But whatever the case, it is the Pope who decides to authorize it for countries, and it is indisputable that he did so. [5] John Climacus, Ladder of Divine Ascent 28. For this reason, since the question of Communion in the hand is not a question of faith as such, and it has been approved by the legitimate authority, I do not believe that a priest can invoke conscience as a motive for refusing to apply a legitimate law. You should thus draw near with great awe and love, according to the greatness of that which is given: with awe, because of the greatness of (its) honour; and with love, because of (its) grace. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 4). It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful have the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. And of course Pope Paul VI was adamant that all the reforms carried out under him were faithful to the Second Vatican Council. cites vote tallies to defend a claim that a large majority (longe plurimos) of bishops not only oppose introducing Communion in the hand but consider it tum sensui tum spirituali cultui [] offensioni In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. 895. However, while this text is undoubtedly ancient evidence of the existence of Communion in the hand, it is, like many patristic texts, fraught with interpretative conundrums. Fr. After receiving Communion our bodies become holy chalices. The wind has left our sails and many of us are adrift on uncertain seas. II], From the historical point of view, we can say that there is strong evidence that the practice existed in early centuries in some areas of the Church. Therefore I stand by what I wrote in the original: In this context I think it is fair to say that the present practice of Communion in the hand is not a simple restoration of a historical custom but rather introduced a new practice in new circumstances which, while it has some historical justification, is essentially motivated by current pastoral concerns in some parts of the world.. Hence, my theory is that the wide granting of the indult exceeded its initially intended scope as continued prompting from advisors and larger-than-anticipated requests from conferences overcame the popes reluctance. North Africa,October 15 1969 It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning within small, better prepared groups and in favorable settings. I mean WHAT SPECIFIC REASONS were given for requesting it in the first place? Our worship ought to create common unity under Christ, not destroy it. Now we feel our affluence threatened, and the Gospel gives no comfort on that front. The symptoms are myriadI certainly would assent to much of what you cite. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.. In order to be properly disposed to . We owe the Lord as much attention to detail. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCBs) mission is to encounter the mercy of Christ and to accompany His people with joy. 5.21, trans. (Original Latin text here, see pp. For this alone is the eating referred to by our Lord ( John 6:58 ). St. ), Pray Tell: An open forum on faith in South Texas. I think that settles it. Rather maddeningly, it is the Anglicans who in the West have retained the practice as described by St. Cyril, while contemporary Latin-rite Catholics tend to consume the Host as if it were a potato chip., From the historical point of view, we can say that there is strong evidence that the practice existed in early centuries in some areas of the Church. A Journal of the McGrath Institute for Church Life, by Elizabeth Klein [10] See John Damascene, On the Orthodox Faith, 4.13. 3. Look how military inspectors demand very high standards of care when inspecting barracks for cleanliness. It is clear that this mode of reception was considered reverent and was to be carried out in a reverent manner. Our procession should move with dignity; our bearing should be that of those who know they have been redeemed by Christ and are coming to receive their God! The [Seraph] did not hold it, and [Isaiah] did not eat it All the rites which use leavened bread are reverent but not obsessive. For you hear the words, the Body of Christ and respond Amen. Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true (St. Augustine, Sermon 272: PL 38, 1247). The Council of Saragossa, 380, excommunicated anyone who dared continue to receive Holy Communion in the hand. The causes are myriad and often interconnected. awr. Sacrilege is at an all-time high, yet use of the Sacrament of Confession is at an all-time low. Roland Teske (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001). 21. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the InstructionMemoriale Dominiof 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. The very idea of people regularly receiving Communion (and even receiving Communion as part of the liturgy to the Eucharist itself) were relatively new ideas at the time of the Council. Luxembourg, October 15 1969 A: The answer to this question is somewhat complex. The missal of 1570 eliminated almost all sequences and moved the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar to the beginning of the Order of Mass though the Council of Trent never said a word about either. The option offered to the faithful of receiving the Eucharistic bread in their hand and putting it into their own mouth must not turn out to be the occasion for regarding it as ordinary bread or as just another religious article. Aaron, This is precisely why there are occasions when pastoral prudence can lead to suspend the permission. In the light of the above, we can come to the heart of the matter as to whether a priest may invoke the question of conscience in order to refuse to distribute Communion in the hand. Nowhere in this article did I see what the CHURCH says about Holy Communion, only the writers opinion. Bishop Athanasius Schneider argued along the same lines at the end of February. 13.3, trans. Have reverence for the honor which God has bestowed upon it, and do not lead it down to the vileness of sin.[27]. (or: Which Heresy Will You Give Up for Lent? Their attitude of reverence must measure up to what they are doing. To that which you are you respond Amen (yes, it is true!) and by responding to it you assent to it. First, Cyril: Coming up to receive, therefore, do not approach with your wrists extended or your fingers splayed, but making your left hand a throne for the right (for it is about to receive a King) and cupping your palm, so receive the Body of Christ; and answer: "Amen." [20] Here is what Theodore says: Still, while not the direction eventually taken, I believe restriction to be the more natural reading of the Vaticans intent at that moment in time. Featured Image: Rossano Gospels, Last Supper, 6th c.; Source: Wikimedia Commons, PD-Old-100. The way you put it, it doesnt sound obsessive-compulsive but salutary. