![o{]:¬)](http://www.wdtprs.com/blog/wp-images/topimage.JPG)
PODCAzT 51: Communion in the hand
We tackle a thorny issue: Communion in the hand.
To help us drill into this practice, which we can only hope will diminish over time, we have the help of comments by His Excellency Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments.
We also will hear from Thomas E. Woods Jr., in his fairly new book, Sacred Then and Sacred Now: The Return of the Old Latin Mass.
In case you are wondering, I add plenty of my own thoughts on the matter.
http://www.wdtprs.com/podcazt/08_02_25.mp3
I read Prof. Woods’ book “How the Catholic Church built Western Civilization”, which is an excellent introduction to many areas of western history and dispels many of the common myths surrounding the Church and the so-called “Dark Ages”, which really were not so dark after all.
Comment by Jonathan Bennett — 25 February 2008 @ 4:24 pmFr. Z, what is the piece of music in the middle of the podcast?
THANKS!
Comment by Pope Evaristus, Martyr — 25 February 2008 @ 4:43 pmThe piece of music BEFORE the “Jesu Dulcis Memoria”
Comment by Pope Evaristus, Martyr — 25 February 2008 @ 4:45 pmI agree. Perhaps you could post the titles and composers of the pieces you use in your podcasts?
Comment by Jonathan Bennett — 25 February 2008 @ 4:56 pmEvaristus: First, there are two versions of Iesu dulcis memoria, but before the plainsong version I have a piece written for the 47th Eucharistic Congress held in Bari, Italy, written by the Italian version of Haas/Haugan/Joncas, a priest of the clergy of Rome who runs the Diocesan choir of Rome for the Vicariate, Marco Frisina. Generally I despise his goopy music, but I rather like this particular piece, the exception that proves the rule. Also, it was a contrast to the other pieces I included. The piece is called, “Pane di vita nuova”
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 25 February 2008 @ 5:37 pmFather Z:
For the past year, I have been volunteering two days a week as an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion, Prayer Partner and Visitor to patients in a local hospital whose patients are generally male and generally elderly. I visit only the Catholic patients.
Two things, at least, Father, have pleased me greatly.
Of those who receive Holy Communion, virtually 98% or more are very comfortable receiving it on their tongue. And they know how to do it, even after having not received it that way for forty years or so.
Secondly, and more importantly, perhaps only 20% receive Holy Communion when it is offered. Some can’t receive because they have tracheotomies or other obstructions that prevent them from eating (I don’t offer it then); some mention that they had received on the previous Sunday (more catechesis needed here, I admit); some happen to be eating lunch at the moment I arrive in their room; some, like a man this morning, admit that “I have to do some cleaning up before I receive” (which fact I report to the chaplain); and for other reasons.
These are generally geezers, Father. Admittedly, they are in a bed, elderly, and well aware of their mortality. But virtually all of them know the prayers and know what to do.
It wouldn’t be difficult for pastors to get parishioners in just about any parish to resume receiving on the tongue.
And if manpower is the issue, I see no theological reason why an EMHC couldn’t traverse the Communion Rail, or line of peach crates, assisting the Celebrant in the administration of the Sacrament.
Comment by Ray from MN — 25 February 2008 @ 5:50 pmRegarding communion in the hand and consulation with Bishops throughout the world. Date line, March 12, 1969. 2136 Voters. (a)Should communion in the hand be added to the traditional manner of receiving communion? Yes: 567; No: 1233; Yes with qualifications: 315; Invalid ballots: 21. (b) Should it be tried first experimentally in small communities with the consent of the Ordinary? Yes: 751; No: 1215; Invalid ballots: 70. (The French episcopal confernece did not vote on this issue). (c) Do you think that the faithful, if given instruction, would be in favor of the new rite? i.e. communion in the hand. Yes: 823; No: 1185; Invalid ballots: 128.
If the forgoing is true, and Annibale Bugnini assures us it is, what happened?
Comment by kdpfam — 25 February 2008 @ 8:47 pmOne of your best podcazts, Fr. Z.
Well done.
Comment by RichR — 25 February 2008 @ 9:32 pmAnd if manpower is the issue, I see no theological reason why an EMHC couldn’t traverse the Communion Rail, or line of peach crates, assisting the Celebrant in the administration of the Sacrament.
By conceding the point about the 1983 Code of Canon Law, nothing stops this from happening. There’s no reason the EMHC’s couldn’t be, for example, women, or that women couldn’t serve at the altar. Ah well, it’s a “Living Church” after all. So what if it resembles High Anglicanism? It’s tradition, of a sort.
Comment by C.M. — 25 February 2008 @ 10:30 pmClarification: So what if it resembles:
It = the liturgical form.
