Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View
from the May-June 1996 issue
If you are among the many who have wondered over the past decade just how the practice of communion-in-the-hand originated and for what reasons, the following provides a concise history as well as a brief look into what has resulted from the institution of this curious practice.
The HistoryThe practice of communion-in-the-hand was "first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Holy Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops" (Von Hildebrand, The Latin Mass Society, Nov 1995).
In 1969, Pope Paul VI polled the bishops of the world on the question of communion-in-the-hand and subsequently proclaimed that, while there was no consensus for the practice worldwide, in those areas where a different practice prevails it may be introduced by a two-thirds vote of the bishops (of each conference).
In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it. Outside these circles of dissent, however, the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in one's hand was rare. In truth, only a handful of self-styled "progressive" parishes had disobediently introduced the practice and the only demand for it came from dissenting clergymen and chancery apparatchiks.
Despite the fact that communion-in-the-hand could hardly be considered a prevailing practice in the United States, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin (now cardinal archbishop of Chicago), then president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce the practice in 1975 and 1976, stating that communion-in-the-hand had become universally popular as a natural expression of the pious sentiments of the faithful. In the Spring of 1977 at Archbishop Bernardin's last meeting as president of the NCCB and with San Francisco's Archbishop Quinn acting as the chief designated lobbyist for communion-in-the-hand, the bishops' vote again fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever, bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Soon thereafter the practice of communion-in-the-hand spread rapidly throughout the country, and in a few years the new practice became normative amongst American parishes.
The Results
Frequently it is said that those who place any importance on how the Blessed Sacrament is received are no better than the biblical Pharisees who focused upon the externals of faith rather than the internals. For the Pharisees the external replaced the internal, but it does not follow that the lack of external reverence today can be divorced from the internal disposition of the faithful.
The consequences of introducing this practice are far-reaching, and one need only look to the parish Mass for proof. Not the least of these consequences is the common lack of respect shown for the Blessed Sacrament. Only with the belief that the Holy Eucharist is not supernatural, can this practice of communion-in-the-hand not matter. Since it is truly the most extraordinary substance on earth, surely our comportment should reflect that? Surely our faith in the Holy Eucharist, which deserves our greatest reverence, should reflect into our actions in actually receiving the sacrament? Alas, it is not so! Communion-in-the-hand weakens faith in the Real Presence. The consequences are profound. May we make up in our love of the Eucharist for all the outrages and indifference which now surround Our Lord’s magnificent gift to us.
[
home ]
Copyright 1997 Aquinas Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
A Case for Communion on the Tongueby: David L. Vise
Revision 2: November 4, 1995 (Feast of St. Charles Borromeo)
The Bible Speaks"After David had taken counsel with his commanders of thousandsand of hundreds, that is to say, with every one of his leaders,he said to the whole assembly of Israel: 'If it seems good toyou, and is so decreed by the Lord our God, let us summon therest of our brethren from all the districts of Israel, and alsothe priests and the Levites from their cities with pasturelands, that they may join us, and let us bring the ark of ourGod here among us, for in the days of Saul we did not visit it.And the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the idea waspleasing to all the people.Then David assembled all Israel, from Shihor of Egypt to Labo ofHamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jaerim. David andall Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jaerim, ofJudah, to bring back the ark of God, which was known by the name"LORD ENTHRONED UPON THE CHERUBIM". They transported the ark ofGod on a new cart from the house of Abinadab; Uzzah and Ahiowere guiding the cart, while David and all Israel danced beforeGod with great enthusiasm, amid songs and music on lyres, harps,tambourines, cymbals, and trumpets.As they reached the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah stretchedout his hand to steady the ark, for the oxen were upsetting it.Then the Lord became angry with Uzzah and struck him; he diedthere in God's presence, because he had laid his hand on theark. David was disturbed because the Lord's anger had brokenout against Uzzah. Therefore that place has been calledPerez-uzza even to this day.David was now afraid of God, and he said, 'How can I bring theark of God with me? Therefore he did not take the ark back withhim to the City of David, but he took it instead to the house ofObed-edom the Gittite. The ark of God remained in the house ofObed-edom with his family for three months, and the Lord blessedObed-edom's household and all that he possessed".1 Chronicles 13: 1-14The Church SpeaksThe first paragraph in the above quotation is strikingly similar tothe text of Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner ofAdministering Holy Communion, published by the Congregation forDivine Worship on May 29, 1969, and signed by the Holy Father PaulVI, where it states:"When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and someindividual bishops asked that the practice of placing theconsecrated hosts in the people's hands be permitted in theirterritories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of theLatin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune tointroduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, basedon a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merelyaffect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which mayarise from the new manner of administering holy communion: thedanger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of thealtar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.
"Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops. Up toMarch 12 the following responses had been received:1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which,besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving HolyCommunion in the hand would be permitted?Yes: 567No: 1,233Yes, with reservations: 315Invalid votes: 202. Should experiments with this new rite first take place insmall communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?Yes: 751No: 1,215Invalid votes: 703. Do you think that the faithful, after a well plannedcatechetical preparation, would accept; this new rite willingly?Yes: 835No: 1,185Invalid votes: 128From the responses received it is thus clear that by far thegreater number of bishops feel that the present disciplineshould not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed,this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritualappreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.After he had considered the observations and the counsel ofthose whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" theChurches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and theimportance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judgedthat the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion tothe faithful should not be changed.The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, andpeople to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed,according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholicepiscopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacredliturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of theChurch."
The "Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire LatinChurch should be asked his opinion concerning the appropriateness ofintroducing this rite" in a way remarkably similar to the way thatDavid consulted "with everyone of his leaders". The opinions wereobtained and the following was decreed: "The Apostolic See thereforestrongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously thislaw, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of themajority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the presentrite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the commongood of the Church." This statement is so clear and direct that noequivocation is possible. Just as in the response of the commanderssummoned by David that "the whole assembly agreed to do this, for theidea was pleasing to all the people" so also it happened in MemorialeDomini that "after he had considered the observations and the counselof those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" theChurches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importanceof the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the longreceived manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed."
The Loophole
So what happened? Why do we see this practice in our churches?. The answer is found in the penultimate paragraph of Memoriale Domini,where it states:"If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in thehand, has already developed in any place, in order to help theepiscopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today'soften difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to theconferences the duty and function of judging particularcircumstances, if any. They may make this judgement providedthat any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or falseopinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of thefaithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed."Thus, we see that the same document requiring the zealous observanceof Communion on the tongue for the "common good of the Church"provided a condition we designate as a Loophole that has become thepervasive practice, when it was intended to be only in "particularcircumstances" and only if the practice "has already developed in anyplace" with the provision that "any danger is avoided of insufficientreverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mindof the faithful."
What we have in the United States is an abuse, forthis practice (Communion in the hand) was not "already developed" in our land at the time of the promulgation of Memoriale Domini, nor could we consider honestly our case a "particular circumstance." Itis not surprising then, that we see more and more individuals whodisbelieve in the Real Presence of our Lord in the sacraments.Anticipating this, the Holy Father (Paul VI) warned us by saying: "A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient andvenerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence forthe August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulteratingthe true doctrine."
The Angelic Doctor
His holiness Paul VI was not alone in his concerns, for we can go as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) who in his SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13 states: "Secondly, because thepriest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people,hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so itbelongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothingtouches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and thechalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, fortouching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touchit, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon theground, or else in some other case of urgency."The Ark of the Covenant as Precursor of the EucharistWe started this article on a biblical note to establish the closerelationship between the Ark of the Covenant and the Eucharist. TheArk was holy because the Spirit of the Lord overshadowed it and Hispresence was around it and its contents, which were the manna,Aaron's rod and the tablets of the Law. The Ark of the Covenant isconsidered the archetype of the Blessed Virgin, for she carried within herself the only person perfectly representing all thecontents of the Ark, Christ. He is the true bread from heaven. Heis the bread of life that performs miracles and signs as was the casewith Aaron's rod, and He by being the Word of God personifies thecommandments, which are the Will of the Father. We Catholics believethat, after consecration, the resurrected Lord is actually present inthe host. The Lord does not overshadow the consecrated host but thehost is the Lord Himself. Our God is Holy, Holy, Holy and our handsshould not touch the host, the Lord, just as in a similar fashion Godshowed us that the ark should never be touched, except by priestsconsecrated to the service of the Lord.Continuing now with our Biblical reading of the book of 1stChronicles, we observe that David declared that:"No one may carry the ark of God except the Levites, for theLord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister tohim forever." (1 Chronicles 15: 2) And David told the heads of the Levitical families that:"Because you were not with us the first time, the wrath of theLord our God burst upon us, for we DID NOT SEEK HIM ARIGHT" (1Chronicles 15: 13).David properly ascertained what occurred with Uzzah when:"he [Uzzah] died there in God's presence, because he had laidhis hand on the ark" (1 Chronicles 13: 10).As the head of his people, David corrected the wrongdoing. Namely,only priests consecrated to the service of the Lord were allowed tohandle the sacred, in his case the ark, in our case, the consecratedbread. As we continue to read, we notice in 1 Chronicles 15: 14-15that"Accordingly, the priests and the Levites sanctified themselvesto bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. The Levitesbore the ark of God on their shoulders with poles, as MOSES HADORDAINED ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF THE LORD".Here we see that the problem was one of improperly following thedirectives set up by Moses who spoke as the representative of God onearth. As it pertains to our case, is it not known that the Pope isthe Vicar of Christ? Is it not known that the Seat of Moses wasreplaced by the Chair of Peter? And, did he not say in his MemorialeDomini that "the long received manner of ministering Holy Communionto the faithful SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED"?We also notice that David takes part in the celebrations of bringingthe ark to Jerusalem, and in 1 Chronicles 15: 26-28 it states:"While the Levites, with God's help, were bearing the ark of thecovenant of the Lord, seven bulls and seven rams weresacrificed. David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as wereall the Levites who carried the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah,the leader of the chant; David was also wearing a linen ephod."David was not only partaking of the celebrations but was clothed likethe Levites in fine linen, and, as if this were not enough, he waswearing the linen ephod which was reserved only for the successor ofAaron, the high priest (see Exodus 28: 1-43). David was thus actingas the high priest of the God of Israel, the God Most High. Prior tothe existence of Israel, we find the first priest ever mentioned inthe Bible in Genesis 14: 18-20:"Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, andbeing a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with thesewords: 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heavenand earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foesinto your hand.' Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything."David is acting in full the part of Melchizedek, for he is the kingof [Jeru]Salem, bringing the ark of the covenant of the God of Israelwhile"he blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributedto every Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf ofbread, a piece of meat, and a raisin cake" (1 Chronicles 16:2-3).Both the priesthood of Melchizedek and David are antecedents to thetrue priesthood "according to the order of Melchizedek", to the trueKing of Peace (Salem), the true Son of righteousness, the Son ofDavid (see Hebrews, chapter 7), our Lord Jesus Christ. Melchizedekis not only the first priest mentioned in the Bible, nor did he justintroduce the bread and wine as offerings that our Lord Jesus laterconsecrated as His Body and Blood of the New and EverlastingCovenant, but Melchizedek is also the common theme between Christ andDavid. This theme is brought up by both, first by David in Psalm 110where he states in verse 1:"The Lord says, to you, my Lord: 'Take your throne at my righthand, while I make your enemies your footstool'." This is verbatim the verse in Matthew 22: 44 that Jesus uses toexplain that He is the Messiah of whom David spoke. Psalm 110,verses 2 & 3, establish the Kingship of the Messiah:"The scepter of your sovereign might the Lord will extend fromZion. The Lord says: 'Rule over your enemies'. Yours isprincely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendorbefore the daystar, like the dew I begot you."The priesthood is established in verse 4:"The Lord has sworn and will not waver: 'Like Melchizedek youare a priest forever'."The titles and privileges of being at the same time King and Priestis shared by the three of them and it is this commonality that helpsus understand the commonality of the Ark and the Eucharist, and whythe Pope calls us to avoid any "lessening of reverence toward thenoble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration ofcorrect doctrine."The Mass, The Sacrifice and the EucharistIn chapter 16 of 1 Chronicles we see in an incipient form all thecomponents now present in the Eucharist. A key issue in our faith isour emphasis on the concept of offering an acceptable sacrifice toour Father in heaven. Christ as the new and everlasting covenantoffers himself in an unbloody sacrifice and as the only acceptablesacrifice to His Father every time Mass is offered. (Here also liesa big difference between us and our separated brethren since we notonly pray to our God but to Him and only Him we offer sacrifice.)This principle of our faith is visited in 1 Chronicles 16: 1, wherewe read:"Then they offered up holocausts and peace offerings to God."We recall that during the last supper when our Lord instituted theEucharist,"He took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 22:19).As David"blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributed toevery Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf ofbread ..." (1 Chronicles 16: 2-3).The Last Supper was celebrated during the Passover, not by accidentbut by design. (This is clear in Luke 22:15, "I have eagerly desiredto eat this Passover with you before I suffer".) For our Lord wantedto establish the connection, without a doubt, between His sacrificeand the lamb offered during Passover (the lamb with the unbrokenbones which the Israelites were commanded to eat for the "salvation"of their firstborn).A great blessing comes during Communion when we take the Host whichis the body and blood of Christ as commanded by our Lord in John 6,and specifically in John 6: 41:"I AM the bread that came down from heaven."This is anticipated in the "loaf of bread" in the passage from 1Chronicles 16:2-3. He also said in John 6: 53:"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Sonof Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you".The "flesh" correlates with the sacrificial "piece of meat" and theblood with the "raisin cake" (as raisins are dried grapes and wine isalso made from grapes, and we know that Christ stated in Luke 22:17-18 "Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and said, 'Take this andshare it among yourselves; for I tell you that from this time on Ishall not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of Godcomes'"). Another pertinent point is that David understood the Willof the Father regarding the holiness of the ark and thus "He nowappointed certain Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, tocelebrate, thank, and praise the Lord, the God of Israel." OurCatholic Church has a special sacrament reserved for those that willperform the priestly responsibilities, known as Holy Orders. Viathis sacrament, the priest is given, by the hierarchy of the Church,a unique position among the believers and he is able to performcertain functions within the Church that no one else can, such as theconsecration of the host. For this reason, only the priest should beallowed to touch the consecrated bread.The Son of David and the Catholic ChurchIn 1st Chronicles, chapter 17, which is critical in this study, wesee that David becomes anxious to build a suitable permanent housefor the ark of the covenant and is given permission by Nathan toproceed (1 Chronicles 17: 2):"Do therefore, whatever you desire, for God is with you.". However, the Lord had other plans and communicates them via Nathan toDavid telling him (1 Chronicles 17: 4):"It is not you who will build a house for me to dwell in."The Lord establishes at that very moment a covenant with David, stating:"I will make your name great like that of the greatest of theearth" (1 Chronicles 17: 8), and, He explains how He planned to accomplish that task in 1Chronicles 17: 11-15:"So that when your days have been completed and you must joinyour fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you who willbe one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. HEIS IT WHO SHALL BUILD ME A HOUSE, AND I WILL ESTABLISH HISTHRONE FOREVER. I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM, AND HE SHALL BE ASON TO ME, AND I WILL NOT WITHDRAW MY FAVOR FROM HIM AS IWITHDREW IT FROM HIM WHO PRECEDED YOU. BUT I WILL MAINTAIN HIMIN MY HOUSE AND IN MY KINGDOM FOREVER, AND HIS THRONE SHALL BEFIRMLY ESTABLISHED FOREVER. All these words and this wholevision Nathan related exactly to David."The common and obvious meaning of the passage is humanly partiallyfulfilled by Solomon, David's son, in the actual building of thetemple. The divine house that the Lord spoke about is confirmed byHim in Matthew 16: 18 when the Father reveals to Simon Peter theidentity of His Son, and Jesus then utters:"Therefore I say to you, you are the Rock (Peter) and upon thisRock I will build my Church" (House).David understood well the depth of that promise for he says:"O God! For You have made a promise regarding your servant'sfamily reaching into the DISTANT FUTURE, and you have looked onme as henceforth the most notable of men, O Lord God. What morecan David say to you? You know your servant. O Lord, for yourservant's sake and in keeping with your purpose, you have donethis great thing" (1 Chronicles 17: 17-19).David continues his exaltation of the Lord all through the remainingverses of this chapter. This promised covenant becomes flesh in theNew Covenant that Christ establishes upon Himself. He is the NewCovenant, the Son of David, that we eat during the Eucharist and assuch is the living tabernacle, who, like the Ark, should not betouched by human hands.As Catholics we are called to understand the sacrament of Communionas a gift so holy that our liturgy compels us to utter, prior toreceiving the Eucharist, the words "Lord, I am not worthy to receiveyou, but only say the word and I shall be healed", and as Catholicswe are to signify what we say. This point becomes a source ofcontradiction when we receive the Eucharist in the hand. Either weskip those words and take Communion in the hand or keep them and takeCommunion in the mouth, for either we are worthy or we are not.Indeed, we are to be like newborns receiving our spiritual food inthe mouth, and should avoid being like Napoleon taking the crown fromthe bishop's hands and crowning ourselves Emperors of all France.Christ promised us everlasting life when He introduced the mystery oftransubstantiation in John 6: 51 and 53-57 respectively:"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eatsthis bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give ismy flesh for the life of the world." "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Sonof Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, andI will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food,and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks myblood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Fathersent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the onewho feeds on me will have life because of me."Christ, the consecrated host, is that bread of life that we asCatholics so much desire, for we believe in Him and what He said.This life is reflected also in His Church as a whole, and, when wepay no heed to the advice of Paul VI, "that any danger is avoided ofinsufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharistarising in the mind of the faithful", we run the risk of Holland.A Case in PointFather Ken Roberts informs us that Holland used to be a very Catholiccountry and was a vital source of missionary priests, but now itsvitality has been robbed when we see that after they adopted theprocedure of taking Communion in the hand, other things followed(removal of crucifixes and other images, as well as removal ofkneelers, the tabernacle, etc.). This became very patent when he sawthat on one occasion at Holland's cathedral when Mass was celebratedby their cardinal, only eight (8) faithful were present. We inAmerica have not yet reached this pathetic stage and are not too lateto halt the advances of the evil one who will stop at nothing in hisdrive to destroy our Church. "Liberal theology" and politicallycorrect agendas will continue to undermine our faith if we do nottake a stand armed with the truths given to our Church by Christ. Wemust oppose anything that seeks to erode our faithful following ofthe Vicar of Christ so that we as good children of Mary whom thedevil "wages war against" (Apocalypses 12: 17) can prevail and claimthe sublime promise of eternal life with our Creator and Father inthe company of our heavenly family.An Attempt to Justify the AbuseIn an attempt to justify taking Communion in the hand, it could beargued that the hand is not more sinful than the tongue and that allthat is being done is taking Communion as it was done during the LastSupper... Someone else may even say that holding the host in theirhands (and some kiss it before eating it) gives them a more intimaterelationship with Jesus and it is as if they were holding baby Jesusin their arms. Let us dispose of the last argument first. Theconsecrated host is not baby Jesus but the resurrected and glorifiedLord; as such, His sacramental presence is not equivalent to theprivilege given to Jesus' contemporaries. A more fittingrelationship to the Real Presence is the reaction of St. Thomas whokneels and exclaims: "My Lord, and my God" (John 20:28), or theencounter that the apostle John had with Jesus in heaven as relatedin the book of Revelations Chapter 2, verse 17: "When I saw him, Ifell at his feet as though dead"; this is the very apostle who once"was lying close to the breast of Jesus" (John 13:25), the "beloveddisciple." The apostles show us, as if in anticipation of the presentirreverence, the proper attitude vis-a-vis the resurrected Lord.We see the motivation for the change by reading "Memoriale Domini"where it states "in order to help the episcopal conference fulfilltheir pastoral office in today's often difficult situation". Somebishops, in an attempt to bridge that gap, encroached against "thelong received manner of ministering Holy Communion", for the dangersthat it warned against have not been avoided. Namely, of"insufficient reverence and false opinions of the Holy Eucharist." Itis not the purpose of this paper to establish that the hand is anyless or any more sinful than the mouth, but to indicate thatreceiving Communion in the hand introduces a de facto watering downof our faith, as well as possible desecration.Historically speaking, we have already established that Saint ThomasAquinas, all the way back in the 13th century, spoke authoritativelyand sternly about not touching the consecrated bread. We can thusconclude that the practice of Communion in the hand was wellestablished by then. When we search further back in history, we seethat Communion in the hand was viewed as an abuse at the Synod ofRouen in the year 650. Communion on the tongue is then, as the HolyFather Paul VI says, "a very ancient and venerable tradition."In order to dispose of the more insidious argument for takingcommunion in the hand, namely that the apostles received in the handduring the Last Supper, thus entitling anyone to receive theEucharist in this manner, we need to do a quick tour in biblicalexegesis that will indicate that the apostles were already priestswhen they received the Eucharist. Holy Orders and Washing of the FeetRituals in the Jewish tradition had both an immediate and a spiritualsignificance; for instance, it was customary to wash before eatingtogether, starting with their feet. The feet were first, since inthose days the roads were dusty and the feet were evidently the mostaffected by it. This constituted the practical and immediatesignificance. From the spiritual perspective, the feet were washedas a symbol of respect to someone of spiritual dignity; for instancein the case of Abraham receiving the three men after he had seen Godin Mamre (Genesis 18:3): "My Lord, if I have found favor in yoursight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought,and WASH YOUR FEET." This ritual is repeated when the two angels sentby the Lord to destroy Sodom, due to the homosexual depravity of thecity inhabitants, encounter Lot and he said: "Now behold, my lords,please turn aside into your servant's house and spend the night, andWASH YOUR FEET; then you may rise early and go on your way." Thisconcept is well in line with the passage in Isaiah 52:7 that states:"How beautiful upon the mountains are THE FEET of him who brings goodnews", referring to the Messiah. This apparent fixation on the feetis explained by the Hebrew euphemism that referring to the feet isequivalent to what occurs between them, namely the procreative act.This point is clearly seen in the