Rorate is pleased to publish this comprehensive study of a most urgent question that has everything to do with authentic (as opposed to glitzy or bureaucratic) Eucharistic revival. The author shows, among other key points, that the conditions established by Rome for the granting or retention of an indult for communion in the hand were never and are not now met in the USA, which means this practice's introduction was duplicitous and its continuation illicit.—PAK Ten Points in Favor of Communion on the Tongue—and the Sordid History of Communion in the Hand
Bishop Athanasius Schneider outlines a double mindset that one should strive for in honoring Christ in Holy Communion: (1)
Cum amore ac timore: “With love and fear” – the adage of the fathers from the first millennium; (2)
Quantum potes, tantum aude: “Do as much as you can” – the adage of the second millennium coming from Aquinas’s Sequence for Corpus Christi, the
Lauda Sion.
[1]
At the (relative start of) the third millennium, we should consider what adage future historians and theologians will ascribe to our belief in the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Will future generations look back and determine that we approached the Blessed Sacrament with reverence and awe, or will they sadly conclude that we demonstrated casual indifference, reckless disregard, or worse arrogance and pride?
Like many Catholics in the US and Europe, I was taught to receive Holy Communion standing and in the hand. I received Communion in the hand for many years and have been receiving on the tongue and kneeling for approximately three years. This means I understand and appreciate the mindset of those Catholics who choose to receive Communion in the hand. The majority of Catholics who receive Communion in the hand are not doing so as a deliberate abuse or from any intention to profane our Lord. They are often doing so because it is how they were taught, it is all they have known, and they do not know the Church’s perennial position on the topic.
The primary purpose of this article is to provide the reader with the key points and sources relating to the proper reception of our Lord in Holy Communion. My hope is that this will provide a starting point for individual catechesis and the key points to consider in ongoing conversations with other Catholics.
While this article will focus primarily on the proper
method for receiving Holy Communion, it should be noted that worthy reception also involves ensuring that one is in a proper state of grace prior to reception and a proper state of thanksgiving after reception. The concepts of proper preparation prior to reception and proper thanksgiving after reception are correctly viewed as critical bookends to the points covered in this article. It goes without saying that before one can receive Holy Communion (either in the hand or on the tongue) one must first be in a state of grace unburdened from unconfessed mortal sin and have a “right and devout intention.”
[2] Relatedly, spending time after receiving our Lord in thanksgiving is vital to obtaining the full benefit of the Holy Eucharist.
[3]
The remainder of this article will cover ten key points for consideration and demonstrate how Communion on the tongue and kneeling is the right and proper method of reception.
Point 1: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
In 1950, eighty-seven percent of Catholics in the US believed in the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As of 2019, that percentage has dropped to thirty percent.
[4] In a similar time frame (1965-2020), we have seen the number of Catholic priests in the US cut in half, the number of religious brothers drop by seventy percent, and the number of religious sisters fall from 178,740 to a mere 36,321.
[5] These statistics show a dramatic decline in key performance markers within the Catholic Church starting on or around 1970 (a timeframe that coincides with an increased push for reception of Holy Communion in the hand). Defenders of receiving Communion in the hand will be quick to point out that these statistics alone do not point to the specific cause of this dramatic decline within the Church, and indeed it is true that correlation does not equal causation.
At a minimum, however, these statistics do raise the question of whether Communion in the hand along with a myriad of other novelties introduced in the years immediately following Vatican II (saying the Mass in the vernacular, facing versus populum “towards the people” rather than ad orientem “towards the east”, etc…) has had a positive or negative impact on the Church as a whole. Regardless of whether it is solely or partially responsible, Communion in the hand has undoubtedly played a role in the fifty-seven percent drop in belief in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
These numbers lend credence to the traditional Catholic phrase “lex orandi, lex credendi” or “how we worship impacts what we believe.” The more we act as though the Eucharist is merely common bread, the more inclined the faithful will be to fall away from their belief that Christ is really and substantially present in the Eucharist. Conversely, ensuring that our worship displays the utmost reverence and concern for the Blessed Sacrament, will encourage the faithful to recognize and affirm their belief in Christ’s real and substantial presence within the Sacred Species. Bishop Schneider explains,
When we diminish the exterior signs of awe, sacredness, and reverence, in time it quasi-necessarily diminishes our faith in the Real Presence of our Lord and His Incarnation. These are connected. Every time we diminish our respect and our awareness of the presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist – the real, full, substantial, and divine Presence – we diminish at the same time our faith in the Incarnation itself. Faith in the Eucharist and faith in the Incarnation are inseparably linked.[6]
Point 2: Communion in the hand has historically been used by those who oppose the Church with the express intent of reducing belief in the real substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist
While the majority of Catholics today do not view reception of Holy Communion in the hand as an abuse, these same Catholics are often ignorant that this method of reception was introduced by Protestant revolutionaries and other groups who oppose the Church with the express intention of reducing belief in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In his book
Dominus Est, Bishop Athanasius Schneider explains that “…Zwingli, Calvin, and their successors, who denied the Real Presence, introduced, already in the sixteenth century, Communion given on the hand and standing.…”
[7] Bishop Schneider goes on to explain that, “Some synods of the Calvinist Church of Holland, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, established formal bans on receiving Communion kneeling… several synods forbad this in order to avoid any suggestion that the bread was being venerated.”
