Monday, April 13, 2015

Responding to "The Truth About Communion In The Hand While Standing"

In the past few days this article has crossed my path several times, enough that it seemed to merit a viewing. "The Truth About Communion In The Hand While Standing," it's called, a priest's homily published as an article on the site Roman Catholic Man. I had a sneaking suspicion that the "truth" revealed in the article would not be something along the lines of "It's great!" and I was not proven wrong. The author is not at all in favor of the practice. But I think the reasons he presents for his objection are faulty. Let me explain.

First, though, let me say that I am all in favor of the practice of receiving communion on the tongue, and while kneeling. If I had my preference, there'd be altar rails in every church. I think it is a beautiful posture of reverence and humility in the presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist. But the beauty of this posture does not make all other postures ugly, or irreverent, or lacking in humility. This is a point I will return to repeatedly, and is my main criticism of this article: the better is not the enemy of the good. One thing being preferable does not make other things unacceptable. With that in mind, let's look at the article.

The article begins with the priest noting that his parish had just restored the communion rails to their church, and that their removal in the first place was not called for by the documents of Vatican II, just as another "innovation" was not: the reception of communion in the hand.

Stop. Learnin' time.

Something can be an innovation only if it is new; and not in the sense of "new to me," as is the case when something is restored (thus the "new" altar rails in the priest's church would not be an "innovation") but "new" in the sense of "never before seen under the sun." The reception of Holy Communion in the hand, then, is not an "innovation," because, while it may have been new to the Church in the last several hundred years, it was in fact a restoration of an ancient practice, just as the re-installation of the altar rails in his church, or the re-introduction of the permanent diaconate, was a restoration: the return of something that had been there before.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia,
That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned.... 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. St. Gregory, Dial., I, III, c. iii). 
We have quotations from the works of Sts. Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Augustine, John Damascene, and the Venerable Bede, all attesting to the common and accepted practice in ancient times of the faithful receiving communion in the hand. If something is ancient, it cannot, ipso facto, be an innovation, as the term has been defined above.

But the arguments the author focuses on are from much more recent history. The present allowance of the reception of Holy Communion in the hand by the faithful, he says, is "an indult born out of disobedience," and he details how Pope Paul VI came to a "compromise" with bishops in certain countries where communion was being distributed in the hand in violation of present liturgical law: the law would not change, the pope said, but an exception would be granted provided that certain conditions were met. He then alleges some shady practices of the US bishops in the 1970s to have the indult applied to the United States as well. (I say "allege" because he provides no sources. I realize that a homily is not an academic paper nor a newspaper article, but a source citation, a book or a witness, would be appreciated, just so we could check things out ourselves--perhaps he innocently left out some detail which he deemed irrelevant but which might indeed be germane to the situation, for example.)

The implication here is that reception of Holy Communion in the hand by the faithful is illegitimate in and of itself because it was re-introduced into the Church initially through illegitimate means, i.e. through the violation of liturgical law. But this is a confusion, a conflation of two separate issues. The question of whether reception of Holy Communion in the hand by the faithful is inherently and by its very nature disrespectful, sacrilegious, or irreverent is separate from the question of whether its introduction into the liturgy against the present liturgical law was disrespectful or illegitimate.

To the latter question, the answer is, of course, yes: it is disrespectful to the Church's authority and illegitimate to contravene the Church's law. But that has no bearing on the former question. If an 18-year old is caught buying alcohol, he has violated the law that says only those over 21 may buy alcohol; but that fact does not answer for us whether it ought to be allowed for 18-year olds to buy and drink alcohol, or whether their drinking is in and of itself wrong or undesirable. You might think it better to put the limit at 21, but one being better does not make the other unacceptable. The author here, then, is trying to make reception of Holy Communion in the hand by the faithful guilty by association.

