![]()
Communion in the Hand?
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. 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but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission.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. 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" - 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, "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).
Fr. Paul McDonald
Parish Priest (Pastor)
St. Patrick's Church
123 King Street,
Pt. Colborne, Ontario
L3K 4G3
Canada
tel (905) 834-6426
fax (905) 834-1215
This page was served out by ZBSoft's
ZBServer Pro