receiving Communion whilst kneeling means that the faithful line up in a row before the sanctuary, and thus have time to prepare themselves for this most sacred of events: coming into spiritual and substantial union with Christ Himself. The communicant kneels down, and whilst he waits for the priest to make his way around, he can settle himself, concentrate on the upcoming Communion with our Lord praying intensely. When it is his turn, the priest says the prayer: "May the body of Our Lord Jesus Christ keep your soul until life everlasting. Amen". This means, besides the beauty and the significance of the words themselves, that the priest says the word "Amen" so that the communicant need not invoke his voice to receive the King of Kings, allowing a constant stream of prayer and thanksgiving to flow from soul to Saviour. The communicant simply needs to expose his tongue, and his side of the proceedings is complete. Upon receiving Christ, he can continue praying for a little while, and only then does he need to return to his seat, leaving room for the next communicant. Moreover, having the priest come over to the communicant signifies that Christ comes to us, feeds us with His own divine life, whilst we wait kneeling and unmoving like little children totally dependent on His love, mercy and compassion. This is the message of the Gospel: to become like little children, submitting our wills to His and depending totally on Him for everything. We cannot even feed ourselves without Christ's help, and the action of Communion in the traditional manner demonstrates this in a very vivid manner."

COMMUNION ON THE TONGUE REMAINS THE LAW FOR THE CHURCH THROUGOUT THE WORLD THIS DAY

Why on the Tongue?

Emphasizes the uniqueness of Holy Food as compared to ordinary food.
Emphasizes the uniqueness of the ordained priest touching the Sacred Species.
mphasizes the presence of Christ feeding His flock, and fosters humility.
Gives a strong sense of identification with the pastCatholics and Saints on the tongue from time immemorial.
Minimized the danger of the Sacred Host being dropped or ignored.
Fosters a sense of unity in the Liturgy.
Reaffirms the facts that Holy Orders is a Sacrament that ordains a man to the priesthood.
Expresses complete obedience to the Church. (Challenge, Fr. F. Heuser 1992)[/quote]

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='St. Benedict' post='1198243' date='Feb 17 2007, 03:27 PM']This was a post on my blog concerning reception of the Eucharist in the hands:[/quote]
And we have more opinions. Wonderful.



Now let's bring in what the Church says. That'll be fun.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

ok bring in what the church says.
[size=3][quote]

[size=5]Some Considerations on Communion on the Hand
[/size]
[size=3]Historical Considerations on Communion on the Hand
[/size]
[b]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. [size=3]It is too bad that it is not true.[/size]

[size=3]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.[/size][1] [size=3]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.[/size] 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.” [/size]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

Return to Una Voce Netsite[/b][/quote]