Rorate Caeli

Cardinal Cipriani of Lima:
"I have forbidden [the distribution of] particles in the hands"

In an interview to Italian religious news website Petrus, the Archbishop of Lima, Peru, Cardinal Cipriani Thorne, had a very interesting answer to one of the questions:

We turn then to the manner of administering Communion...

[Cipriani Thorne] "Even in this case, the 'laxity' of many priests has ridiculed the value of the Eucharist in the eyes of Catholics. I personally believe that the best way to administer Communion is on the tongue, so much so that in my Diocese I have forbidden [vietato] particles in the hands. In the Masses with an enormous attendance [of faithful], we have found in the past lost particles on the floor of the church."

34 comments:

Jordan Potter said...

Please God, may all the bishops in the church follow his example. . . .

humboldt said...

I beseech you God, may the Pope abolish the abominate practice of communion in the hands, SUBITO!

This was a grave mistake of JPII to have allowed this.

Anonymous said...

Amen! If only he had added the words "while kneeling", but this is VERY welcome and needed! May God bless this brave cardinal and may many more bishops follow his example.

Xavier.

Volpius Leonius said...

Yes! All these wonderful Cardinal's and Bishops seem to be appearing all over the place, Deo Gratias!

There is nothing to stop you from kneeling Xavier if you want to.

poeta said...

God bless Peru!

Woody Jones said...

Cardinal Cipriani is really great. This is very encouraging for a lot of reasons.

Incidentally, the Cardinal was a Peruvian all-star basketball player back in the day (much like Cardinal Pell the rugby player) and so when he came to San Antonio for the episcopal consecration of Archbishop Jose Gomez (another Opus Dei priest), he also went to shoot hoops with the Spurs. Fr. Michael Barrett told me that he drove Cardinal Cipriani around in San Antonio and could confidently report that the session with the Spurs was the high point of his trip.

Hebdomadary said...

I'm sure that he is particularly adept at the "Triune Punctum" or "three-pointer!" May this prove the beginning of a wide-spread trend in the church. Deo Gratias

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Deo gratias!!!

Anonymous said...

Praise God!

Do we know more about Cardinal Thorne, and his general stance on traditional matters?

It's quite wonderful to have a Cardinal saying such things, and one with pastoral care of a major Latin American diocese is helpful in itself. This should be publicized...

Vox said...

Humboldt,

Please don't blame Pope John Paul II for communion in the hand. It was an abuse that Pope Paul VI condemned and then legalised because he did not have the strength or will to prohibit it!

Anonymous said...

Three simple words from POPE BXVI and it's done: "NO MORE HANDS"

Johnny Womack said...

Lord, would you send Cardinal Cipriani up here to the diocese of San Bernardino, California? Please?

humboldt said...

vox, please tell us the story of how communion in the hands came to be accepted and legalized in the Church. Paul VI's Missal forbade this practice. JPII legalized this practice.

LeonG said...

This very scandalous act against the Blessed Sacrament, of being touched by unconsecrated hands is a profound and damaging indictment of those who have propagated it.

Jordan Potter said...

Humboldt said: Paul VI's Missal forbade this practice. JPII legalized this practice.

It was Paul VI, not John Paul II, who granted the indult for Communion in the Hand. The indult ought to be rescinded.

Woody Jones said...

"I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us...

"Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her -- don't know why -- 'Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?' She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on.

"Without pausing a second she said, 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'"


- Father George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989 in St. Agnes Church, New York City (a precise transcript taken from a tape of his talk available from St. Agnes Church)

Aspen said...

John Paul was against the practice of communion in the hand, and is very much on record as such. But he felt he couldn't strongly forbid something which his predecessor had just legalized.

Anonymous said...

That may well be the case with regard to Pope John Paul II's position on distributing Communion in the hand. However, he is on record being photographed distributing the Sacred Host to two children.

Anonymous said...

Alternatively, from the picture I am talking about, it could be said that he was distributing a Rosary, but very difficult to say.

humboldt said...

JPII's New Order of the Mass explicity granted communion on the hands everywhere in the Church. Paul VI's was an indult in particular countries but JPII brought it up to the universal Church. One more evidence of the modernist JPII in liturgical matters is that months after JPII was elected Pope, in Puebla, Mexico, in the Conference of the Latin American Bishops, he sanctioned the "creativity" policy in liturgical matters. Now what more evidence do you need? It was JPII who is responsible for the universal permission to receive communion on the hands.

Jordan Potter said...

Humboldt said: JPII's New Order of the Mass explicity granted communion on the hands everywhere in the Church. Paul VI's was an indult in particular countries but JPII brought it up to the universal Church.

Could you show me the passage in the 2003 IGRM that mentions Communion in the Hand? I've read through the IGRM before, and have consulted it again today, and I can find no reference to Communion in the Hand in it. I could have missed it, of course. But if it's not in the newest version of the Ordo Missae, what papal document of John Paul II's allegedly has changed universal law so that Communion may be granted on the tongue or in the hand without papal indult?

