THE LITURGISTS GET ME A TICKING-OFF FOR CALLING COMMUNION IN THE HAND NASTY NAMES

‘Leaders of the Church have too often been narcissists, gratified and sickeningly excited by their courtiers’

 – Pope Francis, in a 2013 interview with La Repubblica magazine.

 

In my  NZ Catholic September column I described the practice of Communion in the hand was ‘antiquarian, abusive, Lutheran and Protestant’. It wasn’t long before certain liturgists taking exception to these remarks reported them to episcopal authority and I was ticked off for being ‘completely wrong.’
 

There’s only so much you can say in the 500 words I’m allotted by NZ Catholic, so I’m posting here the Church’s documentation for my case (see below).

Putting aside the question of whether it’s possible to return to Communion on the tongue (and why not, the same way it was mandated in 650 AD by the Council of Rouen), Communion in the hand is the most egregious example of damage done in the wake of Vatican II by altering the liturgy illegally to suit personal preference and convenience.
 

I’m not implying our NZ bishops are the ‘narcissists’ so unflatteringly described by Pope Francis. More likely, they just don’t have the energy to buck the trend in the Western Church (although not in the greater part of the world) towards Communion in the hand, which must account in large part for the drastic decline in those episcopates in Mass attendance and priestly and religious vocations.

The great danger is that with the illegal practice of Communion in the hand having succeeded so spectacularly, other harmful changes may be insinuated in the same way.
 

St John of the Cross has something to say about this sort of thing. Firstly he observes that ‘Among the many wiles used by the devil to deceive spiritual persons, the most ordinary is that of deceiving them under an appearance of what is good, not under an appearance of what is evil: for he knows that if they recognize evil, they will scarcely touch it’.  

He then remarks that we should never do anything, ‘however good and full of charity it may seem to be’ without the sanction of obedience. (When did you last hear that word spoken in Church circles – or any others? But without obedience how can we become like Christ who was ‘obedient unto death’ (Phil 2, 8)?)   

In New Zealand we all went along with Communion in the hand thinking it had been mandated by Vatican II when actually it was dreamed up by some rogue bishops (‘narcissists?’, egged on by pseudo-liturgists and innovative priests and religious) in the Netherlands. We’ve been taken for a ride. Read the documentation below and see what you think.  

But I humbly and happily admit my comment that the practice is Lutheran was indeed ‘completely wrong’. 

 

A bishop of the Church, a patristic expert quoted in the following documentation, says that historically not even Lutherans would have received in the hand. In the US most still receive kneeling, on the tongue, but some receive in the hand.

It seems I should have called it Calvinist.

 

IN REGARD TO  COMMUNION IN THE HAND BEING ‘ANTIQUARIAN’:

From De modo Sanctam Communionem ministrandi (Memoriale Domini)

 1275 [5] ’It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this Divine Food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves. … However, the Church's prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence.’ This is not now the case.

‘1276 [6] Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men especially designated for this purpose’. This is not now the case. And speaking of Communion in the hand, Pius XII warned that ’the liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed  more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savour and aroma of antiquity.’ (My emphases.)

AS TO COMMUNION IN THE HAND BEING ‘ABUSIVE’ (MEANING MISAPPLIED, IMPROPER):

From the Secretary of State, June 3, 1968: ‘the bishops must be reminded of their responsibility that they must prevent …  the indiscriminate spread of this practice (Communion in the hand) which is not contrary to the doctrine but in practice is very disputable and dangerous.’ (My emphasis.)

From a letter sent sent by the Concilium to all the Latin bishops of the world, October 1968:

1.‘In diverse locations, at least since two or three years ago, some priests without due authorization[109] place the Eucharist in the hand of the faithful, who then places it in their mouths. This manner of acting is spreading rapidly, especially in the more cultured environments and in small groups, and finds favor among laypersons[110], priests and nuns.[111]

2.       It appears that there is a new practice established here and that it is the work of a small number of priests and laypersons that look to impose their own point of view on others, and force the hand of authority. (My emphasis.) To approve it would be to encourage these persons who are never[113] satisfied with the laws of the Church.

3.       And above all a decrease of respect to the Eucharistic worship should be feared. To receive Communion in the hand would seem to many to be less dignified and less respectful (my emphasis).