[8]
In his exhaustive study on the topic, Michael Davies explains how Protestant thinking from the European continent influenced Anglican views on both the real presence and the proper method of receiving Holy Communion. Davies explains that Martin Bucer, a former Dominican from Germany, rejected the presence of Christ in or under the forms of bread and wine.
[9] Bucer heavily influenced Cranmer’s 1550 ordinal and the 1549 Anglican Prayer Book. Davies states,
Bucer’s objection to the traditional manner of giving Holy Communion [on the tongue] is, therefore, twofold. It perpetuates the belief that there is some essential difference between the priest and a layman, and between the bread distributed in Communion and ordinary bread.[10] His solution was the imposition of Communion in the hand as an option in the initial stages, but backed by a propaganda campaign designed to bring about speedy conformity.[11]
Protestant revolutionaries seem to have understood the impact of lex orandi, lex credendi, and put that lesson to use as they set about their work to diminish belief in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Point 3: Communion on the tongue was the universal norm for reception in both the Eastern and Western Church from the sixth century until the middle of the twentieth century (approximately 1,400 years)
In recounting the history of the Church’s methods for reception of Holy Communion, Bishop Athanasius Schneider states that, “This is verified when, in the wake of organic development, stemming from at least the sixth century, the Church began to adopt the method of distributing the Sacred Species of the Eucharist directly into the mouth. This is attested to in several places: in the biography of Pope Gregory the Great and an indication by the same pope relative to Pope Agapitus.”
[12]
By the ninth century, the practice of receiving Communion on the tongue was so well established that various Church synods went so far as to condemn or suspend those who did not receive the Eucharist in this prescribed manner. Bishop Schneider explains that, “The Synod of Cordoba in 839 condemned the sect of so-called ‘Casiani’ because of their refusal to receive Holy Communion directly into their mouths.”
[13] Such a condemnation would be very unlikely if this were an altogether new custom without well-established roots.
Bishop Schneider additionally discusses the Synod of Rouen which, “…in 878 confirmed the norm in force regarding administration of the Lord’s Body on the tongue, threatening sacred ministers with suspension from their office if they distributed Holy Communion to the laity on the hand.”
[14] Those who set aside 1,400 years of uninterrupted tradition do so at their own peril and indeed at the peril of the Church as a whole.
Point 4: Older is not always better
During this point in a discussion between a liberal and a conservative Catholic, both parties find themselves in the slightly uncomfortable position of advancing their positions using the very same sounding points that the opposing side typically uses. The liberal modernist finds himself suddenly a great advocate of sticking to traditional customs, while the conservative begins using words to describe how the Church’s understanding on the proper method of reception evolved and refined over time.
Understanding false antiquarianism
The way out of this most uncomfortable position is to distinguish between a legitimate appeal to tradition and the concept of false antiquarianism which calls for a return to early apostolic practices
as a mere excuse for introducing novel practices; practices that themselves depart from well-established norms. Liturgical antiquarianism, according to Bishop Schneider, is the, “[i]ntent to return to a particular and not yet fully developed ancient liturgical practice.”
[15] In comparing the use of antiquarianism by both Protestant and Modernist Catholics, Bishop Schneider states, “Liturgical archeologism is one of the basic errors of the Modernists in the Church, and Protestants.”
[16] Bishop Schneider goes on to say,
For them [Protestants], this was just a symbol, so their exterior behavior towards Communion was similar to behavior towards a symbol. During the Second Vatican Council, Catholic, Modernists – especially in the Netherlands – took this Calvinist Communion rite and wrongly attributed it to the Early Church, in order to spread it more easily throughout the Church.[17]
Antiquarianism was condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei (1533) and by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei (1947).