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. Todd, yes, the Church as a whole is growing thanks to the great efforts of missionaries in Africa and Asia (many are now coming back here), and yes, more people are receiving the Sacraments now than ever. This helps explain why this line of thought isnt gaining much traction except on the right fringe. Permission for administering Communion in the hand was granted by the Holy See to the United States on June 17, 1977 and has since become almost the universal norm in the Ordinary Form. Nor did the Vatican interpret it that way, near as I can tell. [4] Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John 6.1 and 12.1. Ever since the InstructionMemoriale Dominithree years ago, some of the conferences of bishops have been requesting the Apostolic See for the faculty to allow ministers distributing communion to place the eucharistic bread in the hand of the faithful. The custom of placing the Sacred Particle in the mouth, rather than in the hand of the communicant, dates in Rome from the sixth, and in Gaul from the ninth century (Van der Stappen, IV, 227; cf. Follow-up: Objecting to Communion in the Hand (10-16-2018), Pursuant to my reflections on Communion in the hand (October 2), a reader from France claimed that It is totally justified to claim that Communion in the hand is necessarily less reverent or inevitably leads to abuses. The two ways of receiving communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. I used the wordnecessarilyas an equivalent to in and of itself. There is no inherent reason why Communion in the hand is less reverent. The person distributing Communion says audibly to each person approaching, "The Body of Christ." But there is more to the story. Father, as to the limitation on what regions might request this indult, Memoriale Domini stipulated that Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See [] lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there []. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. 284-287 is to be followed.. Fire came down and consumed the sacrifices of Elijah As with all historical practices, one must examine the context and circumstances which are usually not repeatable.. [11] In East Syria (what we would now call the Middle East) we have evidence from Ephrem the Syrian[12] and Narsai. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. The problem is a lack of intentionality across the board, starting with the laity. Receiving Communion The Sacrament of Holy Communion (also known as The Lord's Supper or Eucharist) has been precious and life-giving to Christians for 2,000 years. Churches are closing, priests are dying off, masses young people are dropping their faith, and the Church is slowly slipping into obscurity in its own homeland. I similarly think Cardinal Sarahs frankly ridiculous comments about Lucifer are draining credibility from his cause (one that I admittedly align with sometimes), even if some of his proposals are good ones. However, it was a brief exchange with ones immediate neighbors and at a time when men and women occupied separate aisles in the church. At Christ's invitation, extended by the priest acting in Christ's person: "Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb," the members of the community move forward to share in the sacred meal, to receive the Body and Blood of Christ which is the sign and the source of their unity. All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another. With regard to the first precept, Origen of Alexandria cautions, You who are accustomed to take part in divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration lest any small part fall from it, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. In the case of communion under both kinds by way of intinction, it is never permitted to place on the hand of the communicant the host that has been dipped in the Lords blood.. Never receive Holy Communion in the hand when your hands are impeded; e.g., carrying a cane or some other walking-assistance device, carrying a child in your arms, carrying a purse, have a tissue or handkerchief in your hand, have a cast on your hand, etc. The oldest reference to the Eucharist in the New Testament occurs in chapters 11 and 12 of the First Letter to the Corinthians, which has no reference to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. What a Priest Might Do If He Wants to Avoid It. For whatever reason, reception on the hand does not appear to convey the same level of reverence in the public consciousness as reception on the tongue. Devotion and reverence toward the Eucharist in the case of communion in the hand. In the United States, the body of Bishops has determined that "[t]he norm is that Holy Communion is to be received standing, unless an individual member of the faithful wishes to receive Communion while kneeling"and that a bow is the act of reverence made by those receiving (no. All of us are only grasping a hint of it. Do we accept an experience of the Real Presence only when the externals and the lingo of 1950 are seen and heard? It is now August 2020 and I can say that you have been proven wrong. On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts. It should be noted that it is never permissible for a person to dip the host he or she has received into the chalice. These considerations can perhaps help balance our perspective (whether in favor or against the practice of communion in the hand), and alert us to the fact that reverence is a complex phenomenon that, of course, does involve postures of the body, but most importantly, the attitude of the heart. First, Chrysostom in one of his Homilies on Ephesians: What, do you not see the holy vessels so thoroughly cleansed all over, so resplendent? The author claims that Communion in the hand could only be authorized in countries where it was an established practice but doesnt give a citation. Paul W. Harkins ACW 31 (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1963). Care must also be taken that the communicants have clean hands and that their comportment is becoming and in keeping with the practices of the different peoples. Under the moral aspect will be considered, in reference to Holy Communion: necessity; subject; dispositions. The Church in Europe struggled mightilyand some might say in futilityagainst centuries of violence, sect on sect, nation vs nation. Has done [16] Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, 4.24. 95% of parishes shrinking, seminaries empty, young people disengaged: it will happen in Africa and Asia too when the culture of the secular West overwhelms the Third World. Indeed, it can be dangerous for contagion. Whether to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue are liturgical disciplines, not dogmas. If a priest has great personal difficulty due to deeply and sincerely held views regarding this practice, he can always petition the bishop for a personal exemption or a permission to not apply this permission to his parish. can. If, for some reason, the communicant is not able or willing to drink from the cup then that person should receive only under the form of bread. Guidelines for Receiving Holy Communion. Does anyone have an explanation for why France, Germany, and the Low Countries were not quickly regularized once the opportunity was available? Surveys from CARA and Pew reflect this, though I admittedly doubted them until I attended mass with a fellow Catholic at church that predominantly received on the tongue and my friend jeering remarked, why dont they receive in the hand like normal people?