Hi there !

Does anyone know when the Catholic Church allowed christians to receive Holy Communion in the hands ? I have heard that it is better to receive it directly in the mouth - And when did the Church allow women to attend mass without wearing a veil ? Does anyone have any other information about these things ?

Thanks for your answers, Veronica D

-- Veronica D (veronica01_2@yahoo.com), May 08, 2004

Answers

Bump to New Answers to invite comment

-- (bump@bump.bump), May 08, 2004.

We have taken communion in the hand since apostolic times. See Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion

Head coverings in church are a matter of custom.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 08, 2004.

Luke 22:19 - And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me."

Communion in the hand began when Jesus handed the first Eucharist to those present at the first Mass, and then commanded them to do as He had done. So you are really looking for when the Church first introduced the practice of receiving on the tongue. Yes you will hear that it is "better" to receive on the tongue - from those who prefer that option. And you will hear that it is "better" to receive in the hand as the Apostles did - from those who prefer that option. But if you listen to the Church you won't hear that either option is "better", for the official teaching of the Church is that either option is completely acceptable, and there is no preference for one over the other.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 08, 2004.

Paul,

I am one of those people who think it is "better" to receive on the tongue. Actually the "Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Communion" seems to be saying that as well. Consider some of the excerpts:

Thus, "let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it"[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] "For it is the Body of Christ."[4]

Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist.

Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: "What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members."

Furthermore, Pope Paul solicited the opinions of the bishops in 1969 as to whether they favored receiving communion in the hand. 1233 bishops did not favor it, while 533 did favor it. So communion in the hand began on a "limited" basis, after centuries of it being disallowed, even though the vast majority of bishops did not favor it, and even though the Vatican's instruction itself says that receiving on the tongue ensures "greater feeling of reverence," "deeper humility," and "diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread." Paul, don't you honestly think that communion in the hand is just another abuse of the spirit of Vatican II?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 08, 2004.

Abuses of the spirit of Vatican II occur when people act in a manner contrary to the teaching of Vatican II, or twist the teaching to fit their own desires. Those who choose to receive the Most Holy Eucharist in their hand are following the teaching of Vatican II, not abusing it.

To me, offering my hand while humbly bowing my head before my God is a far more reverent gesture than sticking out my tongue. It allows me to actually see and concentrate fully upon Him, whereas in sticking out my tongue I feel as though I am gazing off into space somewhere. It allows me a moment to be certain I do not "eat that flesh without first adoring it". I find it less natural trying to adore something that is being stuck in my mouth by someone else. But that is only my personal preference. I certainly have no criticism of those who feel more reverent in receiving on the tongue. If Holy Mother Church fully approves of it, how could I not approve?

As for concern about losing a particle of the Sacred Host ... as one who has distributed Holy Communion to many thousands of people, I can assure you that the Host is far more likely to break while trying to insert it between someone's nearly closed lips and teeth than while placing it gently onto his/her outstretched palm. Of course, that is not the proper way to receive on the tongue, but many people approach in that manner, and more than once I have seen a priest have to stop distributing Communion to pick up a piece of host from the floor. That is why an acolyte or altar server would hold a communion plate under the chin of the person receiving, back when receiving on the tongue was the norm - not because of any increased sense of reverence, but because of the greatly increased likelihood of accidents occurring, and the Sacred Species being inadvertently desecrated.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 08, 2004.

Amen Paul. God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 08, 2004.

eh, both ways are valid, so it really isnt worth arguing.

i was taught that taking it on the tongue minimized the number of people coming into contact with the eucharist and therefore kept it as clean as possible from the stain of our sin.

however, there is also merit to the point that recieving with the hand, in today's society, seems more respectful than sticking your tongue out.

it is, however, a matter of personal preference, which has been expressed multiple times in recent church documents. for more information, look under the faq section of EWTN's web questions section.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), May 08, 2004.

Paul,

I hope you are not accusing me of thinking that people who receive communion in the hand are abusing the spirit of Vatican II. If that's what you perceived from what I wrote, I'm sorry for not being more clear. The "abuse" that I was talking about was that in 1969, permission to receive communion in the hand was given on a limited basis, to those dioceses that were already defying liturgical norms by distributing the eucharist in this manner, despite the overwhelming majority of bishops disapproving of this action. Soon other Bishops followed suit, by distributing communion in the hand without permission, and then petitioning the Holy See to legalize their situation.

I have been to thousands of masses and have never seen or heard of the host falling or breaking when the parishioner chose to receive the communion on the tongue. But I agree it can happen, and I'm sure it has. That's why I would like to see priests follow the new Redemptionis Sacramentum, the new instructions for the Most Holy Eucharist, which mandates a communion plate:

[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180][92.]

If the plate is used, there is little danger of the host falling to the ground, and if it did, the priest could bend down himself to pick it up as you say you have seen happen. One who receives communion in the hand however, may take a few steps before putting the host into one's mouth. This is too difficult for the priest (or deacon) to "police" IMHO. Redemtionis Sacramentum seems to understand the difficulty as well in saying: 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. [179] It is difficult for the priest to "ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant" in this manner wouldn't you say?

paul h,

you say i was taught that taking it on the tongue minimized the number of people coming into contact with the eucharist and therefore kept it as clean as possible from the stain of our sin

I agree with this as does St. Thomas Aquinas who wrote in Summa Theologica:

"...because out of reverence for 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." (ST, III, Q.82, Art. 13)

Is St. Thomas Aquinas now wrong?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 09, 2004.

-----

-- Spaced (turnoff@italics.com), May 09, 2004.