passage where David, after havingimpregnated Uriah's wife, is intent in making her pregnancy appearthe act of her husband by forcing him to lie with her: "Go down toyour house, and WASH YOUR FEET" (2 Samuel 11:8), followed by theresponse of Uriah: "Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink,and to LIE WITH MY WIFE?" The Hebrews understood well the correlationof procreation and fatherhood, which had both the physicalsignificance as well as the spiritual one; indeed, the spiritualfatherhood is of greater importance. The washing of the feet thusestablishes the understanding that the person who is being washed hasthis spiritual fatherhood, which consists in the bringing of the goodnews and the establishing of the covenant with the one Father inheaven. Obviously, this concept could be discussed in a deeperfashion, but it is brought here up only schematically to illustratethat what was in operation during the washing of the feet of theapostles was indeed their reception of Holy Orders from Jesus, theOne whose feet were anointed with very expensive perfume.Indeed, the ministry received from Jesus in this fashion is suchthat, if the feet were not washed, Jesus could say to Peter: "If I donot wash you, you have no PART with me." The Greek word used by Jesusfor the word "part" is "æ " which is the same one used by the apostlePeter (previously Simon) with another individual having the nameSimon who proposed to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:21), apresumptuous intention to which Peter responds: "You have no PART orportion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God." Thiscondemnation is again very similar to what the Lord said about Judasduring the washing of the feet (John 13:11): "For He knew who was tobetray him; that was why He said, You are not all clean.'"In summary, the God who established the order in the universeestablishes the proper order at the Last Supper when He ordained Hispriests prior to giving them the command:"This is my body which is given up for you. DO THIS in remembranceof me." The Lord does not have to subject himself to this particularorder. His mere command to do so entitles the apostles to theirministry; however, in the same humility with which He washes theirfeet, He subjects Himself to a proper order of events, in order tofulfill all righteousness. It is in understanding this mystery thatthe laymen are called to refuse a non-reality, and acknowledge thatthey have not received Holy Orders, and reject any pretensions totake the Holy body of the Lord in our hands as if we were priests.ConclusionAll laymen should take to heart what the apostle St. Paul stated in 1Corinthians 10:23:"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All thingsare lawful, but not all things edify." Communion in the hand, thoughlawful, is not profitable, because it dilutes the significance of thecenter of our faith. Communion in the hand can lead to a cheapeningof what we must exalt. It can weaken our understanding of thesacrifice on Calvary. We note with solace that our present Pope, JohnPaul II, has prohibited the giving of Communion in the hand in SaintPeter's Basilica (see the appendix.) In summation, I would like torestate the well known assertion "Where Peter is, you will find theChurch", but would like to modify it by adding 'and where the Churchis, you will find the truth' (in a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 3:15: "theChurch is the pillar and foundation of our truth.") My desire is forpriests to align themselves with the Vicar of Christ in discouragingCommunion in the hand in their parishes. A vigorous teaching on thismatter could also be undertaken by the bishops so that all priestshave an opportunity to meditate on this matter and inform theirparishioners, accordingly, of the mind of the Church. To the laymenreading this article, I would like to appeal to their true reverencefor the host. Aligning ourselves with the Pope, we should resolve totake Communion, as he wishes us to take it, in the mouth.-------------------------------------------------------------------Provided courtesy of:Eternal Word Television Network5817 Old Leeds RoadIrondale, AL 35210www.ewtn.com
SACRED LITURGY
Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharistby Peter A. Kwasniewski
Perhaps it is a truism to say that in an age of widespread misinformation the hardest thing is just to get oneself rightly informed, this being more than half the battle. There are many who speak as though having authority, but all too often when you look closer, you see the blind leading the blind. A case in point, and a weighty case at that, is the now quite common practice of having a veritable army of lay people distributing communion at parish Masses throughout the world. While many Catholics have an uncomfortable feeling that something is not entirely right about the way laymen regularly assume ministerial functions, few are those who know precisely what the Church herself has determined about this matter, and more than a few who would be surprised even to hear the practice called into question. And if, on top of this, many false views are put forward as self-evident truths, we are back in the soup of misinformation. It is good to extricate oneself from this soup, seeing that the Catholic faithful have a higher destiny than to be croutons floating in the often thin broth of contemporary parish life.
In this article, I will summarize the standing discipline of the Church on the subject of lay Eucharistic ministers, quoting from the relevant authoritative documents. At the end, I will talk about why this abuse first took hold and afterwards spread like a contagion.
A note before we begin to go through the texts. In some of these official documents, one will find a well-elaborated theology of ministry, a solid account of the special priesthood of the ordained, the common priesthood of the baptized, and the distinct but complementary roles of laity and clergy in the Mystical Body of Christ. Interested readers should obtain copies of the documents in order to read these meatier sections. My purpose here is more limited: to gather together the passages having to do with the specific rules governing the collaboration of lay Eucharistic ministers. For, since this matter is a disciplinary one—that is, a matter of how things should be done—it is not absolutely necessary, though undeniably a great advantage, to understand the theology behind it. What is necessary, strictly speaking, is to know and abide by the Church’s discipline, down to its last detail, whether one has the lofty understanding of a theologian or the foot-ready obedience of a soldier taking commands. A priest, for example, need not know why he ought not to wear only alb and stole at Mass; the crucial thing is that he simply not do it. The attitude our Lord praises in the Roman Centurion is precisely the attitude of unquestioning faith: I know what it’s like to give commands, and I believe that you have the authority to give them just as I do over my men. A good pastor disposes himself towards the commands of the Church as the Centurion did towards the word of Christ; there is no need for lengthy explanations. Nevertheless, the Church always offers satisfying explanations for those whose faith seeks understanding, and these may be found in the cited documents. Even if obedience alone would be sufficient, it is evident that pastors of souls who are animated by a keen awareness of their high calling will have a persistent desire to learn about the doctrinal principles and will explain them to their flocks as occasion permits.
Fidei custos (1969)In the heady days of the late 1960s, when the spirit of unbridled enthusiasm generated by Sacrosanctum Concilium was leading the Holy See to consider the re-establishment of many long-dormant liturgical practices and ministries, we find what is (to my knowledge) the first general legislation on our topic. After noting that those who are charged with the pastoral care of the faithful “may for the good of their subjects ask the Congregation . . . to permit suitable persons to administer communion to themselves and to the faithful” (the Congregation in question was the Congregation for Discipline of the Sacraments), Fidei custos goes on to specify the exact parameters which justify a request for the granting of this permission:
whenever a minister indicated in can. 845 [1917] is unavailable1;
whenever the usual minister is unable to administer communion without difficulty because of poor health, advanced age, or the demands of the pastoral ministry;
whenever the number of faithful wishing to receive communion is so great that the celebration of Mass would be unduly long.These reasons, especially the italicized phrase, are to be particularly noted, since as we shall see they are repeated almost verbatim in all the succeeding documents that address the topic, and are taken as the only possible reasons for the legitimate use of such ministers.
Immensae caritatis (1973)As this very brief section of Fidei custos had not proved sufficient to settle all doubts and questions that were stirring in regard to the permissibility of laymen distributing Holy Communion, the same Congregation four years later issued Immensae caritatis, which places this topic first among the matters it considers. Here we get a more detailed picture:
There are various circumstances in which a lack of sufficient ministers for the distribution of Holy Communion can occur:
during Mass, because of the size of the congregation or a particular difficulty in which a celebrant finds himself
outside of Mass, when it is difficult because of distance to take the sacred species, especially in the Viaticum, to the sick in danger of death, or when the very number of the sick, especially in hospitals and similar institutions, requires many ministers.
Therefore, in order that the faithful who are in the state of grace and who with an upright and pious disposition wish to share in the Sacred Banquet may not be deprived of this sacramental help and consolation, it has seemed appropriate to the Holy Father to establish extraordinary ministers, who may give Holy Communion to themselves and to other faithful under the following determined conditions:
Local ordinaries have the faculty to permit a suitable person individually chosen as an extraordinary minister for a specific occasion or for a time or, in the case of necessity, in some permanent way, either to give the Eucharist to himself or to other faithful and to take it to the sick who are confined to their homes. This faculty may be used whenever:
there is no priest, deacon, or acolyte;
these are prevented from administering Holy Communion because of another pastoral ministry or because of ill health or advanced age;
the number of faithful requesting Holy Communion is such that the celebration of Mass or the distribution of the Eucharist outside of Mass would be unduly prolonged.
Local ordinaries also have the faculty to permit individual priests exercising their sacred office to appoint a suitable person who in cases of genuine necessity would distribute Holy Communion for a specific occasion. . . . Since these faculties are granted only for the spiritual good of the faithful and for cases of genuine necessity, priests are to remember that they are not thereby excused from the task of distributing the Eucharist to the faithful who legitimately request it, and especially from taking and giving it to the sick.
When we read of “the size of the congregation or a particular difficulty in which a celebrant finds himself,” it would fly in the face of common sense to say that the document had anything other than unusual situations in mind—massive gatherings where it would take an hour for a lone priest to distribute communion to everyone, or a health-condition that would make it nearly impossible for the priest to stand long enough to distribute hosts to all of the faithful receiving. It is taken for granted that if another priest or a deacon is available (at the rectory, for instance), he will assist at the appropriate time, and that when no such person is available, it can only be an undue prolongation of the length of Mass that might justify lay involvement. It is difficult to maintain that five or ten extra minutes of silence or good sacred music constitutes an undue prolongation. The liturgy is not, after all, an assembly line in which the chief aim is efficiency, making sure the gadgets move along as quickly as possible. A Mass that once in a while spilled over the clockwork sixty minutes might break the spell of utilitarianism under which almost everyone in the modern West is enchanted. Immensae caritatis also seems to take it for granted that a layman appointed to the role, after all other possibilities have been exhausted, will usually have it only temporarily, for some occasion(s) when his help is desperately needed. “These faculties are granted only . . . for cases of genuine necessity.”
Holy Communion and Worship of the Eucharist (1973)Issued in the same year by the Congregation of Divine Worship, this instruction repeats the teaching of Immensae caritatis in slightly different words.
It is primarily the function of priests and deacons to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful who seek it. It is eminently fitting, therefore, that they should devote a reasonable part of their time, in keeping with the needs of the faithful, to this exercise of their ministry. Acolytes duly appointed, moreover, may, as extraordinary ministers, distribute Holy Communion when no priest or deacon is available, when neither priest or deacon is able to distribute it on account of ill health or advanced age, or because of the pressure of other pastoral duties. Acolytes may similarly distribute Holy Communion when the number of the faithful approaching the altar is so large that the celebration of Mass or other sacred ceremony would be unduly prolonged. The local ordinary may give to other extraordinary ministers the faculty to distribute Holy Communion whenever this seems necessary for the pastoral good of the faithful, and when no priest, deacon, or acolyte is available.2Especially noteworthy here is the timely reminder that, owing to their sacred office, “it is eminently fitting” for priests and deacons to “devote a reasonable part of their time, in keeping with the needs of the faithful, to this exercise of their ministry.” In other words, for an assistant priest or pastor to sleep a bit later, eat breakfast, read the newspaper, or make phone calls in the rectory on Sunday morning while another priest with lay assistance distributes communion to a large congregation indicates a deeply flawed sense of priorities. Again, the phrase “the pressure of other pastoral duties” has to be understood in the framework of good common sense. A dying parishioner or an attempted suicide is one thing, a lighthearted chat with a friend quite another. The central point is well established: lay ministers of the Eucharist (including the “acolytes” mentioned here3) receive the name “extraordinary” precisely because they are to be used only in extraordinary cases of urgent necessity, when no other sacred minister is readily available. The priests and deacons remain, as always, the ordinary ministers.