Comment by C.M. — 25 February 2008 @ 11:16 pmFr.Z
Does a pastor have the authority to not permit communion in the hand and exclusively distribute Communion on the tongue, with out the approval of the bishop?
Comment by Fr. John — 26 February 2008 @ 9:20 amFr. John: Does a pastor have the authority to not permit communion in the hand and exclusively distribute Communion on the tongue, with out the approval of the bishop?
No, a pastor doesn’t have authority to permit or prevent Communion in the hand. This is regulated by the Conference of Bishops as permitted by the Holy See. This also goes for “extraordinary use” chapels and parishes.
However, if the pastor were to determine that there was too great a danger of profanation, say because too many times Hosts were found in the church, etc., perhaps he could move that way, but the diocesan bishop would probably want to be involved with that.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 26 February 2008 @ 9:49 amIs it possible for a bishop to forbid a deacon to receive communion on the tongue? Do you know of any document that
Comment by Abe Cottom — 26 February 2008 @ 10:12 ama bishop would cite to make such a prohibition? Are you aware of any document that would state otherwise (namley, that it is
permissible to receive communion on the tongue, even when one is a deacon serving at mass)? I ask this becauce a
friend who is a perm. deacon was recently told by his bishop that it was foribdden to receive communion on the tongue
if one was deacon. I told him I did not think this was possible, but need something to back it up.
I’m convinced that the ‘62 Missal doesn’t envision Communion in the hand, to the point where it would be absolutely licit to insist the faithful receive only in the hand. Just one example: why on earth is the priest holding thumb and forefinger together while holding the ciborium if people are then going to receive the Host directly in their hands? It makes no sense. So it seems to me that in light of the rubrics (express or strongly implied) of the ‘62, Communion in the hand may be forbidden.
Comment by Tom Woods — 26 February 2008 @ 1:57 pmOf course, I meant, “...to insist the faithful receive only on the tongue.”
Comment by Tom Woods — 26 February 2008 @ 2:01 pmTom Woods: The fact is that the present legislation allows for Holy Communion in the hand. I hope there will be a clarification about this in the future. However, since most conferences of bishops permit Communion in the hand in the Roman Rite, then people have a right to receive that way.
I agree about the issue of the inherent logic of the older form of Mass, as seen through the lens of the priest keeping his fingers together. No quibble there.
But the fact remains of this pesky legislation.
Comment by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf — 26 February 2008 @ 3:07 pmFather Z: The fact is that the present legislation allows for Holy Communion in the hand.
Evidently, none of the bishops know about this—at least, none who’ve commented on communion in the 1962 form. Perhaps if we keep quiet about it, they’ll never find out?
Hmm … given the questionable provenance of much “present legislation”—in particular, the 1969 approval under apparent duress of communion in the hand in the face of an overwhelming negative vote by the bishops of the world—I wonder (as a complete amateur) why one should give it more credence than tradition and immemorial custom untainted by the shenanigans of recent decades.
Really, what can one say about legislation that encourages sacrilege at each and every Mass where it is followed? What, precisely, is the obligation of a priest to follow a law whose result he knows to be profanation?
Comment by Henry Edwards — 26 February 2008 @ 3:59 pmFather, does the legislation apply to the 1962 Missal? How does one draw the
line then with other Novus Ordo practices, such as EM of Holy Communion, or
Communion under both kinds (common to almost every Mass in our diocese).
This has always been the fear of those who favor the TLM. That the N.O.
Comment by John Paul — 26 February 2008 @ 4:07 pmpractices will be brought in as “organic” developments.
Is “communion in the hand” an indult and are indults interpreted narrowly?
Comment by Boko Fittleworth — 26 February 2008 @ 4:11 pmVery Simple Solution to this problem:
Intinction
No one is allowed to receive in the hand when the Holy Body is tinctured in the Holy Blood. The Eastern Churches all have this practice. (In the Syro-Malankara and Malabar Churches, we use special vessels that can hold both species by one priest). The Latin Church allows for this practice – why not make wider use of it?
This would also limit the (unnecessary) use of EMHCs and speed up the line, as both Body and Blood are being given at once.
Any thoughts?
Comment by Michael — 26 February 2008 @ 4:13 pmThe fact is that the present legislation allows for Holy Communion in the hand.
What legislation? Redemptionis Sacramentum refers to GIRM.
That an unconvincing legal argument can be made doesn’t mean that there’s a pressing controversy which needs any clarification at all. The use of the maniple at the NOM at St. Agnes is certainly debatable—does Rome need to be involved?
We’ll all have to wait for what Rome actually says, and trust that they won’t make the same sort of mistakes they ma