Hard to Hold, and Yet Easy to Defend
A Defense of Communion in the Hand.
[The Paten was] in the first centuries…used in the service of the altar, and probably served to collect the offerings of bread made by the faithful and also to distribute the consecrated fragments which, after the loaf had been broken by the celebrant, were brought down to the communicants, who *in their own hands* received each a portion from the patina — Old Catholic Encylopedia [1]
When it comes to the debate between communicates receiving communion in hand, as opposed to communion on the tongue, I side in the latter camp for two reasons,
- To protect the host, especially from intentional host desecration. I think prudence should push us to minimize that potential.
- 1 Corinthians 11:28 best reflects the use of reception of communion under both kinds (i.e. both the host and the chalice), in the early church. While tradition itself admits that communion under one kind is sufficient, communion under both reflects the earliest church practice. All things considered, intinction allows us the best vehicle to put this into practice. Since intinction requires communion on the tongue, I am all for it.
Now, I want to stress something of great importance, it may shock some of you dear readers, but….I’m not a parish priest, nor am I a bishop, I’m not even a Pope. So, my private opinions are just that, opinions and private. They’re also tentative. I’m still trying to develop theologically. I submit and place in the judgment of the matter to the proper ecclesiastical authorities whose only judge is God and the Pontiff, and the former of which will be the only one judging the latter.
However, my only thesis is that communion in hand is not, in and of itself, sacrilege. It is not the violation or misuse of what is regarded as sacred. I will first provide some responses to radicals advocates of communion on the tongue (RACOTs), and then I will provide support for the tradition among some of the Church Fathers.
Part 1: Arguments Against Communion in the Hand
Appeal to Thomas Aquinas
The first appeal I would like to address is the RACOT appeal to St. Thomas Aquinas. We should keep two things in mind. The first is Saint Thomas is himself not inerrant, even he made mistakes, and I say this acknowledging his flaws have greater depth than my own virtues. He rejected the immaculate conception as on example.
However, moving on to his rational communion on the touge, he writes that the,
principal act of the priest’s Order is to consecrate Christ’s body. Now he receives the power to this effect at the handing of the chalice. Therefore the character is imprinted on him then…The conferring of power is effected by giving them something pertaining to their proper act. And since the principal act of a priest is to consecrate the body and blood of Christ, the priestly character is imprinted at the very giving of the chalice under the prescribed form of words [2]
Here is Thomas Aquinas’ full rationale for why it is only the priest who should distribute communion. He says,
It is written (De Consecr., dist. 12): “It has come to our knowledge that some priests deliver the Lord’s body to a layman or to a woman to carry it to the sick: The synod therefore forbids such presumption to continue; and let the priest himself communicate the sick.”
The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as 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 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 [3]
A couple of points need to be made. The first of which is that Thomas’s quotation concerns providing communion to the sick, and it closes with certain exemptions, like in cases of urgency or when the host falls to the ground. Already the argument is not against communion in the hand, it’s in the use of non-priests acting as extra-ordinary ministers. Even Thomas’ final point about nothing else touching the sacrament except what is consecrated admits of certain exceptions that do not and cannot lead us to believe communion in the hand is sacrilege. In answering the following objection,
It seems that the dispensing of this sacrament does not belong to a priest alone. For Christ’s blood belongs to this sacrament no less than His body. But Christ’s blood is dispensed by deacons: hence the blessed Lawrence said to the blessed Sixtus (Office of St. Lawrence, Resp. at Matins): “Try whether you have chosen a fit minister, to whom you have entrusted the dispensing of the Lord’s blood.” Therefore, with equal reason the dispensing of Christ’s body does not belong to priests only.
Thomas responds by saying,
The deacon, as being nigh to the priestly order, has a certain share in the latter’s duties, so that he may dispense the blood; but not the body, except in case of necessity, at the bidding of a bishop or of a priest.
The priest or bishop may provide an exception for someone in the non-priestly orders, this would and could not be the case if the act of sacrilege since no one (not even the Pope) can grant permission for anyone to commit a sacrilegious act. This indicates the issue is one of discipline and practice, not one of faith and morals. However, as Pope Paul VI had given an indult in Memoriale Domini [4], Pope Paul VI has provided the necessary permission to receive communion in the hand.
Condemnation by Synods and Councils.
Some RACOTs will cite various synods and councils which condemn communion in the hand. For example, this website cites the following councils and synods.
The Council of Saragossa (380): Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
The Synod of Rouen (650): Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681): Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand,
threatening transgressors with excommunication.The Council of Trent (1545-1565): "The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition."
The Council of Rouen (650):
“Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman but only in their mouths.”