Next the author names three of the conditions set by Pope Paul VI for the indult to be granted, and evaluates whether those conditions are currently met: first, that the reception of the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling be respected; second, that the laity maintain a proper respect for the Eucharist; and third, that the laity's faith in the Real Presence be strengthened. The author then uses anecdotal evidence to argue that these conditions are not being met: that communicants are scolded for receiving on the tongue and on the knees; that people have been frivolous, careless, and blasphemous with the received Host, discarding it, playing with it, even using it in Black Masses; and that belief in the Real Presence has plummeted in the years since the indult was granted.

Three points must be raised here. First, the question of whether the legitimacy of this practice is still contingent upon these conditions; second, the relation between abuse and proper use; and third, the cause of decreased belief in the Real Presence.

Are the conditions set by Pope Paul VI still in effect, such that if they are not met, the practice is illegitimate? What does the present liturgical law say on the matter? The 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, paragraph 92, quoting the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, says the following:
Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.
According to the Church's present law, then, reception on the tongue is considered the norm, but a Bishops' Conference may apply for permission from the Holy See to have reception in the hand be a normal option in their jurisdiction, the sole condition listed that the Sacred Host not risk being profaned. The other conditions listed by Pope Paul VI are not listed in the present liturgical law. So, the legitimacy of reception of Holy Communion in the hand by the faithful is not contingent upon all of those conditions.

What of the risk of profanation? The stories the author tells would suggest that such a risk indeed does exist, and thus that reception in the hand should not be allowed. And while these stories are disturbing, I do not think they merit the permission being rescinded. While they are sensational, they are not necessarily frequent, or frequent enough to warrant such a change in practice.

One might object that the instruction does not say that the profanation itself be frequently present, but only that the risk of profanation be present at all. But surely that cannot be the case, or we simply would not distribute Holy Communion. A person receiving Holy Communion on the tongue could still profane it by spitting it out, or clenching it between their teeth and preserving it for later abuse. There is some risk in profanation under any form of distribution. But I do not think the instruction envisions risk simpliciter, but rather a substantial risk based on experience. One might argue that there is less risk involved in distribution on the tongue versus distribution in the hand, but just because one thing is better than another does not make the other bad--this is to make a false dichotomy--and the abuse of something does not negate its proper use.

Third, what about the decrease in belief in the Real Presence? It seems to coincide with and correlate to the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand. Shouldn't this be a cause for concern?

Well, for starters, the author gives us an irrelevant statistical comparison. "In 1950, 87% believed in the Real Presence. Today, that number has plummeted to a mere 34%." That certainly is a significant and worrying decrease. But the practice did not become widespread until almost 20 years after the time of the initial percentage; I wonder, what was the percentage of those who believed in the Real Presence in 1968, or in 1975? I would wager the decrease had already begun by that point.

And what is the alleged connection between receiving in the hand and a lack of belief in the Real Presence? Why would the former cause the latter? It was certainly no issue for the early Christians for whom such reception was common.

The argument often is that receiving in the hand while standing is too casual a posture, one that does not encourage one to think that what one is receiving is special in any way. But receiving something in your hands while standing is not a posture that has a naturally frivolous or ridiculous feel to it, as standing on your head and receiving with your feet might. We receive respectfully many things in our hands while standing: awards, presents, handshakes, babies, food; things we value and are grateful for. There's nothing inherently inappropriate about the posture. It does not automatically generate in one a disrespectful mindset.

I think the issue is larger than the method of receiving Holy Communion, and it is twofold: the manner in which the liturgy is celebrated, and the degree to which the faithful are well-catechized. I've personally heard some real whoppers being taught in RCIA and sacramental preparation classes--that baptism doesn't do anything but is just a celebration of our already being children of God; that we can and should create some new sacraments; that belief in Mary as Co-Redemptorix is heresy (!); that Catholics actually do believe in salvation by faith alone--and I've heard not a few stories of such classes teaching Catholics and catechumens that the Eucharist is a mere reminder of Christ's sacrifice but is not the real Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord. How can Catholics be expected to believe that when they're not taught it?