Dominicae coenae (1980)I quote the following passage from John Paul II’s beautiful and meditative Dominicae coenae, published two years after his accession to the chair of St. Peter, not so much because it adds any details to the legislation—it does not—but rather because of the moving fervor with which he ponders the mystery of the ordained priesthood and its corresponding ministerial primacy, a primacy that must not be obscured by any blurring of the fundamental distinction between priest and laity.
. . . 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. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! 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.4 While the Pope then adds that “it is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need,” the purpose of Dominicae coenae as a whole is to stress the ineffable mystery of the Eucharist, the sublime and unique dignity of the priesthood, and the urgency of ordained men remaining faithful to the special tasks of their state, above all regarding the worthy veneration and handling of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.
Inaestimabile donum (1980)In the same year as Dominicae coenae and seven years after Immensae caritatis, the Congregation for Divine Worship once more turned its attention to the topic of lay ministers in a document called Inaestimabile donum, subtitled “Norms on the Worship of the Eucharist.” The Introduction laments the distressing number of corruptions that have distorted the liturgical renewal intended by the Second Vatican Council.
But these encouraging and positive aspects [of the liturgical reform] cannot suppress concern at the varied and frequent abuses being reported from different parts of the Catholic world: the confusion of roles, especially regarding the priestly ministry and the role of the laity (indiscriminate shared recitation of the Eucharistic Prayer, homilies given by lay people, lay people distributing communion while the priests refrain from doing so); an increasing loss of the sense of the sacred (abandonment of liturgical vestments, the Eucharist celebrated outside of church without real need, lack of reverence and respect for the Blessed Sacrament, etc.); misunderstanding of the ecclesial character of the liturgy (the use of private texts, the proliferation of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, the manipulation of the liturgical texts for social and political ends). In these cases we are face to face with a real falsification of the Catholic liturgy. Although other parts of the document also touch on abuses in lay ministry, sections 9 and 10 contain the most relevant statement:
Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for the purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice; still less that they should hand them from one to another. 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 Mass excessively long. Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity. As one reviews the magisterial documents, one notices an increase in what might be called a tone of severity—first, a fuller critique of the abuses in themselves, and secondly, a reproof directed towards those who ignore what the Church is asking for. Thus here we find the striking words: “a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity.” No subtle qualifications are made to the statement; it is as bald as bald can be.
On Certain Questions Regarding the Collaboration of the Non-Ordained Faithful (1997)If I may be pardoned for saying so, the Holy See is very Roman in its way of moving: things happen at a slow pace, with many siestas, in spite of the appearance of general hustle and bustle. One might consider how painfully slow was the official response to Martin Luther back in the 16th century; the time it took to form up a solid counterattack unfortunately gave heresy all the time it needed to spread. But even a lazy dog who likes to take life slowly will, if often enough provoked, snap to its feet and give a good hard bite. A bite of this sort in regard to the question of lay ministers was given in 1997, this time by the Congregation for the Clergy, in what is surely the most important document on the subject to date. Everyone who is involved in any way with liturgical planning or ministries should get a copy of this document and read it carefully.5 Promulgated, like the other documents, by the authority of the Holy Father, it deserves not only a respectful reading but a total adherence of mind and will.
The Introduction states the general subject of the instruction and insists on the grave duty of pastors, above all bishops, to implement the discipline legislated by the Church.6 “Though being born in very difficult and emergency situations and even initiated by those who sought to be genuinely helpful in the pastoral moment, certain practices have often been developed which have had very serious negative consequences and have caused the correct understanding of true ecclesial communion to be damaged.” Later, after it has summarized the “absolutely irreplaceable” state and functions of the ordained priesthood, the instruction urges “a continuing, zealous and well-organized pastoral promotion of vocations so as to provide the Church with those ministers which she needs and to ensure a proper seminary training for those preparing for the Sacrament of Holy Orders,” noting that “any other solution to problems deriving from a shortage of sacred ministers can only lead to precarious consequences.”7 We are reminded that “all the faithful have a responsibility to foster a positive response to priestly vocation”; this is “especially true for those nations where a strong sense of materialism is evident.”
Having said that pastors ought to be familiar with the principles behind the Church’s discipline, Section 4 of Part I then makes a forceful general statement: “Therefore a consistent, faithful, and serious application of the current canonical dispositions throughout the entire Church, at the same time avoiding the abuse of multiplying ‘exceptional’ cases over and above those so designated and regulated by normative discipline, is extremely necessary.” The document continues:
Where the existence of abuses or improper practices has been proved, pastors will promptly employ those means judged necessary to prevent their dissemination and to ensure that the correct understanding of the Church’s nature is not impaired. In particular, they will apply the established disciplinary norms to promote knowledge of and assiduous respect for that distinction and complementarity of functions which are vital for ecclesial communion. Where abusive practices have become widespread, it is absolutely necessary for those who exercise authority to intervene responsibly so as to promote communion which can only be done by adherence to the truth. Communion, truth, justice, peace and charity are all interdependent terms.8In Part II, “Practical Provisions,” the instruction reviews a number of particular matters, e.g., the legitimate roles of the laity in the reading of Scripture and of public prayers, parameters for Sunday celebration in the absence of a priest, and the apostolate to the sick.9 Article 8, which addresses “The Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion,” deserves to be quoted in full, with certain key statements emphasized.
The non-ordained faithful already collaborate with the sacred ministers in diverse pastoral situations, since “This wonderful gift of the Eucharist, which is the greatest gift of all, demands that such an important mystery should be increasingly better known and its saving power more fully shared.” Such liturgical service is a response to the objective needs of the faithful, especially those of the sick, and to those liturgical assemblies in which there are particularly large numbers of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion.
§1. The canonical discipline concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion must be correctly applied so as to avoid generating confusion. The same discipline establishes that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is the Bishop, the Priest and the Deacon. Extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion are those instituted as acolytes and the faithful so deputed in accordance with Canon 230, §3.10 A non-ordained member of the faithful, in cases of true necessity, may be deputed by the diocesan bishop, using the appropriate form of blessing for these situation, to act as an extraordinary minister to distribute Holy Communion outside of liturgical celebrations ad actum vel ad tempus or for a more stable period.11 In exceptional cases or in unforeseen circumstances, the priest presiding at the liturgy may authorize such ad actum.
§2. Extraordinary ministers may distribute Holy Communion at eucharistic celebrations only when there are no ordained ministers present or when those ordained ministers present at a liturgical celebration are truly unable to distribute Holy Communion. They may also exercise this function at eucharistic celebrations where there are particularly large numbers of the faithful and which would be excessively prolonged because of an insufficient number of ordained ministers to distribute Holy Communion. This function is supplementary and extraordinary and must be exercised in accordance with the norm of law. It is thus useful for the diocesan bishop to issue particular norms concerning extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion which, in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church, should regulate the exercise of this function in his diocese. Such norms should provide, amongst other things, for matters such as the instruction in eucharistic doctrine of those chosen to be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, the meaning of the service they provide, the rubrics to be observed, the reverence to be shown for such an august Sacrament and instruction concerning the discipline on admission to Holy Communion.
To avoid creating confusion, certain practices are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged in particular Churches:
extraordinary ministers receiving Holy Communion apart from the other faithful as though concelebrants;
association with the renewal of promises made by priests at the Chrism Mass on Holy Thursday, as well as other categories of faithful who renew religious vows or receive a mandate as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion;
the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of “a great number of the faithful.”This carefully worded article systematically closes off all possible avenues for misinterpreting or misapplying the Church’s discipline on lay ministers of the Eucharist. Noteworthy is the insistence that such lay ministers are, and must always remain, extraordinary. They are to be called upon “in cases of true necessity,” “only when there are no ordained ministers present” or when those who are present are “truly unable” to give out communion. If the entire pool of available ordained ministers at a parish, chaplaincy, monastery, or other location of Mass is insufficient for distributing communion to “particularly large numbers of the faithful,” then and only then is it possible that extraordinary ministers may have a legitimate role to play. Bishops are exhorted to issue particular norms “in complete harmony with the universal law of the Church”: a bishop is simply not allowed, although he may disobediently choose, to issue norms at variance with the universal discipline of the Church. All pastors of souls are urged to take decisive steps to prevent and correct any and every abuse against this discipline. Among the “certain practices” which “are to be avoided and eliminated where such have emerged,” forceful mention is made of “the habitual use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion at Mass, thus arbitrarily extending the concept of ‘a great number of the faithful.’”
An Admirable Lack of AmbiguityThe six documents we have reviewed indicate that nothing whatsoever in the Church’s teaching on the severely limited role of lay Eucharistic ministers can be seen as ambiguous, except by those who play with language and ideas like the dark regime masterfully depicted in George Orwell’s 1984. An example of this kind of deceitful doubletalk would be if a bishop were to say, “Well, yes, I certainly concur with the discipline of the Church on this matter, but as a matter of fact, there are young people in my diocese who are being trained to be responsible leaders in tomorrow’s Church, and they need good practice in how to be reverent and responsible Eucharistic ministers—so I have given them a dispensation from the discipline, with a view to their pastoral education.” The logic of such a policy is hard to fathom: if the institution of lay ministers is objectively abused in the vast majority of parishes, is it really a good idea to inculcate in young people the habit of cooperating with and perpetuating the same abuse? A thorough liturgical education emphasizing the distinct roles of priest and laity and equipping the students to reason peacefully with erring pastors would be far more in keeping with the manifest wishes of Holy Mother Church.12
Now that we have looked at the declarations of the Magisterium on the use of extraordinary ministers, it would be good to step back and contrast her teaching on this with her teaching on some other matters. For, owing to complex causes often political in character, one does find in other areas of Church discipline a wavering between adherence to tradition and acceptance of innovations. The relatively recent case of altar girls offers a disturbing case in point, but we shall consider a different and perhaps more surprising example: the practice of communion in the hand. Not allowed to this day among Catholics in Greece because of the massive scandal it would cause to the Eastern Orthodox, communion in the hand was initially strongly opposed by Paul VI and by a clear majority of bishops in the Catholic Church in the years immediately following the Second Vatican Council. In the Instruction Memoriale Domini (28 May 1969), the rationale behind the traditional way of distributing communion is briefly discussed, especially in the following paragraph:
Quite early [in the history of the Church], the function of bringing the Eucharist to those absent [from Mass, e.g., the sick] was assigned exclusively to sacred ministers as a precautionary measure to ensure the reverence due to Christ’s Body and to meet the needs of the faithful. With the passage of time as the truth of the Eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ’s presence in it were more deeply understood, the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant. This measure was prompted by a keen sense both of reverence toward the sacrament and of the humility with which it should be received.Some time prior to the promulgation of Memoriale Domini, Paul VI had sent out a questionnaire to all the bishops asking, among other things, “Do you think that a positive response should be given to the request to allow the rite of receiving communion in the hand?” The tallies were: 567 in favor, 315 in favor with reservations, and 1,233 opposed. After noting that “a change in so important a matter . . . does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering communion” (in particular, “the possibility of a lessening of reverence towards and even the profanation of the august Sacrament of the Altar, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist”), the Instruction goes on: “The answers given show that by far the greater number of bishops think that the discipline currently in force should not at all be changed. And if it were to be changed, it would be an offence to the sensibilities and spiritual outlook of these bishops and a great many of the faithful. . . . [Paul VI’s] judgement is not to change the long-accepted manner of administering communion to the faithful. The Apostolic See earnestly urges bishops, priests, and faithful, therefore, to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed.”
