According to how I read the official documentation Brian posted, Bishops only have authority to allow communion in the hand as a secondary option, they never have authority to ban communion on the tongue.
At the funeral if my childhood priest (a holy man) the deacon who gave the homily said in his homily we shouldn't assume the priest is in heaven. As one of his reasons he gave...The priest had a hard time giving Communion in the hand after the changes in the Mass. The priest was always very reverent about the Eucharist. He (the deacon) also made a point of ridiculing of Communion on the tongue, as if it no longer exists. When I went up for Communion the deacon was distributing... I stood for perhaps 20 seconds with my mouth open waiting for him to place it on my tongue, after my "amen". I finally opened my eyes and he says "do you wish to receive?" I say yes and open my mouth again. He forcefully shoves the host on my tongue. Shortly after, on Christmas morning I had a beautiful dream of my beloved childhood priest in heaven. I do prefer on the tongue, but recognize the Bishop's authority to also allow in the hand. I also completely empathize with those who would rather starve than risk abusing the Body of Christ.
I read a wonderful story from Paris, France in the late 1800's. There was a a group of students at the time who were, 'Free Thinkers' (atheists) who were very ,very anti Catholic and all things to with religion and used to laugh and joke and mock anything to do with the Faith. They decided as a ,' Joke' to steal a Host and after doing so why placed it the mantle piece of one students appartment. There they used to entertain themselves by throwing things at it and laughing and joking and making little of it. This went on for quite some months. However the young man who rented the place began to notice something very strange. That the atmosphere in his dwelling had changed. There was a kind of loving warmth there. It was a totally different atmosphere than anywhere else in the city. He began to realise that the centre of the change was that host. After that he began to change himself and almost against his will he began to pray. Eventually he repented, brought the host to local priest and told his sad tale. What he had done was a reserved sin and only the Archbishop of Paris could forgive. So they went there and the Bishop ordered prayers of reparation and adoration throughout the city. The young man converted, was forgiven and lived a very devout life the rest of his days...
" Truth About Communion in the Hand While Standing UNKNOWN A close friend of mine and my Pastor, Fr. Richard Heilman, brings us our guest post for today on the questionable origins of communion in the hand. This was Father's homily today which he adapted into a post for NLM. He compiled most of this from various articles and sources. Fr. Heilman is a priest of the Diocese of Madison, WI. In my efforts to restore a sense of the sacred in the liturgy, I have often been accused of being “pre-Vatican II.” I usually correct them by saying I am exactly Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council called for few changes in the liturgy, understanding that there had been a great many changes to the Roman liturgy over the centuries, to be sure, but they had been gradual and organic, and typically imperceptible. However, in all of church history, there was never anything like what happened in the years following this Council, in respect to the liturgy. This weekend we had our first Masses with the new Communion rail. After one of these Masses I was talking with one of the old guard parishioners (great guy), and he loved the rails. He told me that "years ago" (I love that expression), they had a Parish Council meeting, and Fr. X wanted to remove the side altars (along with many other alterations), in this beautiful church. The old guard parishioner said, "It was a hard fought battle that night, but we wore him down and he did only minor alterations.” I said, "My ... how times have changed ... that priest got criticized for trying to remove sacredness ... now I'm getting criticized for trying to bring it back." Since we were celebrating our new Communion rails, and the Gospel saw Peter, James and John fall prostrate before the presence of God - I deemed it a perfect time to shed some light on one of those post-Vatican II innovations – Communion in the hand while standing. We began with a little history lesson … An Indult Born Out of Disobedience The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world's bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful." After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church. Despite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence. Bernardin’s Campaign So how did Communion in the hand come to America? In 1975 and again in 1976, Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, the president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) attempted in vain to garner two-thirds of the bishops to vote in favor of receiving Communion in the hand. The following year – which coincided with the end of Bernardin’s term as president – brought one final attempt. Bernadin appointed Archbishop Quinn, who became Bernardin’s immediate successor as NCCB president, to be the chief lobbyist for Communion in the hand. During the proceedings a brave bishop requested a survey of the bishops be taken – this survey would ask each bishop whether or not Communion in the hand was widely practiced in his diocese, for without the practice’s current wide-use the first condition of the indult would not be satisfied. *Of course, everyone knew that Communion in the hand was not a previously established practice in the United States. Though his request was seconded and supported in writing by five other bishops, Bernardin had the motion dismissed as “out of order.” The bishops then voted ... only to once more fall short of the two-thirds majority. This, however, did not end the matter. Bernardin decided to (unlawfully) begin gathering “absentee votes” from any bishop he could find – including retired bishops who no longer administered any dioceses. Consequently, the number was adjusted to meet the two-thirds majority. Pope Paul VI’s Regulations – Have they been met? So, what about Pope Paul VI’s regulations that could result in the loss of the indult? 1) Respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue) Reports are now widespread of priests refusing Communion to those who wish to receive kneeling and on the tongue. Even reports of priests berating people for this. A friend of mine said he was traveling and attended Mass where he proceeded to kneel and indicate that he wished to receive on the tongue. The minister of Holy Communion refused and ended up walking away from him. He remained. Finally, the priest came over and said, “Get up son, we don’t do it that way here.” My friend said, “So, you are refusing me Communion?” The priest said, “Yes I am.” He got up, walked out and reported him to the chancery. It is a severe infraction against canon law for any priest to do this. 2) Maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist While I can relate to many of the following, here is a testimony from a Deacon: I've watched a mother receive communion, her toddler in tow, then take it back to the pew and share it with him like a cookie. At least four or five times a year, I have to stop someone who just takes the host and wanders away with it and ask them to consume it on the spot. Once or twice a month I encounter the droppers. Many are well-intentioned folks who somewhere, somehow drop the host or it slides out of their hands and Jesus tumbles to the floor. I've found the Eucharist in a hymnal, under a pew, in the bathroom and in the parking lot. The Vatican does not allow communion in the hand … one reason is because tourists were taking the Holy Eucharist home as a souvenir of their trip to Rome. Not too long ago, I was alerted to someone who did not consume the Host. After Mass I confronted the young man, and he pulled it out of his shirt pocket. It seems he wasn’t Catholic and didn’t believe, and so didn’t know what to do. But, I am very worried these days, with the rise of satanic cults who use the Eucharist in their rites. In fact, someone shared this story of his youth, as he admitted these satanic cults are everywhere now … When I was in junior high I started hanging out and getting high with some of my older brothers’ friends. They would “play around” with ouija boards and tarot cards. They would get dropped off at “youth group” at church – go in the front door and out the back into the woods for sex, drugs, and booze. They would brand each other with pentagram rings and even sacrifice small animals. I never participated in it – cause I was the “little brother” – but they would talk about the Black Mass all the time. There was an older guy – our dealer – in his late twenties who claimed to be a wizard and showed us his pyx (I didn’t know what it was at the time) that he would use, because the priest at the Catholic Church he went to wouldn’t pay much attention, “well, they have a pyx, they must be legit!” He even said he could find hosts after most Masses on the floor or sometimes between hymnal pages, like bookmarks. I remember that, when he opened it to show us, he told us it was Jesus and that we were gonna “have a party” with him … well, I chickened out and went back to “youth” group – a couple nights later…our friend, after the “Jesus party” with the “wizard,” decapitated his sleeping aunt with a samurai sword because he “heard voices” telling him to … she was a regular Mass-attending woman; the only one left in the family. He’s locked up in a mental institution for life. When I started learning about Catholicism, I always remembered that awful time, and couldn’t – can’t – shake the feeling that my friend opened himself up to demonic possession by participating in the Black Mass that night…there were no drugs in his system when they arrested him that night.” 3) Strengthening the laity’s faith in the Real Presence: In 1950, 87% believed in the Real Presence. Today, that number has plummeted to a mere 34%.
The abusive and hurried manner in which the practice of Communion in the hand was imposed after Vatican II lead to a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist and caused great pain for many in the Church. It disoriented many people, who with real justification — especially in light of the recent and overwhelming loss of faith in the Eucharist as the real presence — feared that the very heart of Catholic belief had been compromised. So, we see that Pope Paul VI’s regulations for maintaining the temporary indult are not even close to being realized. Scholars and Saints Speak Why Kneel? Pope Benedict XVI, has noted that kneeling is "an expression of Christian culture, which transforms the existing culture through a new and deeper knowledge and experience of God." He reminds us that "the word proskynein alone occurs fifty-nine times in the New Testament, twenty-four of which are in the Apocalypse, the book of the heavenly liturgy, which is presented to the Church as the standard for her own liturgy." In his book The Spirit of the Liturgy, Pope Benedict speaks of a "story that comes from the sayings of the Desert Fathers, according to which the devil was compelled by God to show himself to a certain Abba Apollo. He looked black and ugly, with frightening thin limbs, but, most strikingly, he had no knees. The inability to kneel is seen as the very essence of the diabolical." Why Receive on the tongue? Despite the widespread practice of Communion in the hand, the universal discipline of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue has not changed. A bishop, for example, may forbid the practice of Communion in the hand but not the practice of Communion on the tongue. The Church strongly encourages the latter but not the former. With respect to Communion in the hand, the Church speaks only in a cautionary tone because of the many abuses that often accompany this practice. St. Thomas Aquinas reminds us, with respect to Communion in the hand … that reverence demands that only what has been consecrated should touch the Blessed Sacrament. He writes: The dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because . . . he consecrates in the person of Christ . . . Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence toward this sacrament nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest's hands, for touching this sacrament. Hence it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it, except from necessity — for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.In his apostolic letter Dominicae Cenae, Pope John Paul II also states: "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." Mother Teresa reportedly said, "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand." Even the great Pope John Paul II reportedly said: "There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it.” Become less so that you can then become more. Communion on the tongue helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety. To step up to a communion rail, and kneel, and receive on the tongue, is an act of utter and unabashed humility. In that posture to receive the Body of Christ, you become less so that you can then become more. It requires a submission of will and clear knowledge of what you are doing, why you are doing it, and what is about to happen to you. Frankly, we should not only be humbled, but intimidated enough to ask ourselves if we are really spiritually ready to partake of the sacrament. Kneeling means you can't just go up and receive without knowing how it's properly done. It demands not only a sense of focus and purpose, but also something else, something that has eluded our worship for two generations. It demands a sense of the sacred. Just like Peter, James and John before our Transfigured Lord, it challenges us to kneel before wonder. It insists that we not only fully understand what is happening, but that we fully appreciate the breathtaking generosity behind it. It asks us to be mindful of what "Eucharist" really means: Thanksgiving." https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.YcqQy2hBzIU
" On the other hand, there is also ample testimony from great saints like St. Basil, St. Gregory the Great, and St. Leo the Great, among others, suggesting that reception on the tongue was the standard for the early Church. For example, St. Basil the Great, doctor of the Church (AD 330–379), would teach: “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution” (e.g., the laity could touch the Host to distribute it secretly). The Councils of Saragossa (AD 380) and Toledo (fifth to seventh centuries) threatened excommunication to anyone who continued receiving holy Communion by hand. Similarly, the Synod of Rouen (AD 650) decreed: “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman ... only in their mouths.” The Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (AD 680–681) also forbade the taking of Communion in the hand by the laity, under threat of excommunication. And the Council of Trent (1565) added, “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.” This brings us to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest ... out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it except from necessity” (Summa Theologica). This is a powerful testimony, as much of the Church’s theology is based on the theology of St. Thomas. Taking all this into consideration, Memoriale Domini declared: “From the time of the Fathers of the Church ... Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid ... the dropping of Eucharistic particles [today, consecrated Hosts are regularly stolen for use in satanic Masses and other blasphemous practices – even sold on eBay!]; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.” It then mandated that “this method of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be retained” and “emphatically” urged “bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed ... by the majority of Catholic bishops.” But after all this, Memoriale Domini then added a surprising disclaimer, leaving an avenue open to those bishops currently in disobedience over this issue. “Where ... Communion on the hand prevails,” bishops could request an indult to continue this practice, and Rome would consider it. And these countries requested exactly that – and the indults were given – I am sure much to the sadness of St. Paul VI. A flood of requests then followed from countries, including Canada, where Communion on the hand did not prevail. These countries hadn’t been given permission to even ask for this indult. But ask they did... But the point is that the very document that permitted the seeking of an indult for Communion on the hand in very limited cases at the same time strongly advocated for Communion on the tongue, adding that it “is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist” and is “needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body” (Memoriale Domini)." https://bccatholic.ca/voices/graham-osborne/receiving-holy-communion-tongue-or-hand
Very good discussion! I see a trend, which being that as persons become more and more converted in their journey with Jesus, they themselves start taking on the tongue instead of in the hand. This seems to be from an interior prompting rather than exterior, and as my confessor once told me about interior promptings and locutions: Always ignore any voices that go against the slightest teaching of the Church, but do not be afraid to follow those promptings that ask you to be more reverent at Mass. We can never be TOO reverent in the presence of our Lord. I think that is excellent advice!
We should receive Holy Communion in order to console and please the Lord. For e.g. since Our Lady has promised us Five Holy Communions received devoutly and reverently, on Five Consecutive First Saturdays, will be enough to obtain the Graces to save our own souls, then it is reasonable to believe, if we go on offering 5 for our Families and Friends - provided we do so devoutly, kneeling, on the tongue, sure to please Our Lord and not worrying about pleasing people - we can ensure that they too, by the Grace of God, receive all the graces necessary to be saved. Communion Kneeling and on the Tongue was the Universal Tradition for over a 1000 years before Vatican II; it bore only good fruits and there is no reason to give up on it. Meanwhile, modern experimentation has led to some polls showing 70% of nominal Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence - a real consequence of Holy Communion in the hand, of not receiving devoutly and reverently.
