Should We Receive Communion in the Hand? (Copy)

Let's begin with the most common argument I hear, which are the Last Supper accounts. "Jesus gave the Eucharist to the Apostles. They took it from Him and ate it. They received on the hand. Why can't we?"

The simple answer to this is that we are not Apostles. It makes sense if the Apostles touched the Host, because at the Last Supper, they were ordained as priests, and thus their hands were consecrated for this task. Protestantism tries to argue that we are all Apostles, and since the post Vatican II Church is so embedded in Ecumenism with Protestants, this idea has seeped into the minds of Catholics.

How do we know the Apostles were ordained as priests by Our Lord? It is from Session XXIII of the Council of Trent: "In the New Testament, the Catholic Church has received, from the institution of Christ, the holy visible sacrifice of the Eucharist; it must needs also be confessed, that there is, in that Church, a new, visible, and external priesthood, into which the old has been translated. And the sacred Scriptures show, and the tradition of the Catholic Church has always taught, that this priesthood was instituted by the same Lord our Saviour, and that to the apostles, and their successors in the priesthood, was the power delivered of consecrating, offering, and administering His Body and Blood."

Sacred Tradition solidly favors Holy Communion being received directly on the tongue for the laity.

In the early 2nd century, Pope St. Sixtus I said, "It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand."

Origen, at the dawn of the 3rd century, wrote, "You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence."

The Council of Saragozza in the 4th century threatened excommunication for anyone who received Communion in the hand. Pope St. Leo the Great, in the 5th century, while commenting on John 6 and the Eucharistic discourse of Our Lord, wrote, "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."

Future Councils reiterated this practice. In the 7th century, the Council of Rouen declared, "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths." The Council of Constantinople, also 7th century, reiterated this principle and prohibited the laity from distributing Holy Communion. In the Roman Ordo of the 9th century, Communion on the tongue was the established manner of reception.

The Council of Trent, Session XIII, authoritatively taught, "That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body."

Trent continues, "To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies."

The Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, in his masterpiece Summa Theologica, "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 the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Blessed 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 to touch it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency."

Theologian Dr. Peter Kwasniewski notes, "We also have evidence from St. Ephrem the Syrian, from the Liturgy of St. James, from St. Gregory the Great, and other Fathers of the Church that Communion was given in the mouths as well, and that the clergy were the ones who most properly Communicated with their own hands."

Often, some will point to a statement of St. Cyril of Jerusalem which seems to suggest that Communion in the hand was occurring in his area at the time. It ought to be noted that citing an isolated source does not overturn the weight of Tradition or Magisterial teaching. Secondly, it is unclear if St. Cyril is referring to an extraordinary circumstance such as what Christians ought to do under a period of persecution, for example. More pertinent, however, is that the citation is disputed by historians, and thought to be attributed originally to a successor of St. Cyril's, Patriarch John, who fell into the Nestorian heresy. It ought to be noted that St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine were all critical of Patriarch John.

St. Basil the Great said that Communion in the hand occurred as an exception to the rule for two reasons: Under times of persecution where no priest is present, and for hermits and ascetics in the wilderness who do not have priest. Any other usage of the practice for any reason was seen by him as a "grave immoderation."

The fact that advocates for Communion in the hand try to appeal to an isolated and disputed source with St. Cyril, while ignoring St. Aquinas, Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope St. Sixtus, the Council of Trent, and the entire testimony of Sacred Tradition shows how the present day error of Modernism is so deceptive.

It was the ploy of Modernists to insert destructive ideas and practices into the Church. This is how Ecumenism made its way into Vatican II. As Church leaders began making compromises and concessions with Protestants, eventually their habits began to seep within the practice of Catholics. It was Protestantism that originally advocated for Communion in the hand on a wide scale, as a way of diminishing belief in the Real Presence.

Here is the testimony of Martin Bucer, one of the Protestant Revolutionaries who succeeded Luther and Melanchton:

"I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ. I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand. And therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed, as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth, which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason. In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand."

The modern practice of Communion in the hand was no doubt influenced in many ways by the influx of Protestant thought and practices via the pastoral push of Vatican II towards Ecumenism. Shortly after the Council, we begin to see Communion in the hand occur, in disobedience at the time to Church Law. However, Bishops were tolerating the practice, and Paul VI caved in, not wanting to cause issues with fellow Bishops.

Bishop Blanchette, in 1977, admitted that Communion in the hand was initiated in the United States originally as an illegal practice according to Canon Law. However, again, it was tolerated and eventually became normative. In 1997, Fr. John Hardon, speaking at a conference in Michigan, straight out said, "Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God."

In his 1969 instruction Memoriale Domine, Paul VI wrote, "Communion in the hand carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine." To reiterate, he had the right principle in mind without a doubt. However, he tolerated the unlawful abuse of the practice, and eventually gave in, allowing individual Bishops to make the determination. The Church needed a strong shepherd, but instead she received Paul VI, who was so focused on the Vatican II principles of Ecumenism and Collegiality that he went against his own better judgment, not to mention Sacred Tradition.

Dietrich von Hildebrand, who was revered by Pius XII as a Doctor of the Church for the 20th century, had this to say: "Is it believable that instead of applying the most scrupulous care to protect the most sacred consecrated host, which is truly the Body of Christ, the God-man, from all such possible abuses, there are those who wish to expose it to this possibility? Have we forgotten the existence of the devil who wanders about seeking whom he may devour'? Is his work in the world and in the Church not all too visible today? What entitles us to assume that abuses to the consecrated host will not take place?"

So many abuses have occurred since this practice has become normative. Hosts are often dropped accidentally, in other cases they have been stolen for evil purposes. Even during the exorcism notes of Anneliese Michel (Emily Rose), when asked about Eucharistic Hosts being sold, a demon revealed, "If the bishops did not permit communion in the hand, this would not have happened." The demon admitted that there was much joy in Hell over Communion on the hand. Not only does it lessen belief in the Real Presence, but it also lessens belief in the consecrated hands of Holy Orders.

The only safe thing to do in this day and age, and truly the only sanctifying thing to do, is to return to Sacred Tradition. We must go back to the sole practice of Communion on the tongue. We do not want to bring joy to demons, appease Protestants, buy into the ploys of Modernism. We want to honor and adore Our Lord. We want to revere and uphold Sacred Tradition.

May we all commit to the holy practice of Communion on the tongue.