So far so good. However, the illegal custom itself, having been insinuated among numerous congregations by priests who paid no heed to Church discipline, eventually became established de facto, and the Holy See backed down from her policy of over a thousand years and issued what is technically called a “rescript.” This means that her still existing discipline on the most appropriate manner in which to receive the host—namely, placed directly on the tongue by the sacred minister—has been suspended or rescripted for local churches. In short, and in spite of the clear reasons given in Memoriale Domini, the Roman authorities wavered and succumbed. The problematic custom of communion in the hand is now not only widespread, but almost obligatory and exceptionless as far as normal parish life is concerned. I remember my own first communion, when I was instructed to remain standing and receive the host in my cupped hands. This kind of unsacred training, coupled with extremely mushy catechesis, made it possible for me to remain in a state of total ignorance as to what the Eucharist actually is until about sixteen years of age, when in the course of reading a book attacking transubstantiation (given to me by a priest most notable for his sandals and shortsleeves), I became conscious, for the first time, of what the Church really teaches about the Eucharist. (For the curious, I should add that I do not have this book on my shelf, nor do I even remember its title; I do however have a well-thumbed copy of Paul VI’s Mysterium Fidei, which ought to be required reading for every literate Catholic in the world.)
Now, this example is worth mentioning precisely in contrast to the Holy See’s stance on the extraordinary status of lay Eucharistic ministers and the precise conditions in which this ministry may be appropriately exercised. Never once has there been a referendum to the bishops or a rescript to local churches regarding this, never once a sign of wavering or a submission to subversively established practices, in spite of the tremendous pressure that has been applied to Roman authorities to relax the stringent discipline.13 As can be seen from the succession of documents running from 1969 to 1997, the discipline never changes at all; on the contrary, it is stated with ever-increasing clarity and force in order to combat the serious errors in theory and in practice to which Eucharistic abuses have given rise. The documents that address the question display absolute unanimity and growing urgency in their confirmation of the existing regulations.
The Ultimate Source of the AbuseIf so large a number of the Church’s pastors are downright contemptuous of what she authoritatively prescribes about the parameters of lay ministry, do we not sense that there are deeper issues at work here? Indeed there are. At the root of this widespread abuse is a dual problem, a paradoxical intertwining of two potent and opposed forces: clericalism and anti-clericalism.1 Put briefly, what happened in the post-conciliar period is that the Catholic laity, misinformed about what “active participation” means, felt (or their equally misinformed pastors felt on their behalf) that they must get more and more involved in ministry in order to be participating, in order to have some meaning in their churchly life, in order to feel special or privileged; so, when all is said and done, the laity has to become an adjunct clergy. The source of this view is a residual clericalism that has never gone away: only the clergy really matter to God, only the men doing things at the altar are holy, all the rest of us are second-class citizens, mediocre, dispensable, peripheral. Thus, if we want to be first-class citizens, and this is after all our baptismal right, then we all have to act like priests, because priests and religious are the ones who matter, who count with God. Obviously, it is the underlying assumption that is radically false, but as long as the association of “clergy-holiness” and “laity-mediocrity” persists, we will see a hurly-burly effort at getting as many lay people into the clerical functions as possible. In short, the clericalization of the laity presupposes a false understanding of the excellence of the clerical state. The intrinsic value of the layman in the world is quite forgotten, even though Vatican II sought to recover and revitalize this very truth.2
Now, what effect does this flawed perception of the “castes” of the Church have on the clergy properly so-called? They for their part have to be downplayed, sidelined, marginalized, to make room for the invincible People, the Congregation. An exaggerated democratic instinct distorts the rightful understanding of hierarchy in the Church. As a consequence, the Modern Roman Rite as it is often celebrated decisively “laicizes” the clergy. There is an obscure sentiment that if the clergy remain special, in command, set apart, consecrated to holy things, then the clergy will remain an exclusive clique, an anachronistic aristocracy whose heyday has long since passed away in the “real world.” At the same time, owing to the forces summarized above, a contrary sentiment necessitates the clericalization of the laity because the laity only have worth, are only validated, if they are “actively involved,” that is, doing what priests do. The height of the contradiction becomes apparent: the cleric has value only if he becomes a layman, and the layman has value only if he becomes a cleric. The insistence on maximizing lay participation in the ministries proper to the ordained thus has the long-term effect of blurring and eventually blotting out the distinction between the priestly office exercised in a special way by Christ and His ordained brothers, and the Christian priesthood which all the baptized hold in common. What all of this shows is a deeply erroneous understanding of the priesthood of Christ. To solve the problem will take not only obedience to the Church’s pastoral discipline, but a serious commitment to learning anew the ancient and beautiful theology of the Catholic priesthood.
The Proper Response to this AbuseAccording to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, it is the duty of all Catholics, laymen and laywomen, priests, bishops, and religious, always and everywhere to make a “loyal submission of will and intellect” to the Magisterium of the Church in its entirety, a Magisterium expressed not only in the public statements of Councils and Popes but also in the documents issued with papal approval from the various Congregations. All believers are asked to give “sincere assent to decisions made by him [the Pope], conformably with his manifest mind and intention.”16 “If the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute,” wrote Pius XII, “it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion.”17 Bishops and priests, sacramentally ordained for the service of the faithful, have an even greater obligation and cause to conform themselves to the mind of the universal shepherd who looks out for the common good of the entire people of God.18 Once a definitive teaching is known, there is an immediate obligation to embrace it and follow it consistently in practice.
So many bishops and priests in the Church today are driven about by the winds of changing opinions and lack the peaceful stability that comes from assenting with one’s whole heart to the unchanging faith and its authoritative interpretation in the Magisterium. But no good is accomplished for anyone if we confront straying pastors in a hostile way or speak badly about them behind their backs. If we are serious about living in charity, we must first of all pray for them, asking God to give them the prudence to seek what is right and the fortitude to enforce it in their jurisdictions. Only when we have done and are doing this, should we do whatever else is possible—again in a spirit of genuine charity—to help them see why they should abandon certain practices and adopt others that are more truly Catholic.19 And if, at the end of the day, our prayers and efforts seem to yield no fruits, we should never forget that even priests can have deathbed conversions.
End notes
The 1917 Code limits the distribution of holy communion to ordained ministers.
Section 17.
It should be noted that “acolyte” in all of these documents—in the context, it does not matter whether we are speaking technically of a minor order or not—refers to a man, usually en route to the priesthood, who is specifically commissioned to assist regularly at Masses as an altar server. The permission recently extended for girls to act as servers at Mass does not mean that girls, or for that matter, boys, are to be called “acolytes”; the term refers, as was said, to a man specially commissioned to fulfill a long-term office in the celebration of the liturgy. Ideally, the Church prefers to see adult men fulfilling the office of assisting the priest at the altar, as can be seen in all of the pontifical and in most episcopal liturgies.
Chapter 3, section 2.
It is available on the internet at www.catholicliturgy.com, under “Communion” in the Documents section.
The document continues: “These matters cause the grave pastoral responsibility of many to be recalled [to mind]. This is especially true of Bishops whose task it is to promote and ensure observance of the universal discipline of the Church founded on certain doctrinal principles already clearly enunciated by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and by the Pontifical Magisterium thereafter.”
Part I, section 3.
Emphases added.
It should be noted that the article on the apostolate to the sick specifically reproves and urges the removal of the custom of lay people anointing the sick with holy oil, an abuse found widely among charismatic Catholics.
10 Canon 230, §3 reads: “Where the needs of the Church require and [ordained] ministers are not available, lay people, even though they are not [stably appointed] lectors or acolytes, can supply certain of their functions, that is, exercise the ministry of the word, preside over liturgical prayers, confer baptism, and distribute Holy Communion, in accordance with the provisions of the law.”
Ad actum vel ad tempus here means “temporarily, for a particular ceremony or situation, at a certain time.” The distinction is between the temporary appointment of a lay person for a given situation only (e.g., a parish retreat when large numbers of the faithful are gathered and the priests are insufficient for distributing communion), and the stable appointment of a lay person to an ongoing ministerial function (for example, hospital ministry).
Besides, it may be added that the kind of education required to be a responsible lay-minister of Holy Communion in no way necessarily demands actual repeated practice in Mass. The most important element of this education is the theological formation of the mind and heart, so that, being made fully aware of the awesome responsibility of distributing the Body and Blood of the Lord, a lay person will not undertake this task lightly, when there is no objectively good reason to do so. The ordained are ordained for a reason: the celebration of the Eucharist in all its aspects (preparation, consecration, distribution) belongs to them in virtue of their very office and their sacrament of Holy Orders. If practice is deemed useful, it would be easy and far better to do it outside of the Mass, using unconsecrated hosts and wine, much as seminarians do who are learning to offer Mass.
There were, of course, rescripts in the late 1960s allowing lay people to administer Holy Communion; but we are talking here about the use of extraordinary ministers as though they were ordinary ministers. This has never been allowed, and that is the point of this essay.
We find excellent discussions of the problem in John Paul II’s Christifideles laici (1988) as well as in the 1997 document already discussed.
John Paul II: “Full participation does not mean that everyone does everything, since this would lead to a clericalizing of the laity and a laicizing of the clergy; and this was not what the Council had in mind. The liturgy, like the Church, is intended to be hierarchical and polyphonic, respecting the different roles assigned by Christ and allowing all the different voices to blend in one great hymn of praise” (Ad limina discourse to the Bishops of the Northwestern United States, 9 October 1998)
Lumen gentium 25.
Humani generis 20.
See Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae 37.
For practical suggestions about how to deal with a parish situation in which the usage of extraordinary ministers has gotten out of hand, see Msgr. Peter Elliott, Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), n. 787.
Peter A. Kwasniewski is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the International Theological Institute in Gaming, Austria.
Back to Catholic Faith November/December 2000 Table of ContentsBack to Catholic Information Center on InternetCommunion in the Hand
Monday September 10, 2001 Twenty-third Week in Ordinary Time
Reading (Colossians 1:24-2:3) Gospel (St. Luke 6:6-11)
In the first reading today Saint Paul, in his Letter to the Colossians, talks about how, in Christ, is hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge. This is because He is almighty God; He is the Creator of the universe; He is the Savior of the world; He is God, absolute and perfect. Saint Paul says at the beginning of the reading that he makes up in his flesh for what is lacking in the suffering of Christ, for the sake of Christ's body, the Church.
In Christ, now, there is no suffering, but only in the Mystical Body. But there is one place, which I would like to address this morning, where I believe that Our Lord is truly grieved. I want to challenge you in that area: That is, the manner by which we receive Holy Communion. The Church is very clear in Her documents that she desires that we would receive Holy Communion on the tongue and not in the hand. The bishops of America, as well as a few other countries in the world, have allowed Communion in the hand as a dispensation. But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand.
Let me explain a little as to why. First of all, to receive is something that is passive. The priest takes Holy Communion because the priest is the one who offers the Victim in sacrifice. Therefore, the one who offers the Victim must also take part in that Victim. But the people of God are to receive Holy Communion. To take the Host from your hand and put It into your own mouth is to take Communion, not to receive Communion; and so it is an active thing, not a passive thing. The Lord desires to give Himself to you as a gift, not to be taken by you. We need to be very careful that we do not lose the symbolism of what is happening in the Blessed Sacrament.