A new twist I've seen is to need to break out the hand-sanitizer during Communion by the Priest handing out communion. This is a new concern I have seen and it seems to be a distraction. We are still not receiving the blood of Christ, the wine in Church and I'm not sure that will happen anytime soon. Using the hands are fine with me.
Memoriale Domini declared: “From the time of the Fathers of the Church ... Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid ... the dropping of Eucharistic particles b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.” ____________________________________ Thank you, Xavier! The above obviously demonstrates the preference and intent of the Church. If "on the tongue" is a means to greater love and devotion to Holy Communion, I will follow the Church's instruction. Jesus, I trust in Thee!
At the same time, it is not justified to claim that Communion in the hand is necessarily less reverent or inevitably leads to abuses. There are many devout Catholics who find this practice helpful. 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. It is not clear as to how widespread it was or if it was a regular practice. As with all historical practices, one must examine the context and circumstances which are usually not repeatable. 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. From the point of view of liturgical law, the relevant documents are the following. A letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship to presidents of bishops’ conferences on May 29, 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Notitiae 5 (1969) 351-353: “In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. At the same time he has taken into account the reasons given to support your request and the outcome of the vote taken on this matter. The Pope grants that throughout the territory of your conference, each bishop may, according to his prudent judgment and conscience, authorize in his diocese the introduction of the new rite for giving communion. The condition is the complete avoidance of any cause for the faithful to be shocked and any danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist. The following norms must, therefore, be respected. “1. The new manner of giving communion must not be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional practice. It is a matter of particular seriousness that in places where the new practice is lawfully permitted every one of the faithful has the option of receiving communion on the tongue and even when other persons are receiving communion in the hand. The two ways of receiving communion can without question take place during the same liturgical service. There is a twofold purpose here: that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source, and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful. “2. The rite of communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately. Since the question involves human attitudes, this mode of communion is bound up with the perceptiveness and preparation of the one receiving. It is advisable, therefore, that the rite be introduced gradually and in the beginning within small, better-prepared groups and in favorable settings. Above all, it is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis so that the people will clearly understand the meaning of receiving in the hand and will practice it with the reverence owed to the sacrament. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well as any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist. Objecting to Communion in the Hand | EWTN If we are just cutting and pasting answers, looks like the counterview is available as well. There are more Catholics in Africa today than in the world Pre-Vatican II. Thus, those who believe they have the answer to all. In fact, on topic: What Happened After Vatican II? - The Catholic Thing One may reject what he says, this website though, is usually on the mark.
Feeding someone directly in the mouth is an expression of affection, like parents feeding their children or couples feeding each other little bites of food.
The one thing Communion in the hand does threaten, merely due to additional handling (from hand to mouth), is a greater risk of lost fragments. To tell the truth, what initially motivated me to return to receiving on the tongue was the desire to kneel before my Lord when receiving. And when I knelt, reception on the tongue seemed more natural (a return to days of old- I'm 68). The letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship which you quoted, begins this subject with the stated preference of the Pope: A letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship to presidents of bishops’ conferences on May 29, 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Notitiae 5 (1969) 351-353: “In reply to the request of your conference of bishops regarding permission to give communion by placing the host on the hand of the faithful, I wish to communicate the following. Pope Paul Vl calls attention to the purpose of the Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969, on retaining the traditional practice in use. It was not the intention of the Holy Father that "receiving in the hand" would become as prevalent as it is today, rather it was to be the exception. Cardinal Arinze makes this clear when stating that Holy Communion on the tongue cannot be refused. But I condemn no one who chooses to receive on the hand. My Lord and my God!
When one thoughtfully probes this issue in an in-depth manner, it appears Mother Church has thought this through much more fully than I. I can't say it is sinful to receive on the hand, but the evidence highlighting the preference to receive on the tongue grows the longer one researches the matter. Little did I know where the road would lead when I first headed down it 13 hours ago. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/...ld-only-receive-holy-communion-on-the-tongue/ My Lord and my God!
Good video. Cardinal Arinze would have been the ideal Pope. The apologists wouldn't have had to twist themselves inside out trying to find a way to pass off ambiguity as nuance. They still can't invent a nuanced explanation as to why a preference for kneeling in adoration to receive Our Lord and Saviour on the tongue is frowned upon while kneeling bum in air and forehead to the ground before a pagan idol is perfectly acceptable.
If the Fatima angel bowed down before our Eucharistic Lord prior to giving Holy Communion to the children, then that speaks volumes to me.
Me too. Something you said earlier resonated with me. As a very lukewarm Catholic, I used to be a big supporter of Communion in the hand. Now it saddens me to see the lack of respect at Communion. What saddens me most is looking back at my own irreverence. Now, I rely heavily on the prayer "Lord, I believe. Please cure my unbelief".
