Communion in the Hand: An Ecumenical Gesture of a Defiant Symbol

Communion in the Hand: An Ecumenical Gesture of a Defiant Symbol

For Catholics who attend the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite religiously, communion in the hand is generally not a concern; for receiving on the tongue is the norm. However, if you are like me and periodically attend the Novus Ordo Mass during the week because your FSSP parish is not as close as you prefer or don't offer Mass at a manageable time, then you may find yourself faced with an important decision: do I receive in the hand or not? If you are standing in a line for Holy Communion and no one is kneeling and few are receiving on the tongue —I admit I used to hesitate, as not to be the odd man out. Do you conform to what everyone else is doing so as not to draw attention to yourself, even though your conscience may be telling you otherwise? Some may argue that it is good etiquette to, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do," so as not to offend the "presiding" priest of that parish or appear holier than thou. The most important question you should ask is, "In what way can I best Glorify Jesus?" Pope Paul's New Mass by Michael Davies —from which I will be paraphrasing primarily, I hope to give some history and context regarding why the practice of receiving communion in the hand (CIH) is steeped in controversy. 

SUBVERSION OF THE FAITH BY PRIMITIVE PRACTICE

The primary argument that proponents of CIH give is that the Apostles received CIH by Jesus at the Last Supper. This is true, yet we must realize that peter was first consecrated as bishops prior to the supper when Jesus by the giving of the Keys to Peter and again to the others later at the Ascension. CIH was a common practice in the early church; however, it is accepted that the pastoral practice and our understanding of truths can develop over time.

We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity. And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will probably be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law, and worship than the Catholicism of the present day. (Adam 2)

This spirit of reversion to primitive practice is something characteristic of Protestantism and heresy. Many a denomination has been formed on singular beliefs and practices that are used as banners and slogans to support their own schism. Pope Pious the XII warns of the practice of reviving obsolete practices, "[it is] a wicked movement that tends to paralyze the sanctifying and salutary action by which the liturgy leads the children of adoption on the path to their Father." He more fully explains:

The liturgy of early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavor of antiquity. More recent liturgical rites are also worthy of reverence and respect, because they too have been introduced under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, who is with the Church in all ages even to the consummation of the world . . .the desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table; to want black excluded from the liturgical colors, and pictures and statues excluded from our churches [all of which have been done in the modern parish]... This attitude is an attempt to revive the ‘archaeologism’ to which the pseudo synod of Pistoia gave rise; it seeks also to re-introduce the many pernicious errors which led to that synod and resulted from it and which the Church, in her capacity of watchful guardian of ‘the deposit of faith’ entrusted to her by her Divine Founder has rightly condemned. (Pious XII) [Emphasis mine]

As is seen, a reintroduction of primitive practices has the occasion of letting in old errors which the improved practices had been successful in squelching. Furthermore, we can see informal evidence of this by the lack of Eucharistic Adoration in Novus Ordo parishes as well as widespread abuse and lack of reverence in the distribution of the Holy Eucharist. The occasion for abuse is much more difficult in the Tridentine Mass while receiving our Lord in the kneeling position at an alter rail and on the tongue.

EARLY PRACTICES AND CHANGES

Receiving on the tongue was not officially prescribed until The Synod of Rouen in the year 650 and we see it in the Roman Ordo in the ninth century, but Davies presupposes that the practice had been long-established in the region. Whatever the reason for the change, it was for the better and must have stemmed from a blossoming in understanding and respect for the Eucharist in addition to possible abuses. 

Early customs of receiving communion by women included a cloth called a dominical which was placed over their hands and the Host placed inside of it. This practice was mention by St. Cyril of Jerusalem and the text is edited to be used to propagandize CIH as the preferred method for receiving. Here is the text by the Saint: 

Approaching therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding “Amen”. Then carefully sanctifying the eyes by touching them with the holy Body, partake of it, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it. For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones? 

Then, after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, come forward only for the cup of the Blood. Do not stretch out your hands but bow low as if making an act of obeisance and a profound act of veneration. Say “Amen”, and sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ’s Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs. Finally, wait for the prayer and give thanks to God, who has deemed you worthy of such mysteries. (Cyril of Jerusalem)

The practices of touching sensory organs and kissing the Host were extravagant ways of showing reverence; the inherent dangers are apparent. This practice is later recorded by Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus in Syria and St. John Damascus.

ONLY WHAT IS CONSECRATED SHOULD CONTACT THE BLESSED SACRAMENT

Not until the mid thirteenth century was the tradition of only the priests touching the Host recorded. Thomas Aquinas gives us the reasons: 

The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above, he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. 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 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, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency. (Aquinas P.III,Q.82,A.13)[Emphasis mine]

Although objectively speaking something that is consecrated is set apart from things that are profane, some do not accept that the priest has special privileges to handle the Eucharist. This is made manifest in certain pamphlets distributed at the era in which this change was being made —yet we read contrariwise from Aquinas. More evidence can be read in the Roman Pontifical, where the traditional ordination rite attests, "Realize what you are doing, model yourselves on what you handle, and as you celebrate the mystery of the Lord’s death, see that your  bodies are wholly dead to every vice and carnal pleasure." [Emphasis mine] It is clear that the expectation was that the newly ordained would be handling Christ primarily otherwise it would not specifically mention it. 