Also, if you will notice, during Mass after the Consecration, my fingers remain together because of the particles of the Host that are there. When we take Holy Communion in the hand, there are particles of Our Lord that are on our hands and on our fingers. That is why, after Communion, the priest will purify his fingers - because of the particles of the Host. But how often the people of God, after receiving Holy Communion, simply brush the particles onto the ground and walk on Our Lord. Or they put their hands in their pockets, and Our Lord is right there on their clothing. The abuses that this opens them up to are very grave. Not that anyone is intentionally doing that, but I think it is something that we need to consider exceedingly carefully.
What I always tell people is that you can look forward to the Day of Judgment and ask yourself how you intend to approach Our Lord, because He is your Judge. The same Lord you approach in Holy Communion is the same One you will approach on the Day of Judgment. Do you assume that you will put your hand out to Our Blessed Lord on the Day of Judgment? Is your view of judgment that you will shake Our Lord's hand and tell Him how wonderful it is to see Him? Or is your view that you will do great reverence to Our Blessed Lord? My view is that I will be flat on my face - not shaking His hand.
We do not put out our hand to God. Scripture says that God holds us in the palm of His hand. We should not be holding God in the palm of ours. He created us; He made us in His image and likeness. He is the Creator; we are the creature. We must approach Him with the greatest reverence, the greatest respect.
If we simply look at the fruit that has been borne by Holy Communion being taken in the hand, it is not good: the loss of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, the familiarity. Thankfully it is not happening here, but go to most churches and ask yourself if you see people praying before Mass or if they are chatting, goofing around, and talking. We have lost the reverence for the Real Presence because Jesus is just "our buddy" when we put our hand out to Him; He is not our God when we do that. So we need to be very careful.
But beyond that, we can look also at what has happened spiritually to the people of God. Since we have been receiving Communion in the hand, we have lost sight of the idea of going to Confession, of our own sinfulness, of the reverence we must have for Our Lord. We have made Communion so easy a thing and so nonchalant a thing that people have lost that sense of reverence, of awe, and of respect in the Presence of Our Lord.
I challenge you to think very seriously about this issue. The bishops, like I say, have allowed it; it is not a sin if you receive Holy Communion in the hand. In some places in the early Church they did that; Saint Justin talks about it. But the Church stopped it because of the abuses against the Blessed Sacrament that were occurring. I ask you to really pray about that. Look at Jesus in the Eucharist and ask yourself, "Do I really, truly believe that this is God? That this is my Creator and my Redeemer? How, then, do I desire to approach Him?" I really believe, if you pray that through, that there is only one conclusion to which you can come.
Then, I beg you, do not remain silent about it. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Bring that word to others because all those good people out there, I do not think that they are willfully trying to do anything that would grieve Our Lord; they are doing what they have been told to do. But again, look at what has happened in the last forty years of this particular practice and ask yourself if the fruit it has borne has been good. Obviously, you love Our Lord: You are here at daily Mass; you are here every morning. The love of Our Lord is evident in you. Bring that love of Jesus out from here. The love that is in your heart, proclaim it to others and ask them in the same way to consider their actions toward Our Lord. Let us bring the reverence to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament back so that we can give Him fitting worship and praise because He is God, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are contained.
* This text was transcribed from the audio recording with minimal editing.
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.
Great rates starting at 1¢/min.Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical Viewfrom the May-June 1996 issue
If you are among the many who have wondered over the past decade just how the practice of communion-in-the-hand originated and for what reasons, the following provides a concise history as well as a brief look into what has resulted from the institution of this curious practice.
The HistoryThe practice of communion-in-the-hand was "first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Holy Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops" (Von Hildebrand, The Latin Mass Society, Nov 1995).
In 1969, Pope Paul VI polled the bishops of the world on the question of communion-in-the-hand and subsequently proclaimed that, while there was no consensus for the practice worldwide, in those areas where a different practice prevails it may be introduced by a two-thirds vote of the bishops (of each conference).
In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it. Outside these circles of dissent, however, the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in one's hand was rare. In truth, only a handful of self-styled "progressive" parishes had disobediently introduced the practice and the only demand for it came from dissenting clergymen and chancery apparatchiks.
Despite the fact that communion-in-the-hand could hardly be considered a prevailing practice in the United States, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, Joseph Bernardin (now cardinal archbishop of Chicago), then president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB), initiated two unsuccessful attempts to introduce the practice in 1975 and 1976, stating that communion-in-the-hand had become universally popular as a natural expression of the pious sentiments of the faithful.
In the Spring of 1977 at Archbishop Bernardin's last meeting as president of the NCCB and with San Francisco's Archbishop Quinn acting as the chief designated lobbyist for communion-in-the-hand, the bishops' vote again fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority. Nevertheless, for the first time ever, bishops in absentia were polled by mail after the conference meeting; subsequently the necessary votes materialized and the measure was declared passed. Soon thereafter the practice of communion-in-the-hand spread rapidly throughout the country, and in a few years the new practice became normative amongst American parishes.
The Results
Frequently it is said that those who place any importance on how the Blessed Sacrament is received are no better than the biblical Pharisees who focused upon the externals of faith rather than the internals. For the Pharisees the external replaced the internal, but it does not follow that the lack of external reverence today can be divorced from the internal disposition of the faithful.
The consequences of introducing this practice are far-reaching, and one need only look to the parish Mass for proof. Not the least of these consequences is the common lack of respect shown for the Blessed Sacrament. Only with the belief that the Holy Eucharist is not supernatural, can this practice of communion-in-the-hand not matter. Since it is truly the most extraordinary substance on earth, surely our comportment should reflect that? Surely our faith in the Holy Eucharist, which deserves our greatest reverence, should reflect into our actions in actually receiving the sacrament?
Alas, it is not so! Communion-in-the-hand weakens faith in the Real Presence. The consequences are profound. May we make up in our love of the Eucharist for all the outrages and indifference which now surround Our Lord’s magnificent gift to us.
[
home ]
Copyright 1997 Aquinas Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved.A Case for Communion on the Tongueby: David L. ViseRevision 2: November 4, 1995 (Feast of St. Charles Borromeo)The Bible Speaks"After David had taken counsel with his commanders of thousandsand of hundreds, that is to say, with every one of his leaders,he said to the whole assembly of Israel: 'If it seems good toyou, and is so decreed by the Lord our God, let us summon therest of our brethren from all the districts of Israel, and alsothe priests and the Levites from their cities with pasturelands, that they may join us, and let us bring the ark of ourGod here among us, for in the days of Saul we did not visit it.And the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the idea waspleasing to all the people.Then David assembled all Israel, from Shihor of Egypt to Labo ofHamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jaerim. David andall Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jaerim, ofJudah, to bring back the ark of God, which was known by the name"LORD ENTHRONED UPON THE CHERUBIM". They transported the ark ofGod on a new cart from the house of Abinadab; Uzzah and Ahiowere guiding the cart, while David and all Israel danced beforeGod with great enthusiasm, amid songs and music on lyres, harps,tambourines, cymbals, and trumpets.As they reached the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah stretchedout his hand to steady the ark, for the oxen were upsetting it.Then the Lord became angry with Uzzah and struck him; he diedthere in God's presence, because he had laid his hand on theark. David was disturbed because the Lord's anger had brokenout against Uzzah. Therefore that place has been calledPerez-uzza even to this day.David was now afraid of God, and he said, 'How can I bring theark of God with me? Therefore he did not take the ark back withhim to the City of David, but he took it instead to the house ofObed-edom the Gittite. The ark of God remained in the house ofObed-edom with his family for three months, and the Lord blessedObed-edom's household and all that he possessed".1 Chronicles 13: 1-14The Church SpeaksThe first paragraph in the above quotation is strikingly similar tothe text of Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner ofAdministering Holy Communion, published by the Congregation forDivine Worship on May 29, 1969, and signed by the Holy Father PaulVI, where it states:"When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and someindividual bishops asked that the practice of placing theconsecrated hosts in the people's hands be permitted in theirterritories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of theLatin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune tointroduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, basedon a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merelyaffect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which mayarise from the new manner of administering holy communion: thedanger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of thealtar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops. Up toMarch 12 the following responses had been received:1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which,besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving HolyCommunion in the hand would be permitted?Yes: 567No: 1,233Yes, with reservations: 315Invalid votes: 202. Should experiments with this new rite first take place insmall communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?Yes: 751No: 1,215Invalid votes: 703. Do you think that the faithful, after a well plannedcatechetical preparation, would accept; this new rite willingly?Yes: 835No: 1,185Invalid votes: 128From the responses received it is thus clear that by far thegreater number of bishops feel that the present disciplineshould not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed,this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritualappreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.After he had considered the observations and the counsel ofthose whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" theChurches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and theimportance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judgedthat the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion tothe faithful should not be changed.The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, andpeople to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed,according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholicepiscopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacredliturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of theChurch."The "Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire LatinChurch should be asked his opinion concerning the appropriateness ofintroducing this rite" in a way remarkably similar to the way thatDavid consulted "with everyone of his leaders". The opinions wereobtained and the following was decreed: "The Apostolic See thereforestrongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously thislaw, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of themajority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the presentrite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the commongood of the Church." This statement is so clear and direct that noequivocation is possible. Just as in the response of the commanderssummoned by David that "the whole assembly agreed to do this, for theidea was pleasing to all the people" so also it happened in MemorialeDomini that "after he had considered the observations and the counselof those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" theChurches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importanceof the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the longreceived manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful shouldnot be changed."The LoopholeSo what happened? Why do we see this practice in our churches?. Theanswer is found in the penultimate paragraph of Memoriale Domini,where it states:"If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in thehand, has already developed in any place, in order to help theepiscopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today'soften difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to theconferences the duty and function of judging particularcircumstances, if any. They may make this judgement providedthat any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or falseopinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of thefaithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed."Thus, we see that the same document requiring the zealous observanceof Communion on the tongue for the "common good of the Church"provided a condition we designate as a Loophole that has become thepervasive practice, when it was intended to be only in "particularcircumstances" and only if the practice "has already developed in anyplace" with the provision that "any danger is avoided of insufficientreverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mindof the faithful." What we have in the United States