4.      One should also ask oneself, with uneasiness, if the fragments of the Consecrated Bread will always be picked up and consumed with all the respect It deserves. What will happen to the Particles in the hands of those who do not have the delicacy and the awareness[114] to quickly pick them up?  Just recently I picked up and consumed a sliver (the Body and Blood of Our Lord, whole and entire) of the Host which had lain unnoticed on the carpet in front of the sanctuary for at least 24 hours. The parish priest seemed unconcerned.

5.   Should not an increase of desecrations and irreverences on the part of ill-intentioned persons be feared, or of those of little faith? Ill-prepared and poorly instructed people who receive the Eucharistic Bread in their hand, will they not end up equating It to ordinary bread, or to simply blessed bread?[115]

6. By easily giving in to this very important point of Eucharistic worship, the danger exists that the audacity of the renovators will dare so much as to be directed towards other sectors, which would bring about an irreparable damage to the faith and worship of the Eucharist. …(My emphasis.)

[12] A change in a matter of such importance, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries with it certain dangers that may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August Sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

1281  [15]The Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the faithful.

 The disposition:

[16] The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to carefully[3] obey the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take into account the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, and of the common good of the Church.’

From the letter which concedes the indult to the Episcopal Conferences to distribute Holy Communion in the hand to the faithful, when all of the required conditions are met:

‘Each bishop may authorize in his dioceses the introduction of the new rite to distribute Communion (in the hand), with the condition that all occasion of scandal to the faithful be avoided, and all danger of irreverence toward the Eucharist be avoided’ (my emphasis). This condition was not met.

‘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.’(My emphasis.)

‘The rite of Communion in the hand must not be put into practice indiscriminately.’

‘It is necessary to have the introduction of the rite preceded by an effective catechesis.’

‘This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that there is a lessening of faith in the Eucharistic presence and in excluding as well any danger or hint of danger of profaning the Eucharist.’ (My emphases.)

That there has been a lessening of faith is obvious from the demeanour of people approaching and receiving the Eucharist. As an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion I’ve had to stop people from carrying the Host away after receiving.

THAT COMMUNION IN THE HAND IS ‘LUTHERAN’:

In regard to this comment I humbly and happily acknowledge I was mistaken. According to Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider of Astana in Kazakhstan, a Patristic expert, Communion in the hand wasn't practiced even by the Lutherans. "The Lutherans have until quite recently, and till today in Scandinavian lands, preserved communion kneeling and on the tongue."

THAT COMMUNION IN THE HAND IS ‘PROTESTANT’:

From Martin Bucer (1491-1551),counsellor of the Anglican reform:

‘ [49] In fact I have no doubt that the (Roman Catholic) usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition, firstly the false honour they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming a greater holiness than that of the people in Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration.

The Lord undoubtedly gave these, his sacred symbols, into the hands of the apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in any doubt that this was the usage observed by the churches until the advent of the tyranny of the Roman Antichrist.

As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman Antichrist is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient churches is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach his people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths, or that the hands of ministers are holier than the hands of the laity, so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed, as that ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.

In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand.’- Quoted by D. Harrison, The First and Second Prayer Books of Edward VI, London, 1968, p. 392. Cf. E.C. Whitaker, Martin Bucer and the Book of Common Prayer, London, 1974.

 PAPAL STATEMENTS ON THE SUBJECT OF COMMUNION IN THE HAND:

Pius XII: ‘The Holy Father does not consider it opportune that the Sacred Particle be distributed in the hand.’

Pope Paul VI:  (The bishop) should not forget that … the Holy See … vehemently exhorts him to submit to the law in force’ (i.e. Communion on the tongue).

St John Paul II: ‘These offenses not only weigh upon the conscience of those responsible in this manner of acting, but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist’(Domin. Cenae, 11). (My emphasis.) … 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 (though it recognizes that in the case of a justified necessity, a layman can be authorized)’ Domin. Cenae, 11.

Note: As the Church states elsewhere, Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion are justified only when the Mass would be unduly lengthened by the distribution of the Sacrament only by the ordained. So ‘a justified necessity’ would be rare.