Communion in the hand...

Blogged by James Preece on 25th June 2012

Mark Lambert reminds us...

So hang on a minute. The Magisterium of the Church led us to receive Holy Communion on the tongue early on. It remained the practice of the Church up until 1969ish, how did we get here? Surely Communion in the hand was a teaching of Vatican II? Absolutely not, you won't find it anywhere in the Magisterium. In fact, it was a complete innovation introduced by a certain group who were trying to change Catholic liturgy to be more like prevalent Protestant liturgy.

They did this by a technicality of Canon Law called an indult, that is an exception from a particular norm of Church law in an individual case.

Bizarrely, the reality is that the universal law that forbids Communion in the hand remains in force. No, you're not mistaken, I really did just say The universal law that forbids Communion in the hand remains in force!

In 1969, Pope Paul VI gave this indult to the French bishops permitting each bishop to allow the practice in his own diocese (En réponse a la Demande). An indult is a special permission for a particular situation, not a universal norm. Nonetheless eventually the majority of dioceses in the world took advantage of the indult and simply permitted the practice. Unlike Pope John Paul's indult to celebrate the Usus Antiquior, the indult to receive Communion on the hand was enthusiastically embraced in England & Wales, one has to wonder at this process and the reasoning behind it?

[link]

Did you know that everybody who received communion from Pope Benedict during the Papal visit was told that receiving on the tongue was a requirement. If you had the chance to receive from Pope Benedict during the Papal visit what would you have done? Would you have said "my way or the highway"? I doubt it.

So what you're saying is you're willing to kneel and receive on the tongue for the Pope on a special occasion.. but for God? Nah... He's not worth the effort...

Or were all the people who received from the Pope traditionalists?

Rate this blogentry: + -

+34

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

Scout said...

I have in front of me a copy of 'Light Of The World', a book consisting of a series of interviews with Pope Benedict XVI. At one point the Pope is asking about communion in the hand, and he replies:

"I am not opposed in principle to communion in the hand; I have both administered and received communion in this way myself. The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel to receive communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the real presence with an exclamation point. One very important reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of mass events we hold at Saint Peter's, both in the Basilica and the Square. I have heard of people who, after receiving communion, stick the Host in their wallet to take home as a kind of souvenir. In this context, where people think that everyone is just automatically supposed to receive communion - everyone else is going up, so I will too - I wanted to send a clear signal. I wanted to be clear: Something quite special is going on here! He is here, the One before whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention! This is not just some social ritual in which we can take part if we want to."

Sarah said...

I'm not sure how helpful it is to quote from "Light Of The World"

Mark Dobson said...

This is all very reasonable; are you suggesting that something doesn’t add up Scout?

+13

Jack Regan said...

Personally, I have recently started receiving communion on the tongue, mostly because I worry about little crumbs breaking off. It's a Catholic scruples thing, I guess. But I receive in the hand in certain situations and I have no objection to the practice whatsoever.

There are a huge amount of points worth noting here:

What the church needs at the moment is an authentic spiritual renewal. We need every baptised Catholic to receive communion and we need them to know that when they do so, they receive the body, blood, soul etc etc. This then needs to transform them and empower them to lead lives animated by a love for Christ. That's the real aim in all of this. Our knee-jerk reaction in the Church is to assume that liturgical renewal (read: correctness) will lead to authentic spiritual renewal, and while I don't disagree with that, I also don't think that liturgical renewal by itself is the answer to all of the Churches renewal needs. Worryingly though, plenty do. Not James, necessarily, but way too many people think that all they need to do as Catholics is to push for 'good liturgy' - and that's as big a danger as anything else at the moment.

I also think the whole 'indult' thing is a bit of a red herring. Let's trust the authorities above us. If something is allowed, it's allowed. This whole 'its an indult' thing is code for 'you lot are naughty' or, really 'we're more Catholic than you' and it's not helpful. Those who favour communion on the tongue will get much, much further in advancing their cause if they can convince others that it's a good and proper thing and a better way to practice the faith. On the other hand, by saying 'naughty, naughty... We're better Catholics than you!' they just put people's backs up. As with much of what passes for debate in the Church, we need to ask ourselves what we are actually trying to achieve. Are we trying to change hearts and spread good things, or are we just trying to **** people off??

Loads more I could say here, but my employer would probably like me to do some work. Good day all :)

Salisbury John said...