is an abuse, forthis practice (Communion in the hand) was not "already developed" inour land at the time of the promulgation of Memoriale Domini, norcould we consider honestly our case a "particular circumstance." Itis not surprising then, that we see more and more individuals whodisbelieve in the Real Presence of our Lord in the sacraments.Anticipating this, the Holy Father (Paul VI) warned us by saying: "Achange in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient andvenerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carriescertain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner ofadministering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence forthe August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulteratingthe true doctrine."The Angelic DoctorHis holiness Paul VI was not alone in his concerns, for we can go asfar back as St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) who in his SummaTheologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13 states: "Secondly, because thepriest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people,hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so itbelongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothingtouches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and thechalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, fortouching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone to touchit, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon theground, or else in some other case of urgency."The Ark of the Covenant as Precursor of the EucharistWe started this article on a biblical note to establish the closerelationship between the Ark of the Covenant and the Eucharist. TheArk was holy because the Spirit of the Lord overshadowed it and Hispresence was around it and its contents, which were the manna,Aaron's rod and the tablets of the Law. The Ark of the Covenant isconsidered the archetype of the Blessed Virgin, for she carriedwithin herself the only person perfectly representing all thecontents of the Ark, Christ. He is the true bread from heaven. Heis the bread of life that performs miracles and signs as was the casewith Aaron's rod, and He by being the Word of God personifies thecommandments, which are the Will of the Father. We Catholics believethat, after consecration, the resurrected Lord is actually present inthe host. The Lord does not overshadow the consecrated host but thehost is the Lord Himself. Our God is Holy, Holy, Holy and our handsshould not touch the host, the Lord, just as in a similar fashion Godshowed us that the ark should never be touched, except by priestsconsecrated to the service of the Lord.Continuing now with our Biblical reading of the book of 1stChronicles, we observe that David declared that:"No one may carry the ark of God except the Levites, for theLord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister tohim forever." (1 Chronicles 15: 2) And David told the heads of the Levitical families that:"Because you were not with us the first time, the wrath of theLord our God burst upon us, for we DID NOT SEEK HIM ARIGHT" (1Chronicles 15: 13).David properly ascertained what occurred with Uzzah when:"he [Uzzah] died there in God's presence, because he had laidhis hand on the ark" (1 Chronicles 13: 10).As the head of his people, David corrected the wrongdoing. Namely,only priests consecrated to the service of the Lord were allowed tohandle the sacred, in his case the ark, in our case, the consecratedbread. As we continue to read, we notice in 1 Chronicles 15: 14-15that"Accordingly, the priests and the Levites sanctified themselvesto bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. The Levitesbore the ark of God on their shoulders with poles, as MOSES HADORDAINED ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF THE LORD".Here we see that the problem was one of improperly following thedirectives set up by Moses who spoke as the representative of God onearth. As it pertains to our case, is it not known that the Pope isthe Vicar of Christ? Is it not known that the Seat of Moses wasreplaced by the Chair of Peter? And, did he not say in his MemorialeDomini that "the long received manner of ministering Holy Communionto the faithful SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED"?We also notice that David takes part in the celebrations of bringingthe ark to Jerusalem, and in 1 Chronicles 15: 26-28 it states:"While the Levites, with God's help, were bearing the ark of thecovenant of the Lord, seven bulls and seven rams weresacrificed. David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as wereall the Levites who carried the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah,the leader of the chant; David was also wearing a linen ephod."David was not only partaking of the celebrations but was clothed likethe Levites in fine linen, and, as if this were not enough, he waswearing the linen ephod which was reserved only for the successor ofAaron, the high priest (see Exodus 28: 1-43). David was thus actingas the high priest of the God of Israel, the God Most High. Prior tothe existence of Israel, we find the first priest ever mentioned inthe Bible in Genesis 14: 18-20:"Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, andbeing a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with thesewords: 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heavenand earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foesinto your hand.' Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything."David is acting in full the part of Melchizedek, for he is the kingof [Jeru]Salem, bringing the ark of the covenant of the God of Israelwhile"he blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributedto every Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf ofbread, a piece of meat, and a raisin cake" (1 Chronicles 16:2-3).Both the priesthood of Melchizedek and David are antecedents to thetrue priesthood "according to the order of Melchizedek", to the trueKing of Peace (Salem), the true Son of righteousness, the Son ofDavid (see Hebrews, chapter 7), our Lord Jesus Christ. Melchizedekis not only the first priest mentioned in the Bible, nor did he justintroduce the bread and wine as offerings that our Lord Jesus laterconsecrated as His Body and Blood of the New and EverlastingCovenant, but Melchizedek is also the common theme between Christ andDavid. This theme is brought up by both, first by David in Psalm 110where he states in verse 1:"The Lord says, to you, my Lord: 'Take your throne at my righthand, while I make your enemies your footstool'." This is verbatim the verse in Matthew 22: 44 that Jesus uses toexplain that He is the Messiah of whom David spoke. Psalm 110,verses 2 & 3, establish the Kingship of the Messiah:"The scepter of your sovereign might the Lord will extend fromZion. The Lord says: 'Rule over your enemies'. Yours isprincely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendorbefore the daystar, like the dew I begot you."The priesthood is established in verse 4:"The Lord has sworn and will not waver: 'Like Melchizedek youare a priest forever'."The titles and privileges of being at the same time King and Priestis shared by the three of them and it is this commonality that helpsus understand the commonality of the Ark and the Eucharist, and whythe Pope calls us to avoid any "lessening of reverence toward thenoble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration ofcorrect doctrine."The Mass, The Sacrifice and the EucharistIn chapter 16 of 1 Chronicles we see in an incipient form all thecomponents now present in the Eucharist. A key issue in our faith isour emphasis on the concept of offering an acceptable sacrifice toour Father in heaven. Christ as the new and everlasting covenantoffers himself in an unbloody sacrifice and as the only acceptablesacrifice to His Father every time Mass is offered. (Here also liesa big difference between us and our separated brethren since we notonly pray to our God but to Him and only Him we offer sacrifice.)This principle of our faith is visited in 1 Chronicles 16: 1, wherewe read:"Then they offered up holocausts and peace offerings to God."We recall that during the last supper when our Lord instituted theEucharist,"He took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 22:19).As David"blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributed toevery Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf ofbread ..." (1 Chronicles 16: 2-3).The Last Supper was celebrated during the Passover, not by accidentbut by design. (This is clear in Luke 22:15, "I have eagerly desiredto eat this Passover with you before I suffer".) For our Lord wantedto establish the connection, without a doubt, between His sacrificeand the lamb offered during Passover (the lamb with the unbrokenbones which the Israelites were commanded to eat for the "salvation"of their firstborn).A great blessing comes during Communion when we take the Host whichis the body and blood of Christ as commanded by our Lord in John 6,and specifically in John 6: 41:"I AM the bread that came down from heaven."This is anticipated in the "loaf of bread" in the passage from 1Chronicles 16:2-3. He also said in John 6: 53:"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Sonof Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you".The "flesh" correlates with the sacrificial "piece of meat" and theblood with the "raisin cake" (as raisins are dried grapes and wine isalso made from grapes, and we know that Christ stated in Luke 22:17-18 "Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and said, 'Take this andshare it among yourselves; for I tell you that from this time on Ishall not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of Godcomes'"). Another pertinent point is that David understood the Willof the Father regarding the holiness of the ark and thus "He nowappointed certain Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, tocelebrate, thank, and praise the Lord, the God of Israel." OurCatholic Church has a special sacrament reserved for those that willperform the priestly responsibilities, known as Holy Orders. Viathis sacrament, the priest is given, by the hierarchy of the Church,a unique position among the believers and he is able to performcertain functions within the Church that no one else can, such as theconsecration of the host. For this reason, only the priest should beallowed to touch the consecrated bread.The Son of David and the Catholic ChurchIn 1st Chronicles, chapter 17, which is critical in this study, wesee that David becomes anxious to build a suitable permanent housefor the ark of the covenant and is given permission by Nathan toproceed (1 Chronicles 17: 2):"Do therefore, whatever you desire, for God is with you.". However, the Lord had other plans and communicates them via Nathan toDavid telling him (1 Chronicles 17: 4):"It is not you who will build a house for me to dwell in."The Lord establishes at that very moment a covenant with David, stating:"I will make your name great like that of the greatest of theearth" (1 Chronicles 17: 8), and, He explains how He planned to accomplish that task in 1Chronicles 17: 11-15:"So that when your days have been completed and you must joinyour fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you who willbe one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. HEIS IT WHO SHALL BUILD ME A HOUSE, AND I WILL ESTABLISH HISTHRONE FOREVER. I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM, AND HE SHALL BE ASON TO ME, AND I WILL NOT WITHDRAW MY FAVOR FROM HIM AS IWITHDREW IT FROM HIM WHO PRECEDED YOU. BUT I WILL MAINTAIN HIMIN MY HOUSE AND IN MY KINGDOM FOREVER, AND HIS THRONE SHALL BEFIRMLY ESTABLISHED FOREVER. All these words and this wholevision Nathan related exactly to David."The common and obvious meaning of the passage is humanly partiallyfulfilled by Solomon, David's son, in the actual building of thetemple. The divine house that the Lord spoke about is confirmed byHim in Matthew 16: 18 when the Father reveals to Simon Peter theidentity of His Son, and Jesus then utters:"Therefore I say to you, you are the Rock (Peter) and upon thisRock I will build my Church" (House).David understood well the depth of that promise for he says:"O God! For You have made a promise regarding your servant'sfamily reaching into the DISTANT FUTURE, and you have looked onme as henceforth the most notable of men, O Lord God. What morecan David say to you? You know your servant. O Lord, for yourservant's sake and in keeping with your purpose, you have donethis great thing" (1 Chronicles 17: 17-19).David continues his exaltation of the Lord all through the remainingverses of this chapter. This promised covenant becomes flesh in theNew Covenant that Christ establishes upon Himself. He is the NewCovenant, the Son of David, that we eat during the Eucharist and assuch is the living tabernacle, who, like the Ark, should not betouched by human hands.As Catholics we are called to understand the sacrament of Communionas a gift so holy that our liturgy compels us to utter, prior toreceiving the Eucharist, the words "Lord, I am not worthy to receiveyou, but only say the word and I shall be healed", and as Catholicswe are to signify what we say. This point becomes a source ofcontradiction when we receive the Eucharist in the hand. Either weskip those words and take Communion in the hand or keep them and takeCommunion in the mouth, for either we are worthy or we are not.Indeed, we are to be like newborns receiving our spiritual food inthe mouth, and should avoid being like Napoleon taking the crown fromthe bishop's hands and crowning ourselves Emperors of all France.Christ promised us everlasting life when He introduced the mystery oftransubstantiation in John 6: 51 and 53-57 respectively:"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eatsthis bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give ismy flesh for the life of the world." "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Sonof Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, andI will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food,and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks myblood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Fathersent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the onewho feeds on me will have life because of me."Christ, the consecrated host, is that bread of life that we asCatholics so much desire, for we believe in Him and what He said.This life is reflected also in His Church as a whole, and, when wepay no heed to the advice of Paul VI, "that any danger is avoided ofinsufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharistarising in the mind of the faithful", we run the risk of Holland.A Case in PointFather Ken Roberts informs us that Holland used to be a very Catholiccountry and was a vital source of missionary priests, but now itsvitality has been robbed when we see that after they adopted theprocedure of taking Communion in the hand, other things followed(removal of crucifixes and other images, as well as removal ofkneelers, the tabernacle, etc.). This became very patent when he sawthat on one occasion at Holland's cathedral when