Likewise, I, like many of you, have been to some liturgies that were ridiculous, profane, and occasionally even invalid, featuring all sorts of nonsense that is prohibited by the Church's liturgical law and that creates the opposite of the sacred and solemn atmosphere that the event merits and requires: priests cracking jokes in the middle of the reading of the Gospel; or introducing the Sign of Peace by saying, "Smooch time"; or giving homilies that consist of readings of Dr. Seuss's Oh, the Places You Will Go; or generally conducting themselves as though they were game show hosts instead of sacred ministers; and so on. Why should anyone take anything seriously that happens in such circumstances? But reception of Holy Communion in the hand by the faithful does not belong in this category, which is why the Church allows it.

The author then cites St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John Paul II (seemingly) saying that the Eucharist, and even the sacred vessels, ought only to be touched by the hands of the ordained, whose hands have been consecrated for that purpose. Here the author also would seem to render illegitimate the practice of using Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, or of having anyone apart from a bishop, priest, or deacon touch the sacred vessels, both practices which are approved by the Church (under certain circumstances, yes, but the author's quotations and the conclusions he would have us draw from them would ban the practices outright).

Quite irresponsibly, the author cites "reported" sayings of Mother Teresa and St. John Paul II against the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand. The Mother Teresa Center website states the following:
You quoted "Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand." This statement does not seem authentic to us. We have never heard Mother Teresa saying these words nor read them in her writings. One thing that Mother Teresa used to repeat very often was: “…The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself… the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.”
A simple Google search would have shown the author this. And while I could find no reference for St. John Paul II saying what the author says he did on receiving in the hand, I did find this, in the very same document of St. John Paul II which the author cites.While referencing the abuses seen with reception in the hand, St. John Paul II says,
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. (Dominicae Cenae 11)

Far from denigrating the practice, the Holy Father acknowledges that reception in the hand can indeed be done with "profound reverence and devotion." And the very sentence after that stating the "privilege of the ordained" to touch the sacred things with their hands says,
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. (Dominicae Cenae 11)
The sainted Holy Father's documented words, then, give a quite different impression of his thoughts from what the author would have us think.

There is throughout the article a suggestion that because the practice is exceptional it is or should be at best tolerated with a barely hidden disgust for such weakness and hardness of heart. But the Church allows a myriad of exceptions to her liturgical law to accommodate the cultural norms, practical concerns, and compatible desires of the faithful. Just look at the two dozen different rites within the Catholic Church. The Church even allows the use of an ancient Eucharistic Prayer in one Eastern rite that doesn't even have an institution narrative! (That is, the recounting of Christ's words at the Last Supper, "This is my body," "This is my blood," which we consider essential in the Latin rite.) If such variation is acceptable in those instances, why not in this?

The author ends his piece noting again the humbling effect receiving on one's tongue while kneeling has on the individual, and I make no argument against that. I am not here arguing against the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling. It is the norm in the Church's liturgical vision, and I think it a worthy and laudable practice that promotes reverence for the sacrament. But the goodness of reception on the tongue does not render reception in the hand bad. They are not logical contraries that cannot exist at the same time. You might argue the former is better in some respects, but, again, the better is not the enemy of the good. If you want to promote your position, tell us why it's good; don't focus on why you think the other position is bad, and certainly don't give us spurious arguments and fake quotations in doing so. If you want to advocate for the reception of communion on the tongue while kneeling, please do so. But in doing so do not denigrate an ancient practice which is permitted by the Church.

The truth about communion in the hand is that it is not an innovation, but an ancient practice; that the circumstances of its coming into common use in some places do not render the practice itself illegitimate; that it is not necessarily the culprit for decreased belief in the Real Presence; that its abuse does not mean it has no proper use; and that certain people may not have said about it what you think they did. The truth about communion in the hand is that the Church allows it, and that it is perfectly possible to receive Holy Communion in the hand while standing with reverence, devotion, and ardent charity.