To address the ecumenical councils first, Trent itself does not even mention, at least in the quote, anything about communion on the tongue, only that he gives holy communion out with his consecrated hands. The quote does not even exclude the possibility of other Apostolic traditions as it says it is an Apostolic tradition, note the indefinite article. As to the 6th Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople, there is no reference to communion in the hand [4].
The other synods are local and hence not binding in terms of discipline, and can be changed, especially by the Pope who is supreme on these matters. Furthermore, these were matters of discipline, not because they were thought to be sacrilegious in and of themselves. For instance, Rouen’s full 2nd canon reads,
The impropriety must cease of some priests, who, at the festival of the Mass, give the holy mysteries to some women and laymen, but without themselves partaking. Moreover, the Eucharist is not to be given to the laity into their hand, but into the mouth, with the words: “Corpus Domini et sanguis prosit tibi ad remissionem peccatorum et ad vitam æternam.” [5]
The issue was not with communion in the hand per se, but rather the dereliction of the priest handing his duties to the laity. The practice of communion on the tongue would have been a corrective, and more likely so since communion on the tongue was not itself called an impropriety. However, such a council was local as were its corrections.
The Council of Saragossa does not seem to condemn communion in the hand. There were only three decrees I was able to find.
1. If an Arian priest becomes a Catholic and upright, particularly if he is chaste, he may be ordained as priest anew on repentance. So also a deacon.
2. Relics found in Arian churches shall be burnt by the priests.
3. If Arian bishops, who have become converts, consecrated churches before they were themselves ordained anew, these churches stand in need of a fresh consecration. [6]
Furthermore, neither do the creeds or anathemas of the 400 nor the 447 [7] councils of Toledo address communion on the mouth either.
Appeal to Pope Xystus I
It is mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis that Pope Xystus I decreed the following,
He ordained that consecrated vessels should not be touched except by the ministering clergy [8]
Given this is at best an incomplete and secondary source, I would hesitate to deduce any universal and binding from it. For instance, the same source also says,
He ordained that at the be-ginning of mass the priest should chant to the people the hymn, "Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, dominus deus Sabaoth," [9]
While the Sanctus begins the Mass for St. Xystus, it does not for all forms of the Mass. Furthermore, at best the decree would forbid extra-ordinary eucharistic ministers, even if we were to grant it some universally binding power. A point I would not disagree with, but that’s a debate for another time.
Various Microscopic Particles Left in the Hand.
According to one study published by the SSPX, a man by the name of Charles Andre St-George distributed communion over 25 times to his son and found that between his fingers, his son’s fingers, and his son’s palm, 85 particles were wasted. He writes,
For this trial, Joseph and I prepared by carefully washing our hands and fingers and drying [the] same with lintless towels. We then examined our fingertips and Joseph’s left palm which would each contact the host to be assured they contained no foreign matter which could be mistaken for a bread particle. I determined we would look for particles after each and every individual “communion” in three areas–my fingertips, Joseph’s palm and Joseph’s fingertips. I further determined that we would count the results from 25 “communions” and record how many particles were found and where. We would only count “naked-eye visible” particles we could both see [10]
Now the worrying thing about this objection is that since the Council of Trent says in Canon I of the Thirteenth Session,
If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the Asoul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema [11]
Would this not follow that for every particle we let loose and remain in the hand, get trapped underfoot, and the like, we are desecrating the Body of Christ? Not at all. According to St. Thomas Aquinas,
Corruption is “movement from being into non-being”…if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ’s body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.[12]
So, for Thomas, the host ceases to be Christ when the particles lose qualities of bread like color and savor, or when they are reduced to fine particles. But how fine do they have to be? Keep all this in mind as we get to the next part of this experiment,
We then examined our fingertips and Joseph’s left palm which would each contact the host to be assured they contained no foreign matter which could be mistaken for a bread particle [13]
Notice that this betrays an essential part of the experiment, that the experimenter is presuming it must be beyond visibility. But this doesn’t seem right. Thomas himself says it must be “incompatible with the nature of bread”, now if it can be confused with foreign matter, and doesn’t have the color visibility it normally does, and you couldn’t really taste it if you got the particle into your mouth, visible or not, it’s fair to say the particle still went from being to not being the body of Christ.
False Antiquarianism
Pope Pius XII writes the following in his encyclical Mediator Dei,
Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feastdays, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by the disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the “deposit of faith” committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father for their souls’ salvation [14]
Those who are against the practice of communion in the hand typically cite the attitude decried here as the impedes behind the revival of communion in the hand. The idea is that since the Church spend centuries developing and defining its liturgy, it is improper to reverse it just for the sake of going back. Furthermore, other disciplines that Pope Pius XII cited were in fact gotten rid of.