Saint John Paul II also indicates an understanding that the priests’ consecrated hands are for the purpose of contacting that which is sacred as is written in the encyclical Dominicae Cenae:

    Over and above our commitment to the evangelical mission, our greatest commitment consists in exercising this mysterious power over the body of the Redeemer, and all that is within us should be decisively ordered to this. We should also always remember that to this ministerial power we have been sacramentally consecrated, that we have been chosen from among men "for the good of men."We especially, the priests of the Latin Church, whose ordination rite added in the curse of the centuries the custom of anointing the priest's hands, should think about this.

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual Episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist…

    But 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. 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, but always after an adequate preparation. (John Paul II) [Emphasis in the original]

The connection between the consecrated hand and the distribution of communion is clear and its clarity and emphasis is indicative of its preference. Although it is true that a form of communion in the hand was practiced in the early Church, communion on the tongue is recorded as early as the sixth century and became a widespread practice in the Middle Ages — a practice which blossomed from a healthy fear of the Lord.  Davies makes an interesting realization regarding Satan’s work in these liturgical changes, “Indeed, it is impossible not to see the destruction of the Roman Rite as the greatest triumph of Satan since the Protestant Reformation —and it appears that the Father of Lies is running out of ideas as he is making precisely the same changes now as he did then.” (Davies)

A SYMBOL OF DISBELIEF IN THE REAL PRESENCE

Satan’s unoriginality with the scandal of CIH (and to Protestants, its practice is intended as a scandal indeed) was originally manifested by Cranmer and his ilk by his own liturgical reform prescribed in his 1552 Prayer Book. This practice —a specific symbol reflecting an outright denial of transubstantiation — is unacceptable in Catholic Liturgy; there is no apparent benefit for devolving back to this practice. This reversion, although meant as a concession to protestant ecumenism —has done more to profane the Body of Christ, than its intent to draw the heretics in. It is utterly laughable to think that any protestant would change their liturgy to accommodate Catholics.

HOW IT CAME TO PASS

            Our story begins in Holland soon after Vatican II, where communion in the hand was re-instituted by progressive clergy, despite it not being approved —and like many other abuses that take place today —remain unchecked by bishops. These abuses spread to other European countries; left unchecked they became established norms in those churches, which later became a prerequisite for Episcopal conferences to petition Rome to legalize it.

            As a result of this abuse Pope St. Paul VI consulted Episcopal conferences around the world in a letter on October 28, 1968, to express their thoughts on the matter. The response of the bishops was overwhelmingly against it: they encouraged retention of the traditional practice, that it does not detract from the dignity of the communicant, and that the innovation will lead to a decline in Eucharistic understanding and reverence. Consequently, Memorale Domini, a letter of instruction and reiteration of the traditional form of distribution, was disseminated out to Church for its common good. There was a caveat however, that those places in which the practice had been “established” may continue in that practice, with the proviso that two thirds of the Episcopal conference approves it, another prerequisite before the Holy See would sanction it; this was all the progressives needed to manipulate their situation elsewhere —albeit their adoption of the change is ex post facto, making it a disobedient and subversive strategy.

            Regretfully, thanks to the seeds of CIH propaganda that were sown via pamphlet form in the minds of the faithful (who did not ask for the change to begin with), bad fruits were ripening. As we know this change is now the norm in most parishes, it has never been the preferred method —which is visible in Rome today because it is forbidden throughout Italy.

CONCLUSION

As is shown, the early practices of receiving communion —although similar, was quite different than the irreverent buffet of today. The faithful used dominical and revered the Eucharist with kissing and physical application to their bodies to receive blessings. As time progressed, this practice died off — probably due to abuses and the increased understanding of the theology of the true presence in the Host. This development and blossoming of understanding of the dogmas serves as an advancement in worshiping the Lord in an appropriate way and to regress into and archaic form of worship is as Pope Leo XII warns a “pernicious error”. Furthermore we must also realize and revere our priests’ fingers which are consecrated for the express purpose of confecting and handling our Lord —a liturgical practice that would otherwise serve no purpose. Communion in the hand —which is a practice Protestants have adopted as a blatant symbol of disbelief in the real presence —does not give proper adoration to what we handle; it is licit, but is not optimal. With all that said, if you are in that communion line, receive on the tongue in confidence, for it is a practice that reflects the theology of the real presence.

Work Cited

Adam, Karl. Spirity of Catholocism. New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1954.

Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Summa Theologiae. n.d.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint. Catechetical Lecture 23: On the Mysteries. V.;On the Sacred Liturgy and Communion. 10 September 2015 <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm>.

Davies, Michael. "Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds." 1998. Catholic Tradition. 9 September 2015 <http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion.htm>.

 Pope Pauls New Mass. Angelus Press, 2009.

John Paul II, Pope Saint. Dominicae Cenae. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 24 February 1980.

Pious XII, Pope. Mediator Dei. 20 November 1947. 10 September 2015 <http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html>.