12 comments:

  1. Thank you for this thoughtful and well-researched article.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Has your immortal soul been eased into a heretic state against … God's must know Catholic Dogma, Dogma which you have never seen ?

      Has this fact placed you outside of God's Catholic Church ... which uncorrected causes the loss of your soul ?

      Is there a Catholic Dogma remedy ... for re-entering the Catholic Church ?

      Answer: The answer to all three questions is … yes. Please continue.

      You have been *profoundly* deceived ...

      Council of Florence, Session 8, 22 Nov 1439 -- infallible Source of Dogma >
      "Whoever wills to be saved, before all things it is necessary that he holds the Catholic faith. Unless a person keeps this faith whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish eternally."

      You must believe the Catholic Dogma to be in the Church ... Dogma you have *never* seen.

      Site > Immaculata-one.com ... infallible Dogma throughout.

      The ... Catholic Sources of Dogma ... is the Faith. It isn’t “Bible interpretation”.

      Yes ... you have been *profoundly* deceived.

      - - - - - - - - - -

      Can a group which enforces the opposite, the opposite, and the opposite of the Catholic unchangeable Dogma be the Catholic Church?

      No, it cannot possibly be the Catholic Church ... and promotion of the opposite of the Catholic Dogma is exactly what the vatican-2 heretic cult does ... and has been doing since it’s founding on 8 December 1965 at the Vatican.

      The vatican-2 heresy does not have the Office of the Papacy ... only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.

      The Dogma cannot “change” or be “reversed” ... God does not “change”.

      The founding documents of the vatican-2 heretic cult … the “vatican-2 council” documents … have well over 200 heresies *against* prior defined unchangeable Dogma. Every (apparent) bishop at the “council” approved the mountain of heresy, which caused their automatic excommunication, see Section 13.2 of Immaculata-one.com.

      - - - - - - - - - -

      Section 12 > Anti-Christ vatican-2 heresies (50 listed) ... followed by many Catholic corrections.

      Sections 13 and 13.1 > Photographic *proof* of heresy at the Vatican.

      Because of … the Catholic Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or for physical participation in a heretic cult (such as the v-2 cult) …

      … we were all placed, body and soul, *outside* of Christianity (the Catholic Church) on 8 December 1965 … the close date of the “council”.

      Section 13.2 and 13.2.2 > Dogma on automatic excommunication for heresy or participating in a heretic cult such as ... vatican-2, lutheran, methodist, evangelical, etc.

      Section 13.3 > Matt 16:18, Gates of Hell scripture ... is *not* about the Office of the Papacy.

      Section 13.4 > The vatican-2 heretic cult does not have the Office of the Papacy only the Catholic Church has the Papacy.

      Section 13.6 > The Catholic Dogma on Jurisdiction and Automatic Excommunication for heresy define that ... God has allowed Catholic Jurisdiction ... for Mass and Confession to disappear from the world. There is no such thing as Catholic Mass outside of the Catholic Church.

      Non-Catholic heresies such as “vatican-2”, “sspx”, “sspv”, “cmri”, etc. ... do not have Catholic Mass.

      Section 19.1 > Dogma on Abjuration for *re-entering* Christianity (the Catholic Church) … after being automatically excommunicated.

      Section 10.2 > Returning to a state of grace, in places and times when Confession is not available, like now.

      - - - - - - - - - -

      Second Council of Constantinople, 553 A.D. -- infallible Source of Dogma >
      "The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy."

      Everything you must know, believe, and do to get to Heaven is on > > Immaculata-one.com.

      Vicki
      Our Lady of Conquest
      Pray for us

      Delete
  2. God is love! :heart: Catholic blogwalking :-) http://emmanuel959180.blogspot.in/

    ReplyDelete
  3. This was very informative! Well done!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I appreciate the humility in your response Nick and wish that more people would discuss the sacred liturgy in such a way.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "But in doing so do not denigrate an ancient practice which is permitted by the Church."