"let's trust the authorities above us.."" !!! o please.... you mean like the underhand way an indult was shoved through to allow female altar servers when poor Blessed John Paul II had neither the wit nor will to resist and the fact that the committee that brought it in was chaired by an Opus Dei priest makes it ok and we must obey a clear abuse of liturgical law???
and you mean the 'authorities above us' who signed an exclusive contract with Vodafone [the world's biggest provider of mobile handset access to pornography] to furnish Vatican city state with a mbile network??

+15

Fr. John Abberton said...

Actually, I believe Mark Lambert's description is not quite accurate. Unless my information is completely wrong, I understood that permission was requested and Paul VI asked other bishops who eventually said "No" and it was in 1969 that the permission was refused (although it is possible that a located indult was granted in France). I know something about this because I went to the major seminary in 1969 and we then had communion on the tongue. It was a little later, maybe in 70 or 71 that we were told we were allowed to vote for (or against) Communion in the hand. It was clear from the instructions we were given where most of the staff stood on this, and as a result the vote in Ushaw was overwhelmingly in favour. We did not know, at that time, that no vote was offered to people in the pews at home.
Who was actually voting for this? Selected parishes? I have not heard of any. Colleges and seminaries? Certainly. Religious houses? I would guess the answer to be yes. Who wanted it?
It has become clear to me over the years that Communion in the hand was an horrendous mistake. Of course, permission cannot be removed except from the original source, but there are one or two bishops who are now against it (as was John Paul II). In my view, it is one of the major mistakes of the Church after Vatican II and one for which we have paid a very dear price.

+14

Fr. Stephen Brown said...

I very much agree, Father - there is too much that can go wrong with receiving Communion in the hand. If we believe that 'body language' is at all meaningful, then it should be recognised that to kneel and receive the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue has a far greater richness of meaning, and can consequently strengthen faith and lead to a more fruitful reception of the Lord.

Mark Dobson said...

I must admit that I find myself at something of a loss when it comes to the "richness of meaning" of receiving on the tongue. I’d appreciate an explanation.

Obviously my tongue isn’t holier than my hands, and in point of fact, James 3 seems to suggest the opposite!

+14

Fr. Stephen Brown said...

Dear Mark - if I may, I'll quote an answer from the leaflet on this subject I produced for students:
"Firstly, let us consider the options of receiving on the tongue, or in the hand. Most of us cannot remember being fed as a baby by our parents – feeding ourselves is the norm for us. We get our food and we feed ourselves. What happens at Holy Communion? God is giving Himself to us as our food – perhaps we should write ‘Food’ because this is not ordinary food at all. Ordinary food becomes part of us, but this Food which God gives us makes us become part of Him! The way we receive therefore should express the fact that we are being fed and that this is not an ‘ordinary’ feeding activity for us. Receiving on the tongue from the hand of another [the priest] would convey those meanings well to us.
Would receiving in the hand also convey them? Not as clearly, as there is still an element of ‘feeding ourselves,’ and we also tend to put out our hands to receive objects all the time – it’s nothing special.

It is healthy for us to acknowledge that we are not God, but created beings, and that we depend on God for life, for everything. We are not self-sufficient beings – only God is self-sufficient.
A child is utterly dependent on its parents for food; a sick person depends on others to provide nourishment. Is it not also true that we are God’s children, and that we are beings in need of healing? We must rely on God to provide for our needs. We are all wounded by the effects of sin, and so we can be lead to think we are in control of everything, that we are able to manage everything by ourselves, which is not true. If we receive on the tongue, it conveys the meaning that we are not self-sufficient – we depend on another, we do not control our lives, even that we are helpless without God. These meanings are present if we receive in the hand but here too, the symbolism is weaker as there is more of a control element on our part.....
If our manner of receiving Holy Communion is not sufficiently ‘different’ from our everyday activities, if it does not ‘jolt’ us into realising something special and out of the ordinary is happening, then the likelihood of over-familiarity increases. And as that increases, the fruitfulness of our Holy Communion decreases."

Mark Dobson said...

Thank you; seems rather obvious now…

Deacon Paul said...

I think it's a canard to make reception kneeling on the tongue co-terminus with richness of meaning and increase of respect. As a child, when we went to Ireland on holiday, communion was distributed at the end of Mass and lots of people just stood up afterwards and walked out of the church. Similarly, in the junior seminary, distribution of Holy Communion was a near industrial process.
You can't say amen - to acknowledge the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species - if you have your tongue sticking out. I find the brief pause between receiving the sacred host in my hands and placing it on my own tongue a real moment to acknowledge the true presence.