Woody Jones quoted: 'Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.'" - Father George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989

In this thread at Angel Queen, a traditionalist who opposes Communion in the Hand, as I do, posted this retraction and clarification from Father Rutler:

http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=95088&highlight=&sid=a4943d063aec0bd61a01090875e04830

On Feb 17 I asked by email Fr George Rutler, “are you the priest who interviewed Blessed Mother Teresa and was told that she detested communion in the hand as an even greater crime than abortion? If so is there any article available on the web that relates this interview?”

He replied, “This has been misquoted. Mother Teresa told me she thought the greatest sadness to her was how people receive communion unworthily. She made clear to me that she was not condemning communion in the hand per se and instructed me to make this very clear. I told her that I’d pray about it and write a clarification to which she responded, “We need it right away. I pray. You write.” I have published this statement many times and people willfully ignore it. This is bad faith. Mother preferred communion on the tongue, as do I, but her point was that the disposition of the heart is what matters, not whether one received on the tongue or in the ancient manner of in the hand. There are fanatics abroad who twist her words.”

Anonymous said...

"He replied, “This has been misquoted. Mother Teresa told me she thought the greatest sadness to her was how people receive communion unworthily. She made clear to me that she was not condemning communion in the hand per se and instructed me to make this very clear. I told her that I’d pray about it and write a clarification to which she responded, “We need it right away. I pray. You write.” I have published this statement many times and people willfully ignore it. This is bad faith. Mother preferred communion on the tongue, as do I, but her point was that the disposition of the heart is what matters, not whether one received on the tongue or in the ancient manner of in the hand. There are fanatics abroad who twist her words.”

Yes, no doubt the "saint" loved communion in the hand (how could she NOT love something approved by JPII subito santo?), even as she loved inter-religious prayer gatherings and urging good Buddhists to become better ones, allowing them to die without having had baptism urged upon them. Now that this "saint" has given her seal of approval to this sacrilege (correctly performed, of course), our argument against it is destroyed...not! Rutler is a neo who backpedalled as the "saint" did when faced with Roman displeasure over appearing, even for a moment, to doubt the legitimacy of one of Rome's more abominable novelties.

"Unsquared Circle"

Anonymous said...

Nr. 92 of Redemptionis Sacramentum gave an univeral indult in receiving communion on the hands. Although Bl. Theresa of Calculta did not criticize communion on the hands, it is still wrong.

Caritas said...

Anonymous 21:30

How dare you judge Bl. Theresa of Calculta?Hypocrita...surely she had greater things to accomplish in her life than unsquaring circles.

Pray for her forgiveness that she may intercede to unsquare your heart.

Caritas

Jordan Potter said...

Nr. 92 of Redemptionis Sacramentum gave an univeral indult in receiving communion on the hands.

Thanks for the reference to RS. I'd forgotten to check there. RS 92 says:

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] 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.

Thus, RS 92 does NOT given a universal indult, but repeats what the Church had previously decreed: Bishops' Conferences must apply to the Vatican for permission to allow Communion in the Hand.

RS 92 also cites the IGMR in support of what it says, so I did overlook the relevant passage in the IGMR, which, contrary to what was claimed above, does not make Communion in the Hand a matter of universal law. It's still allowed by indult -- Communion on the Tongue remains the ordinary means of receiving Communion.

Although Bl. Theresa of Calculta did not criticize communion on the hands, it is still wrong.

It's not "wrong" or a sin (for otherwise the Church would not have practiced it in the distant past or permitted it today) -- it's just not as befitting the dignity of the Most Blessed Sacrament, and it has contributed to a weakening of the right attitude toward approaching Holy Communion in today's church. That's why I've never received in the hand and won't ever. The only circumstances in which I'm going to handle the Blessed Sacrament is if I someday end up ordained (extremely unlikely) or if it's the only way to prevent sacrilege or desecration. "All things are lawful to me, but not all are expedient, not all edify."

Anonymous said...

Jordan Potter with a lot of patience I am going to rebuke your sophist answer. There were very good reasons for the Church to have decreed that the communion should be only given in the tongue, not in the hands. Just because in the hands was ever practiced, does not make it right. If that were the case then let's close down the Vatican and office of Pope, since there is nothing more to be said or done. I loathe communion in the hands, so I have decided not to go a Mass where communion in the hands is allowed, this leaves me with the hope of being able to attend a Tridentine Mass, to fulfill my soul's needs, as long a no more changes are introduced to the Tridentine Mass, which is still an open questions.

Anonymous said...

Remember: it was an indult that made communion in the hands acceptable, which means it isn't supposed to be the norm.

Good things have come from it though. Africa, whose Catholic population is relatively new (within 150-200 years) and whose vocations are doing quite well, has some areas where it is culturally improper to give communion on the tongue. According to Cardinal Arinze, a local custom common in some parts holds that a man who places food in the mouth of a woman is expressing interest in marriage to the woman.