    The "ancient practice" of which you speak is not the practice we see today. According to Bishop Athanasius Schneider (in "Dominus est"), in the first few centuries the sacred Host was received in the purified palm of the right hand which went directly to the mouth without the fingers of the left hand picking it up (like finger food). Also, there was a profound sign of adoration before reception, and a post-communion purification of the hand as well.

    Will you advocate for a return to this ancient practice in toto, as it was actually practiced? How many "in-the-hand" communicants (actually self-communication by fingers) do you see inspect the palm of their hand for fragments after they self-communicate?

    In truth, "We have quotations from the works of Sts. Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Augustine, John Damascene, and the Venerable Bede, all attesting to the common and accepted practice" as it is NOT practiced today, which is in fact "an innovation".

    There are compelling reasons why the Church eventually did away with even this most reverent form of receiving Communion (growing reverence and this method being susceptible to abuse), and the arguments of the good priest, whose article you unfairly critiqued, are valid.

    The rules governing the "Indult" for Communion-in-the-hand are clearly not being met in most parishes, which is reason enough for a return to the centuries old custom.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, thank you for your response. I would not be opposed to the re-introduction of the practice you described (could you provide an ancient source that describes it?); but the fact that the current practice is not exactly as it was in ancient times does not negate my statement that "reception of communion in the hand is not an innovation," for both forms are forms of receiving in one's hand; nor, further, does it contradict my main point that receiving communion in the hand is not per se disrespectful or contrary to a reverent and fruitful reception of the sacrament, as is evidenced by the great number of people who do so.

      I fear you make the same sort of argument that the author made: one form of reception is better in some way than another, therefore the other should be banned. But why make the better the enemy of the good? Or do you say that reception in the hand is per se not good?

      I believe I demonstrated that the initial rules set out when the indult was put in place no longer govern the indult's use. If I am wrong, and you can provide some documentation to that effect, please share it.

      I hope I have not unfairly critiqued this priest's article. If I have, would you please tell me how and in what way I did so, so that I can acknowledge my mistakes and refrain from repeating them?

      I believe that the key to more reverent reception of Holy Communion lies primarily in clearer and more effective catechesis, and in a more reverent celebration of the liturgy in most parishes; if churches would simply follow the GIRM, how beautiful the Novus Ordo Mass would be everywhere! And how encouraging toward a consciously reverent reception of the sacrament, be it on the tongue or in one's hand.

      Delete
    2. Great article, thank you, however you should have mentioned that if receiving in the hand while standing, the Vatican recommends in the same document you quote from, namely the 2004 instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, that one should show a sign of respect before receiving,[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms.” I believe a bow or making the sign of the cross would suffice. Very, very few people make this outward show of respect to Jesus in the Eucharist as as recommended to us. Surely this leads some to receive in a casual manner.

      Delete
  6. Dear Nick,
    I did a Google search on Fr. George Rutler being the author of the anecdote regarding Bl. Mother Teresa of Calcutta. It seems pretty well authenticated. Not really surprising she would say such a thing, in the sense of the sacrilege connected to the abuse of this practice.

    Also, there no longer seems to be a consensus the oft-vaunted text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem regarding communion in the hand is authentic. In any event, there is more to it than mere communion in the hand.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And Let me quote Cardinal Ratzinger:

    He notes in God and the World (Ignatius Press):

    "I wouldn't be fussy about it. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion" (pg 410)

    and from another work by him:

    "...we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion....

    We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church's efforts directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands..."

    Cardinal Ratzinger "God Is Near Us" Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001:

    Where one may receive in the Hand - one may do so and it is perfectly fine and good.

    …..He later commented too as Pope. (I would have to find my book).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nice short version:



    "I wouldn't be fussy about it. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion"

    ~ Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI...)

    "...we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing."

    ~ Cardinal Ratzinger "God Is Near Us" Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001





    (pg 410)

    ReplyDelete