Mark Dobson said...

It would indeed be daft to suggest that the manner of receiving dictates increased reverence, but it’s not daft to suggest that it might help.

I receive on the tongue and wonder why they don’t give you time to say “Amen” as well, but I persist in saying it anyway – after all, I expect that the number of extraordinary ministers who are so poorly formed that they actually ram the host down your throat when you’re not ready is not all that high.

ORA PRO NOBIS said...

I also wanted to add that Sacrosanctum Concilium did not prohibit ad orientem communion on the tongue or kneeling. This is a myth spread by the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ dissidents.

Chrysostom said...

There was no mention of receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord in Holy Communion on the hand at the Second Vatican Council. Like other radical changes (altar girls) it was introduced first as an act of downright disobedience and then Rome, perhaps inadvisably, to minimise scandal allowed it where it had become "common". I remember its introduction at the time and it was a shock in England because it was not at all common and was virtually unknown. As with other permissions, meant to be exceptional, it has now become common and perhaps is another reason why our churches are emptying.

Our Lady Help of Christians - pray for us.
St Athanasius - pray for us
All Ye English Martyrs - pray for us.
St. Charles Lwanga and Companion Martyrs of Uganda, who died resisting homosexuality - pray for us.

A correspondent asks why I refer to St Charles Lawanga and Companions as dying "resisting homosexuality". The reason is that they died resisting homosexuality. I copy what is said about these martyrs on the website American Catholic .org. I quote directly and exactly what is said about him.
"One of 22 Ugandan martyrs, Charles Lwanga is the patron of youth and Catholic action in most of tropical Africa. He protected his fellow pages (aged 13 to 30) from the homosexual demands of the Bagandan ruler, Mwanga, and encouraged and instructed them in the Catholic faith during their imprisonment for refusing the ruler’s demands.
For his own unwillingness to submit to the immoral acts and his efforts to safeguard the faith of his friends, Charles was burned to death at Namugongo on June 3, 1886, by Mwanga’s order."

Jeff Cheeseley said...

They don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring.

Mark Dobson said...

It depends what you mean, but I, and apparently the OED, think that the first thing that comes to mind is not "homosexual demands":

OED: homosexuality -
a) The quality or condition of being homosexual; homosexual character
b) homosexual behaviour, or activity.

Scout said...

Thanks for replying, Chrysostom. I am not denying that King Mwanga II's treatment of his pages was immoral and disgusting, nor that Charles Lwanga and his companions were brave people martyred for their principles. What I do question is the appropriateness of describing them as having "died resisting homosexuality". By all means, say they "died resisting sexual coercion" or "denied resisting homosexual sexual coercion". But the problem with "died resisting homosexuality" is that it is so open to false and prejudiced interpretations. It almost sounds as though they have been executed for opposing the legalisation of homosexuality or same-sex marriage or something like that. Furthermore, it risks encouraging fear of and hatred towards gay people.

Talking of which, are you aware of what the gay community is experiencing in Uganda at the moment? There is an ongoing attempt to introduce a viciously homophobic piece of legislation which would imprison people for campaigning for the basic human rights of gay people and impose the death penalty for "aggravated homosexuality". The Charles Lwanga story is being exploited over and over again by supporters of this Bill precisely in order to galvanise support for extreme homophobia. In view of this, I hope you will consider being more careful and more factual in your references to the Lwanga incident in the future.

Scout said...

oops "denied resisting homosexual sexual coercion" = "died resisting homosexual sexual coercion"

Deacon Paul said...

Chrysostom
You do not appear to know the difference between male rape and homosexuality. The former is the sin condemned at Sodom and takes place in our prisons, and prisons throughout the world, on a daily basis, however few if any of the perpetrators are homosexuals.

Joseph Shaw said...

Fr Abberton's experience may relate to the official seeking of permission by the English bishops from the Holy See, which is mentioned as a possibility by Paul VI's Memoriale Domini in 1969. This also reaffirmed that the teaching and law of the Church was not being changed: this is a magisterial act, it has significance, whatever Jack Regan may say. Do read it.

http://tinyurl.com/86wumry

On the present Pope's practice, see the official 'explanatory note' from the Office of Papal Liturgies:

http://tinyurl.com/cazb38x

It quotes St Thomas Aquinas on the fact that the priest's hands, unlike laymen's, are annointed for handling the Blessed Sacrament.

Deacon Paul said...