Needless to say, communion on the tongue would not be a good idea in cultures with such customs.

Jordan Potter said...

Someone said: Just because in the hands was ever practiced, does not make it right.

Of course. But, though I wish it were not so, it's not merely practiced today, it's positively allowed by the highest authority in the Church. Is it really possible for Peter to institute a liturgical practice that is fundamentally contrary to divine and moral law? I have real problems with that proposition.

I loathe communion in the hands, so I have decided not to go a Mass where communion in the hands is allowed, this leaves me with the hope of being able to attend a Tridentine Mass, to fulfill my soul's needs, as long a no more changes are introduced to the Tridentine Mass, which is still an open questions.

You're on a trajectory that will, if unimpeded, take you to a traditionalist group not in communion with the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict has already said there will be more changes in the pre-Vatican II Mass.

Wanderwide said...

I completely agree with the praise people are giving to Cardinal Cipriani's ban on Communion in the hand. Fortunately, in the part of Latin America in which I live this practice is quite rare. Although it is not actually banned, it is not normally mentioned as an option to children who are preparing for First Communion.

However, I wish that those who oppose reception of the Host in the hand, or who advocate reception of holy Communion kneeling, would give equal consideration to the problems involved in the administration of the Precious Blood to the laity. This seems to be much less of a live issue, but I think it is just as important.

1. One of the reasons for which the protestant "reformers" insisted that the laity should receive under both Kinds was that they perceived the restriction of the Chalice to the Priest as being an expression of the ontological difference between the Priest and the laity. That is not the Church's intention, because she does permit lay people to receive the Precious Blood under certain circumstances. But limiting this to special occasions, such as First Communion, Confirmation and Marriage, does indeed serve as a subtle and salutary reminder that this important distinction exists. Both the Priests and the laity who are most insistent on Holy Communion under both kinds tend to be those who wish to blur such distinctions.

2. When I have visited parishes in countries where the laity normally receive the Precious Blood, on numerous occasions I have seen Priests - sometimes even the Principal Concelebrant - go and sit down at the time of Holy Communion for fear of offending an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion by "usurping" their function. The constant need for Extraordinary Ministers to administer the Chalice makes their service seem "ordinary" - indeed, something to which they have a right. The best way to check this is to make the reception of the Chalice "extraordinary", rather than the norm. Anyone who comes to Holy Communion busy worrying about their "right" to receive or to administer the Precious Blood is really in no fit state to do either.

3. The fact that some lay people receive the Precious Blood whilst others do not is itself divisive. Whichever they do, none receives more and none receives less, so it is hard to see a theological justification for such diversity of practice. Logically, either ALL of the people should ALWAYS receive under both kinds - except when prevented for reasons of health - or none of them should: except on special occasions such as First Communion. However, the GIRM (#284) simply makes it clear that the laity always have an explicit right to receive in ONE kind. "Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish."

4. Concern about hygiene is certainly one of the reasons for which some lay people decide not to receive the Chalice. They, at least, have a choice in the matter: the poor Priest or Deacon who has to take the ablutions does not! He is extremely fortunate if he is never presented with a Chalice to purify that contains a revolting mixture of slobber, lipstick and fragments of half-chewed Host.

5. Although parishes in rich countries may be able to equip themselves with numerous Chalices, those in poorer parts of the world may well find this difficult, and may well end up using unworthy or inappropriate vessels if the laity are to receive the Precious Blood all the time. Fortunately, however - at least in the developing country I which I live - this problem does not arise because Holy Communion is only given under both kinds on special occasions, and then only by intinction, and straight into the mouth.

I hope that there will be widespread pressure to ensure that any future "reform of the reform" will address these problems, and that reception of Holy Communion under both Kinds by the laity will be restricted to special occasions under tightly-controlled conditions.

Anonymous said...

"You're on a trajectory that will, if unimpeded, take you to a traditionalist group not in communion with the Catholic Church."

jordan potter, I have not problems with that. If that it is case, so be it. I will not follow the Pope to anywhere he wants to take me. I am not a slave of the Pope, but a friend of Jesus.

Anonymous said...

And I know what Jesus wants of me.

Jordan Potter said...

You should have a problem with it. Those who abandon communion with the Pope abandon the Catholic faith. One must endeavor to avoid that with all one's might.

gemoftheocean said...

My, my. so many clairvoyant people. Most of you "just know" that people who receive in the hand are disrespectful, and that everyone receiving on the tongue "obviously" has the right disposition.

If you are all so clairvoyant, can someone please give me the winning number this week to the California lottery? I could use the bucks.

Karen

gemoftheocean said...

...and I'd be a little more impressed if these Bishops forbade the use of frisbee hosts....

Since their so concerned about particles of the host flying around, why don't they go after the real offense? But, oh, no, Msg. so and so might like to use them...