However, often forgotten is that the same encyclical also reaffirms that the Pope alone, not antiquity, not his subordinates, but he alone, has the power to establish the practices he sees fit. He writes,
It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification. Bishops, for their part, have the right and duty carefully to watch over the exact observance of the prescriptions of the sacred canons respecting divine worship. Private individuals, therefore, even though they be clerics, may not be left to decide for themselves in these holy and venerable matters, involving as they do the religious life of Christian society along with the exercise of the priesthood of Jesus Christ and worship of God; concerned as they are with the honor due to the Blessed Trinity, the Word Incarnate and His august mother and the other saints, and with the salvation of souls as well. For the same reason no private person has any authority to regulate external practices of this kind, which are intimately bound up with Church discipline and with the order, unity and concord of the Mystical Body and frequently even with the integrity of Catholic faith itself [15]
Given that Pope Paul VI is just as much the Pope as any of his predecessors, whatever he says also goes as well. It seems RACOTS opposed to both the practice and the permission granted by Pope Paul VI are just as much private individuals setting up their own rules forbidding practices, despite Papal approval and permission, as those who were condemned by Pope Pius XII.
While Pope Pius XII is right to warn us that what’s older isn’t automatically better, and it would be utter presumption to turn back progress, it doesn’t mean there couldn’t in principle be pressing concerns why it may be needed (such as granting a temporary indult). Furthermore, this doesn’t overturn Pope Paul VI’s legal right to make the change.
Abuse and Negative Consequences
The next argument comes from the fact people do abuse the host and priests let them get away with it, the same applies to people taking the host. Others will cite the fact there has been a declining number of people who currently believe in the real presence. I have heard from one proponent who claimed participation in the practice is itself sinful because it is encouraging these abuses. Lastly, some complain that it creates a dual norm where the priest can disregard the right of the laity to receive the host on the tongue.
While this argument has the greatest force, I don’t think it’s a knockdown argument. Usually, the causal nature between the cause and effect is presumed and not demonstrated. I won’t deny they exist, but the issue does not seem to me communion in the hand, but standing up to receive.
This is not just an imagined problem either, even John Paul II noted such abuse was happening in many countries,
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. 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. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. 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 [15]
However, Fr. Regis Scanlon makes a rather persuasive case that the issue more at play and more overlooked is both the lack of kneeling and genuflection
a much better case can be made that “bending the knee” in adoration of the Blessed Sacrament is far more important to the faith than receiving hand v. tongue.
Philippians 2:10 says “that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” And there is more than a “name” in front of a communicant approaching to receive the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Surely, this is why no. 69 of John Paul II’s Ceremonial for Bishops says that “A genuflection, made by bending only the right knee to the ground signifies adoration, and is therefore reserved for the Blessed Sacrament whether exposed or reserved in the tabernacle.” The importance of this act of latria (adoration) was demonstrated by the Council of Trent when it threatened anyone with ex communication who would deny that someone should bend the knee or adore the Blessed Sacrament. The Council of Trent states in Can. 6 of the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist as a dogma of divine faith:
If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria (the act of adoration), and therefore not to be venerated with a special festive celebration, nor to be borne about in procession according to the praiseworthy and universal rite and custom of the holy Church, or is not to be set before the people publicly to be adored, and that the adorers of it are idolaters; let him be anathema (Denzinger, 30th ed. No. 888) My emphasis.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger makes a very important point for our discussion in his work, Feast of Faith, about the act of “kneeling” during the Liturgy. He says: “Here the bodily gesture attains the status of a confession of faith in Christ: words could not replace such a confession.”
It is paramount to this discussion to realize that, while the act of “bending the knee” or kneeling in the liturgy is an “act of faith” receiving communion in the hand is strictly a private devotion [17]
Receiving on the knee would also discourage people from walking off with the host, and if they do, the priest can instruct them to finish their consumption of the sacrament. Furthermore, since it is not as far removed as communion on the tongue, I think it will appear to exclude fewer people who wish to receive on the tongue. But what really needs to be done is that the laity needs to put aside their differences and respect one another’s preferred means of reception in unity and in spirit of cooperation.
Saint Basil
Some RACOTS like Taylor Marshall claim that if communion was taken in the hand, it was done only in times of persecution [18].
He cites Saint Basil who writes,
It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves keeping communion at home [19]
The issue is not that communion is taken in the hand, but without a priest or deacon and in the home of the laity. If you notice on his blog, he mysteriously leaves the last part out of the quote which gives us the fuller context.