Mass was celebratedby their cardinal, only eight (8) faithful were present. We inAmerica have not yet reached this pathetic stage and are not too lateto halt the advances of the evil one who will stop at nothing in hisdrive to destroy our Church. "Liberal theology" and politicallycorrect agendas will continue to undermine our faith if we do nottake a stand armed with the truths given to our Church by Christ. Wemust oppose anything that seeks to erode our faithful following ofthe Vicar of Christ so that we as good children of Mary whom thedevil "wages war against" (Apocalypses 12: 17) can prevail and claimthe sublime promise of eternal life with our Creator and Father inthe company of our heavenly family.An Attempt to Justify the AbuseIn an attempt to justify taking Communion in the hand, it could beargued that the hand is not more sinful than the tongue and that allthat is being done is taking Communion as it was done during the LastSupper... Someone else may even say that holding the host in theirhands (and some kiss it before eating it) gives them a more intimaterelationship with Jesus and it is as if they were holding baby Jesusin their arms. Let us dispose of the last argument first. Theconsecrated host is not baby Jesus but the resurrected and glorifiedLord; as such, His sacramental presence is not equivalent to theprivilege given to Jesus' contemporaries. A more fittingrelationship to the Real Presence is the reaction of St. Thomas whokneels and exclaims: "My Lord, and my God" (John 20:28), or theencounter that the apostle John had with Jesus in heaven as relatedin the book of Revelations Chapter 2, verse 17: "When I saw him, Ifell at his feet as though dead"; this is the very apostle who once"was lying close to the breast of Jesus" (John 13:25), the "beloveddisciple." The apostles show us, as if in anticipation of the presentirreverence, the proper attitude vis-a-vis the resurrected Lord.We see the motivation for the change by reading "Memoriale Domini"where it states "in order to help the episcopal conference fulfilltheir pastoral office in today's often difficult situation". Somebishops, in an attempt to bridge that gap, encroached against "thelong received manner of ministering Holy Communion", for the dangersthat it warned against have not been avoided. Namely, of"insufficient reverence and false opinions of the Holy Eucharist." Itis not the purpose of this paper to establish that the hand is anyless or any more sinful than the mouth, but to indicate thatreceiving Communion in the hand introduces a de facto watering downof our faith, as well as possible desecration.Historically speaking, we have already established that Saint ThomasAquinas, all the way back in the 13th century, spoke authoritativelyand sternly about not touching the consecrated bread. We can thusconclude that the practice of Communion in the hand was wellestablished by then. When we search further back in history, we seethat Communion in the hand was viewed as an abuse at the Synod ofRouen in the year 650. Communion on the tongue is then, as the HolyFather Paul VI says, "a very ancient and venerable tradition."In order to dispose of the more insidious argument for takingcommunion in the hand, namely that the apostles received in the handduring the Last Supper, thus entitling anyone to receive theEucharist in this manner, we need to do a quick tour in biblicalexegesis that will indicate that the apostles were already priestswhen they received the Eucharist. Holy Orders and Washing of the FeetRituals in the Jewish tradition had both an immediate and a spiritualsignificance; for instance, it was customary to wash before eatingtogether, starting with their feet. The feet were first, since inthose days the roads were dusty and the feet were evidently the mostaffected by it. This constituted the practical and immediatesignificance. From the spiritual perspective, the feet were washedas a symbol of respect to someone of spiritual dignity; for instancein the case of Abraham receiving the three men after he had seen Godin Mamre (Genesis 18:3): "My Lord, if I have found favor in yoursight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought,and WASH YOUR FEET." This ritual is repeated when the two angels sentby the Lord to destroy Sodom, due to the homosexual depravity of thecity inhabitants, encounter Lot and he said: "Now behold, my lords,please turn aside into your servant's house and spend the night, andWASH YOUR FEET; then you may rise early and go on your way." Thisconcept is well in line with the passage in Isaiah 52:7 that states:"How beautiful upon the mountains are THE FEET of him who brings goodnews", referring to the Messiah. This apparent fixation on the feetis explained by the Hebrew euphemism that referring to the feet isequivalent to what occurs between them, namely the procreative act.This point is clearly seen in the passage where David, after havingimpregnated Uriah's wife, is intent in making her pregnancy appearthe act of her husband by forcing him to lie with her: "Go down toyour house, and WASH YOUR FEET" (2 Samuel 11:8), followed by theresponse of Uriah: "Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink,and to LIE WITH MY WIFE?" The Hebrews understood well the correlationof procreation and fatherhood, which had both the physicalsignificance as well as the spiritual one; indeed, the spiritualfatherhood is of greater importance. The washing of the feet thusestablishes the understanding that the person who is being washed hasthis spiritual fatherhood, which consists in the bringing of the goodnews and the establishing of the covenant with the one Father inheaven. Obviously, this concept could be discussed in a deeperfashion, but it is brought here up only schematically to illustratethat what was in operation during the washing of the feet of theapostles was indeed their reception of Holy Orders from Jesus, theOne whose feet were anointed with very expensive perfume.Indeed, the ministry received from Jesus in this fashion is suchthat, if the feet were not washed, Jesus could say to Peter: "If I donot wash you, you have no PART with me." The Greek word used by Jesusfor the word "part" is "æ " which is the same one used by the apostlePeter (previously Simon) with another individual having the nameSimon who proposed to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:21), apresumptuous intention to which Peter responds: "You have no PART orportion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God." Thiscondemnation is again very similar to what the Lord said about Judasduring the washing of the feet (John 13:11): "For He knew who was tobetray him; that was why He said, You are not all clean.'"In summary, the God who established the order in the universeestablishes the proper order at the Last Supper when He ordained Hispriests prior to giving them the command:"This is my body which is given up for you. DO THIS in remembranceof me." The Lord does not have to subject himself to this particularorder. His mere command to do so entitles the apostles to theirministry; however, in the same humility with which He washes theirfeet, He subjects Himself to a proper order of events, in order tofulfill all righteousness. It is in understanding this mystery thatthe laymen are called to refuse a non-reality, and acknowledge thatthey have not received Holy Orders, and reject any pretensions totake the Holy body of the Lord in our hands as if we were priests.ConclusionAll laymen should take to heart what the apostle St. Paul stated in 1Corinthians 10:23:"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All thingsare lawful, but not all things edify." Communion in the hand, thoughlawful, is not profitable, because it dilutes the significance of thecenter of our faith. Communion in the hand can lead to a cheapeningof what we must exalt. It can weaken our understanding of thesacrifice on Calvary. We note with solace that our present Pope, JohnPaul II, has prohibited the giving of Communion in the hand in SaintPeter's Basilica (see the appendix.) In summation, I would like torestate the well known assertion "Where Peter is, you will find theChurch", but would like to modify it by adding 'and where the Churchis, you will find the truth' (in a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 3:15: "theChurch is the pillar and foundation of our truth.") My desire is forpriests to align themselves with the Vicar of Christ in discouragingCommunion in the hand in their parishes. A vigorous teaching on thismatter could also be undertaken by the bishops so that all priestshave an opportunity to meditate on this matter and inform theirparishioners, accordingly, of the mind of the Church. To the laymenreading this article, I would like to appeal to their true reverencefor the host. Aligning ourselves with the Pope, we should resolve totake Communion, as he wishes us to take it, in the mouth.-------------------------------------------------------------------Provided courtesy of:Eternal Word Television Network5817 Old Leeds RoadIrondale, AL 35210www.ewtn.com
Communion in the Hand
Monday September 10, 2001 Twenty-third Week in Ordinary Time
Reading (Colossians 1:24-2:3) Gospel (St. Luke 6:6-11)
In the first reading today Saint Paul, in his Letter to the Colossians, talks about how, in Christ, is hidden all treasures of wisdom and knowledge. This is because He is almighty God; He is the Creator of the universe; He is the Savior of the world; He is God, absolute and perfect. Saint Paul says at the beginning of the reading that he makes up in his flesh for what is lacking in the suffering of Christ, for the sake of Christ's body, the Church.
In Christ, now, there is no suffering, but only in the Mystical Body. But there is one place, which I would like to address this morning, where I believe that Our Lord is truly grieved. I want to challenge you in that area: That is, the manner by which we receive Holy Communion. The Church is very clear in Her documents that she desires that we would receive Holy Communion on the tongue and not in the hand. The bishops of America, as well as a few other countries in the world, have allowed Communion in the hand as a dispensation. But the Church is very, very clear that She does not want us receiving Communion in the hand.
Let me explain a little as to why. First of all, to receive is something that is passive. The priest takes Holy Communion because the priest is the one who offers the Victim in sacrifice. Therefore, the one who offers the Victim must also take part in that Victim. But the people of God are to receive Holy Communion. To take the Host from your hand and put It into your own mouth is to take Communion, not to receive Communion; and so it is an active thing, not a passive thing. The Lord desires to give Himself to you as a gift, not to be taken by you. We need to be very careful that we do not lose the symbolism of what is happening in the Blessed Sacrament.
Also, if you will notice, during Mass after the Consecration, my fingers remain together because of the particles of the Host that are there. When we take Holy Communion in the hand, there are particles of Our Lord that are on our hands and on our fingers. That is why, after Communion, the priest will purify his fingers - because of the particles of the Host. But how often the people of God, after receiving Holy Communion, simply brush the particles onto the ground and walk on Our Lord. Or they put their hands in their pockets, and Our Lord is right there on their clothing. The abuses that this opens them up to are very grave. Not that anyone is intentionally doing that, but I think it is something that we need to consider exceedingly carefully.
What I always tell people is that you can look forward to the Day of Judgment and ask yourself how you intend to approach Our Lord, because He is your Judge. The same Lord you approach in Holy Communion is the same One you will approach on the Day of Judgment. Do you assume that you will put your hand out to Our Blessed Lord on the Day of Judgment? Is your view of judgment that you will shake Our Lord's hand and tell Him how wonderful it is to see Him? Or is your view that you will do great reverence to Our Blessed Lord? My view is that I will be flat on my face - not shaking His hand.
We do not put out our hand to God. Scripture says that God holds us in the palm of His hand. We should not be holding God in the palm of ours. He created us; He made us in His image and likeness. He is the Creator; we are the creature. We must approach Him with the greatest reverence, the greatest respect.
If we simply look at the fruit that has been borne by Holy Communion being taken in the hand, it is not good: the loss of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament, the familiarity. Thankfully it is not happening here, but go to most churches and ask yourself if you see people praying before Mass or if they are chatting, goofing around, and talking. We have lost the reverence for the Real Presence because Jesus is just "our buddy" when we put our hand out to Him; He is not our God when we do that. So we need to be very careful.
But beyond that, we can look also at what has happened spiritually to the people of God. Since we have been receiving Communion in the hand, we have lost sight of the idea of going to Confession, of our own sinfulness, of the reverence we must have for Our Lord. We have made Communion so easy a thing and so nonchalant a thing that people have lost that sense of reverence, of awe, and of respect in the Presence of Our Lord.
I challenge you to think very seriously about this issue. The bishops, like I say, have allowed it; it is not a sin if you receive Holy Communion in the hand. In some places in the early Church they did that; Saint Justin talks about it. But the Church stopped it because of the abuses against the Blessed Sacrament that were occurring. I ask you to really pray about that. Look at Jesus in the Eucharist and ask yourself, "Do I really, truly believe that this is God? That this is my Creator and my Redeemer? How, then, do I desire to approach Him?" I really believe, if you pray that through, that there is only one conclusion to which you can come.
Then, I beg you, do not remain silent about it. Tell your friends. Tell your family. Bring that word to others because all those good people out there, I do not think that they are willfully trying to do anything that would grieve Our Lord; they are doing what they have been told to do. But again, look at what has happened in the last forty years of this particular practice and ask yourself if the fruit it has borne has been good. Obviously, you love Our Lord: You are here at daily Mass; you are here every morning. The love of Our Lord is evident in you. Bring that love of Jesus out from here. The love that is in your heart, proclaim it to others and ask them in the same way to consider their actions toward Our Lord. Let us bring the reverence to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament back so that we can give Him fitting worship and praise because He is God, in whom all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are contained.
* This text was transcribed from the audio recording with minimal editing.