Veronica: I have no idea exactly when the Church went from receiving the Eucharist by hand to tongue in ancient times. When I was growing up, (I'm 56), the Eucharist was always distributed solely by a priest, who placed the Host directly onto a person's tongue. He was assisted by an altar boy who would hold a communion plate under the person's chin so that the Host could not fall to the ground. After Vatican II, we were told you had a choice to either receive in this same manner, OR by taking the Host in your hand. As I recall, this was in the late 1960's. As far as a veil goes..Women were never required to wear "veils" per se, they were required to wear head coverings in church. Since veils were the standard head coverings for women for many centuries,many Catholic saints are depicted in paintings, etc. with veils. When women began wearing hats instead of veils, hats were worn in church. Again, it was after Vatican II that women stopped wearing head coverings in church. I have no idea if there was any specific document relating to that subject from Vatican II, or if it was merely a reflection of the entire cultural change in the '60's here in the USA..up until the mid-1960's, an American woman wouldn't think of going out in public without wearing a hat and gloves.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 09, 2004.

As I understand it, women were required by Canon Law to keep their heads covered during mass until 1983, when this requirement was abrogated. Again, there was widespread defiance of this liturgical norm before 1983, and the Holy See chose to abrogate the existing law rather than enforce it.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 09, 2004.

Rev Paul

It is ture that Jesus did not stick the eucharist on the apostles tongues; but they were all bishops and therefore ordinary ministers of communion, like yourself.

Hugh

-- hugh (hugh@inspired.com), May 09, 2004.

I'm about to say some things that will seem pro-tongue, so I want to say that I usually receive in the hand (unless I am carrying a kid). I am just putting this out as information on the issue.

The modern reappearance of receiving in the hand started in the Anglican Church. The intended purpose of it was to show people that 'the person giving it was just a man, and the thing received was just bread'. Kind of like saying, 'nothing special, here have some bread'.

Now, I think you can receive on the hand and have full faith in the truths of the Eucharist. There is, however, a certain special vs. mundane dichodomy in this debate.

Dano

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Dan,

I appreciate your response about the Anglicans. I was always under the impression that this was the case; that Protestants began receiving communion in the hand to show their differences from Catholicism and to indicate that the host was, as you say, "just bread." And here we are many centuries later, embracing a Protestant idea as part of our own liturgy. What is the purpose for allowing communion in the hand, if not to make our mass more "acceptable" to Protestants? I don't think that "recieving with the hand, in today's society, seem(ing) more respectful than sticking your tongue out," as paul h says, is a good reason to overturn nearly 2000 years of tradition. Why is sticking out your tongue less respectful in today's society anyway? Hugh also made a good point about Jesus and the Apostles.

I would like to ask again, is St. Thomas Aquinas wrong when he says that nothing should touch the host except for what is consecrated?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 10, 2004.

My tongue is no more consecrated than my hand. At some point Jesus Christ is going to come in contact with my sinful flesh.

Dano

P.S. first crack at html, hope I don't destroy the system or anything.

-- Dan Garon (boethius61@yahoo.com), May 10, 2004.

Dano, I half expected that answer. Ok, so what was St. Thomas Aquinas talking about then?

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 10, 2004.

I don't know how you can refer to Communion in the hand as "a Protestant idea" when it clearly originated in the Catholic Church, and was practiced by Catholics for centuries before Protestants even existed, until the Catholic Church changed its tradition and instituted the more recent form of Communion on the tongue. "Tradition" to some people only means "what was in place just before Vatican II". Well the Church has many ancient and venerable traditions which long predated what was in effect just before Vatican II. If "traditionalists" are really interested in "getting back to tradition", why don't they go all the way back? Probably because going too far back into the Church's tradition would mean accepting many things that were not in effect just before Vatican II, like the venerable Greek Mass which predated the more modern tradition of the Latin Mass. And in some cases, venerable old traditions which were brought back to the Church by Vatican II - like the permanent deaconate, and Communion in the hand.

And why would the Catholic Church be interested in making the Mass "more acceptable to Protestants" when Protestants are not going to be attending Mass anyway, and couldn't care less about the format of Catholic Mass or the distibution of Catholic Communion? As long as the Eucharist is considered to be the actual Body and Blood of the Risen Lord, Protestants are not going to find the Mass acceptable, and such a small point as the method of distribution of Communion makes no difference at all in that regard.

The point Hugh raised is often mentioned by those unwilling to follow the current lead of the Church. However, the question depends on the exact moment at which Christ ordained the Apostles as priests, thereby instituting the sacrament of Holy Orders. The definition of "priest" is "one who offers sacrifice on behalf of the people". Therefore, many believe with good reason that the Apostles became priests when Christ, after celebrating the first Mass, conferred upon them the power to celebrate the Mass themselves, and specifically to consecrate the Eucharist, by giving them the command "do this in remembrance of Me". If this is the case, then the Apostles were not priests when they gathered for the Last Supper, but they were priests when they went home. And more to the point, they were not yet priests when they received the Eucharist for the first time, in their hand. In any case, we know that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand for a long time before Communion on the tongue was instituted.

Thomas offered his opinion on this matter. Since there is no objective "right" or "wrong" answer to the question, it is meaningless to speak of his being "right" or "wrong". Theologians offer opinions. The Church considers their opinions, and makes authoritative decisions binding on the faithful. Only then does it become "right" to follow the Church's official teaching, or "wrong" to oppose it.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 10, 2004.

Paul,

If you define "traditionalists" as anyone who merely wants to turn back the clock to 1962, I am not a "traditionalist." I think your example of the permanent diaconate is a good idea for instance. But shouldn't centuries and centuries of tradition be changed only for good reason? In your opinion, what was the good reason for instituting communion in the hand in 1969? when the vast majority of the world's bishops were against it and the Instructions themselves indicated concern about how this would affect the reverence due the Real Presence.

Also, do you know why it was banned way back when? Thanks Paul.

-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), May 10, 2004.