The anointing of the priests hands, although ancient, is not essential to the rite of Priestly ordination - a priest's ordination would be valid without the rite.
Similarly Deacons do not have their hands anointed but are nevertheless ordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
We need to differentiate between essentials and customary practices. At Papal masses, although the Holy Father makes a point of emphasising the sacredness of the Eucharistic mystery through insisting on distribution on the tongue to those kneeling, the vast majority of the communicants receive standing and a significant number of those receive in the hand - a practice that could hardly be allowed to happen if the Holy Father found it objectionable.

Catherine said...

"..the priest's hands, unlike laymen's, are annointed for handling the Blessed Sacrament." and so the plethora of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist helps our sense of the Real Presence?? not! mind you one has to wonder how many priests celebratting Mass and confecting the Eucharist having broken thier vows the night before with whichever sex are more worthy to handle the Blessed Sacrament than the lay married man or woman who has never broken their vows and been faithful to Humanae vitae.

Richard Collins said...

The real problem arises if you do a "Like" click on this post (as I did).
It then appears on Facebook as "Richard Collins likes Communion in the Hand" - aaaargh!

Mark Dobson said...

I suppose it’s probably better than two communions in the bush.

(disclaimer: the opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Mark Dobson, who fully appreciates that Christ would be equally present in any number of bushes, should the situation arise)

Ebeneezer said...

As he was presumably present to Moses in the burning one (on the assumption that Yahweh was the triune God all along).

Mark Dobson said...

I remember reading one time in the footnotes to Eusebius that the OT theophanies were basically chalked up to the Son at one time.

(Do you not believe that Yahweh was always the triune God, btw? Can’t tell if it’s irony or something.)

Ebeneezer said...

Yes, I do believe it. It didn't occur to me that a Catholic could believe anything else. I always supposed that this was the point of Yahweh's appearing to Abraham at the oak of Mamre as three men.

Mark Dobson said...

Quite; only I didn't know you were a Catholic. Not all the commenters are, you know.

Anonymous Coward with poor sense of humour said...

Now, if the bush were burning, would you have two Divine presences or one?

Jonathan Marshall said...

I deplore communion in the hand, but I absolutely detest what it sometimes leads to - self-intincting.

Michael said...

If you're a Catholic, you obey the bishop where you are (if it's the Papal visit, it's pretty easy to figure out whom to defer to).

If there's an official announcement, hmm. Just probably the bishop is aware of it and is allowing, or actually asked for it? :D

Nicole said...

A few years ago, I started to receive the communion on hand on most occasions ever since I had a couple of incidents where the Holy Eucharist almost fell or had fallen off to the ground before it reached my tongue. It may have been due to the tactless way it was being handled by the minister or myself but those incidents had taught myself a lesson on how to securely receive the Holy Eucharist. Others may prefer it strictly on tongue but for me, it really doesn't matter which of the two ways – on tongue or hand. But lately, I have some doubts about this issue. While some Catholics disapprove the practice of receiving the communion on hand, claiming it to be a very inappropriate way, the Pope still continues to allow the practice. I believe that the Holy Spirit had something to do with the decision of Pope Paul VI when in 1969 he gave the Indult to the French bishops, permitting each bishop to allow the practice in his own diocese. But still, Catholics have different opinions on this matter which create more confusion on my part.
While trying to read more articles on the web to find more insight about it, a thought immediately came to my mind. I imagined the activities occurred at the last supper during the Passover (Matthew 26:17-30). I believe that Jesus did not have to stand up and approach each one at the table to put the bread directly into their mouths. I imagined they were having supper as everyone normally would; Jesus, passing the bread and wine (which He turned into His body and blood) to everyone at the table. We all know as Catholics that it wasn't just an ordinary supper not because of how the bread and wine were shared to the disciples but because of the miracle that had happened at the time, which by the grace of God, still happens to this day during the consecration at mass.
As long as the Pope continues to allow the receiving of the communion on hand, then I have no problem with it. Nevertheless, hand or tongue, to me it doesn't matter. It's how you regard the Holy Eucharist, who is Jesus, the Lord Whom you are receiving that matters! Everytime I receive the sacred Host on my hand, say my Amen, and then gently place it in my mouth, I think about how blessed I am to have my Savior within me, creating in me a clean heart, helping me to become worthy of the love and mercy of His Father! It always seems like I am receiving Him for the first time, giving me great peace and joy while quietly kneeling at my pew! When you receive Him, whether on your tongue or hand, what goes around your mind?