If this was an honest mistake, it seems like a rather sloppy one.
Part 2: Communion in the Hand, an Ancient Practice.
The Council of Trullo
This is an interesting local council, in that it was brought together and passed without any Latin representation. In fact, the West hated it because it attempted to impose the practices of Constantinople onto the whole Church and was relegated as being solely binding on the Eastern Church [20].
One of these practices was communion in the hand. We read in Canon 101,
The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them [21]
While this is by no means binding as a discipline, it shows that that the common method at the time for the East was in fact communion in the hand. In fact, it even provides two arguments in favor of preferring reception in the hand to a vessel (such as a spoon).
- The body is made in the image of God.
- The body of a Christian is meant to be the temple of Christ.
While this is by no means binding and was largely rejected in the East (but not universally) after some time, it does go to show the practice did widely exist in the eastern part of the church, where it was uniformly accepted.
Saint John Chrysostom
Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely. What, do you not see the holy vessels so thoroughly cleansed all over, so resplendent? [22]
Note; he calls the meal “the sacrifice”, and even speaks of a need to wash one’s hands.
Saint Cyril
Rather than defend this quote myself, I would recommend that readers go and check out David Armstrong’s solid defense of Saint Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures. Cyril writes,
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. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones? [23]
There have been many objections to this passage, but here is where I would like to turn to Armstrong, he writes,
The person who translated the Catechetical Lectures for the famous 38-volume Church Fathers set, edited by Philip Schaff (uploaded at the Catholic New Advent site), and wrote the introduction (which I shall cite below), was Edwin Hamilton Gifford (1820-1905), author or translator of many theological works [he writes]:
§ 2. Authenticity of the Lectures. The internal evidence of the time and place at which the Lectures were delivered has been already discussed in chapters viii. and ix., and proves beyond doubt that they must have been composed at Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century. At that date Cyril was the only person living in Jerusalem who is mentioned by the Ecclesiastical Historians as an author of Catechetical Lectures: and S. Jerome, a younger contemporary of Cyril, expressly mentions the Lectures which Cyril had written in his youth. In fact their authenticity seems never to have been doubted before the seventeenth century, when it was attacked with more zeal than success by two French Protestant Theologians of strongly Calvinistic opinions, Andrew Rivet (Critic. Sacr. Lib. iii. cap. 8, Genev. 1640), and Edmund Aubertin (De Sacramento Eucharistiæ, Lib. ii. p. 422, Ed. Davent., 1654). Their objections, which were reprinted at full length by Milles at the end of his Edition, were directed chiefly against the Mystagogic Lectures, and rested on dogmatic rather than on critical grounds. . . .
That John, Cyril’s successor, did deliver Catechetical Lectures, we know from his own correspondence with Jerome: and this very circumstance may account for his name having been associated with, or substituted for that of Cyril.
To Rivet’s objection Milles makes answer that if the mistakes of a transcriber or the stumbling of an ignorant Librarian (imperiti Librarii cæspitationes) have in one or two MSS. ascribed the Lectures to John or any one else, this cannot be set against the testimony of those who lived nearest to the time when the Lectures were composed, as Jerome and Theodoret. Also the internal evidence proves that the Lectures could not have been delivered later than the middle of the fourth century, whereas John succeeded Cyril about 386.
Moreover it is quite impossible to assign the two sets of Lectures to different authors. In Cat. xviii. § 33 the author promises, as we have seen, that he will fully explain the Sacramental Mysteries in other Lectures to be given in Easter week, in the Holy Sepulchre itself, and describes the subject of each Lecture; to which description the Mystagogic Lectures correspond in all particulars. Other promises of future explanations are given in Cat. xiii. § 19, and xvi. § 26, and fulfilled in Myst. iv. § 3, and ii. § 6, and iii. § i. On the other hand the author of Myst. i. § 9, after quoting the words, “I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and in one Baptism of repentance,” adds, “Of which things I spoke to thee at length in the former Lectures.”
By these and many other arguments drawn from internal evidence Touttée has shewn convincingly that all the Lectures must have had the same author, and that he could be no other than Cyril [24].
Armstrong makes an additional point that even if we grant there was an additional author, he would still be an early historical witness [25].
Saint John Damascene
Let us draw near to it with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire. Isaiah saw the coal. But coal is not plain wood but wood united with fire: in like manner also the bread of the communion is not plain bread but bread united with divinity. But a body which is united with divinity is not one nature, but has one nature belonging to the body and another belonging to the divinity that is united to it, so that the compound is not one nature but two [26]
While there is an oddity of touching the bread to other parts, there is no reason to suppose the proponents of communion in the hand need to submit to every aspect of the practice. If that were true, then the proponents of communion in the mouth need to take up the practice of infrequent communion just because that was the practice during the longest period of the Church when communion on the tongue was popular. The practice needed to set in corrective despite theologians saying otherwise,
The Fourth Lateran Council compelled the faithful, under pain of excommunication, to receive at least once a year (c. Omnis utriusque sexus). The Poor Clares, by rule, communicated six times a year; the Dominicanesses, fifteen times; the Third Order of St. Dominic, four times. Even saints received rarely: St. Louis six times a year, St. Elizabeth only three times [27].
Trent did not make any corrections but left it up to the individuals (despite Jansenists discouraging the practice), and it wasn’t until the 1900s where daily communion became the norm [28].
Chaldean Uniate Practice
One thing that I was astounded to find out was that even before St. Pope Paul VI’s Novus Ordo, or even Vatican II, Chaldean Catholics have been taking communion in the hand since antiquity. According to Fr. Andrew Younan (a Chaldean priest),
If Bishop Schneider said that it was simply sacrilege to receive in the hand, he would be saying that the Latin Church, for several decades, has officially allowed sacrilege, to say nothing of the Chaldean Church, whose most ancient practice is reception in the hand. If that were the case, the immediate question would be whether the Holy Spirit has left the Church. He has not. But rather than say things explicitly and be cornered in a contradiction (why are you still Catholic then?), the language is left on the level of allusion [29]
Given that this isn’t a dead tradition that was retained (even through schism) and was allowed in the Church before Vatican I, this fact also hurts the earlier claim that communion in the hand was just an oddity that was brought back, but something that God, by the conversion of the Nestorians, sought to retain and the Church allowed; both before and after the Second Vatican Council.
Conclusion
Communion, no matter if one wishes to receive it in hand or on the tongue, is a matter of personal reflection. While there is no doubt communion in the hand should not, as Saint Pope Paul VI said, “be imposed in a way that would exclude the traditional usage” of communion on the tongue [30], we must also remember not to fall to the opposite extreme of calling a common practice in the ancient and modern world sacrilegious. Such a charge is serious and has no basis. For those willing to take communion in the hand, or even prefer it, it is no sign of sin on their part. But whichever way you decide to communion, please don’t forget to kneel; for, “every knee shall bow” (Rom 14:11, DRA).
Footnotes
[1] Thurston, Herbert. “Paten.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 17 Sept. 2020 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11541b.htm>.
[2] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, Supplement, Question 37, Article 5, Answer, Link
[3] Ibid
[4] Sacramentum Ordinis On the Sacrament of Order Pope Pius XII — 1947 Link
[4] Third Council of Constantinople, Link
[5] Rouen, Canon 2, Link
[6] Karl J. Von Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, from the Original Documents, 426, Link
[7] Creed of the First Council of Toledo [400 and 447], Link
[8] James Thomson Shotwell, VIII. Xystus I, Link
[9] Ibid
[10] Charles Andre St-George, Is Communion in the Hand a Sacrilege, page 3, Link
[11] Trent, Session 13, Canon I, Link
[12] Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 77, Article 4. I Answer
[13] Charles Andre St-George, Is Communion in the Hand a Sacrilege, page 3, Link
[14] Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, para. 62–63, Link
[15] Ibid, para. 58, Link
[16] John Paul II, Dominical Cenae, para 11, Link
[17] Fr. Regis Scanlon, Is Receiving Communion in the Hand a Sacrilege? Link
[18] Taylor Marshall, Did the Church Fathers Practice Communion in the Hand? (Not Exactly), Link
[19] Saint Basil, Letter 93, Translated by Blomfield Jackson. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Link
[20] Shahan, Thomas. "Council in Trullo." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 20 Oct. 2020 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm>.
[21] Council in Trullo (692 a.d.), Translated by Henry Percival. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1900.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Link
[22] Homily 3 on Ephesians, Translated by Gross Alexander. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 13. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1889.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Link
[23] Cyril, Catechetical Lecture 23, Translated by Edwin Hamilton Gifford. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Link
[24] David Armstrong, Communion in the Hand: Reactionaries vs. St. Cyril, Link
[25] Ibid
[26] John Damascene, The Orthodox Faith, Book IV, Chapter 13, Link
[27] Scannell, T. (1909). Frequent Communion. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved October 20, 2020, from New Advent: Link
[28] Ibid
[29] Andrew Younan, Communion in the Hand, Link
[30] Pope Paul VI Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, Link