While it is true that there is some evidence for Communion in the hand in the early centuries of the Church, a deeper look into this period evidences a profound respect and concern for the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. These early customs stand in stark contrast to the Protestant revolutionaries who introduced the practice in the name of “returning to tradition”, but with the actual express intent of reducing belief in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Sacred Species. Bishop Schneider lists several examples that demonstrate the extent to which early practices went to ensure both proper reverence for our Lord and adequate protections against profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. In short, while early Catholics may have received Communion in the hand, the practice would have looked very different than what has become the common practice in the US and Europe (i.e. reception standing, on the hand, and placing the Eucharist in one’s own mouth with one’s own hands).
How reception of Communion in the hand in the early Church differed from and was more reverent than the current method of reception in the hand
Bishop Schneider explains, “In the Early Church, the faithful, before receiving the consecrated Bread, had to wash the palms of their hands.”
[18] Furthermore, “…the faithful bowed profoundly, receiving the Body of the Lord into the mouth directly from the right hand not from the left.”
[19] In order to reduce the risk of accidental profanation or loss of particles from the Sacred Species, it was customary that, “…the palm of the hand was purified or washed after the reception of the Eucharistic Bread, as is still the norm for the Communion of clerics in the Byzantine Rite.”
[20] Bishop Schneider explains that these practices extended to clergy,
In the ancient canons of the Chaldean Church, even the celebrating priest was forbidden to place the Eucharistic Bread into his own mouth with his fingers. ‘The priest,’ we read in the Canon of John Bar-Abfgari, ‘is directed to receive the particle of consecrated Bread directly from the palm of his hand. He may not place It with his hand into his mouth, but must take It with his mouth for this concerns a heavenly food.[21]
Bishop Schneider concludes that, “…the manner of distributing Communion on the hand was limited by the end of the patristic era to a specific group, namely, the clergy, as is still the case with the Eastern rites.”
[22]
Practical differences between the early Church and the modern Church necessitate different prescriptions relating to the proper method of receiving Holy Communion
There are also practical differences between the Church as she existed in the early centuries and the Church as she exists today. For one, there were far fewer faithful in the early Church. An increase in the number of faithful receiving Holy Communion requires increased protocols that will minimize the risk of profanation. Additionally, we now live in a post-Protestant revolution world. While early Christians had to endure great persecutions from outside forces who denied Christ’s divinity, they did not have to contend with widespread denial of the real and substantial presence from within as does the modern Church. With an increase in the threat of Protestant denial of transubstantiation, comes an increased need for outward gestures specifically designed to highlight Christ’s real and substantial presence in the Blessed Sacrament.
“Take this” OR “Receive this”
Proponents of receiving Communion in the hand may argue that Jesus said, “Take this, all of you.” This argument is flawed for two reasons. First, when speaking these words at the Last Supper, Jesus was speaking only to his Apostles, who He had consecrated as priests of the new covenant.
[23] Thus, this cannot be seen as an instruction for the laity to receive Communion with unconsecrated hands. Second, the Vulgate translates the Greek term
lambanein with the Latin word
accipere.
[24] Bishop Schneider explains, “It is commonly used in the Holy Scripture in the same sense as receiving, not taking. For example, when Our Lord breathed on the Apostles saying Receive ye the Holy Spirit,” it is the same word
accipere. Nobody would say “take the Holy Spirit.”
Accipite Spiritum Sanctum means “receive the Holy Spirit.”
[25] Further emphasis for this concept of receiving holy food can be found in scripture. The profit Ezekiel tells us, “Open thy mouth, and eat what I give thee.” (Ezek. 2:8 DR). In the Psalms we read, “Open thy mouth wide, and I will fill it.” (Ps. 80:11, DR).
[26]Point 5: We should follow canon law and the Church’s official stance
Vatican II did NOT change the Church’s perennial teaching and Communion on the tongue remains the prescribed custom
Many Catholics who were catechized in the US or Europe since 1950 may be surprised to learn that the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue kneeling remains the official prescribed custom.
[27] It is a common misconception that the Church changed its views on the preferred method of reception during or immediately after Vatican II. While the practice of receiving Communion in the hand was introduced in a similar time frame as other post-Vatican II changes to the liturgy, nothing in the documents of Vatican II or in the official pronouncements of Paul VI’s pontificate can be seen as advocating for a move away from reception of Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling.
In the 1969 document Memoriale Domini, the Congregation of Divine Worship (CDW) (acting at the behest of Pope Paul VI) reinforced the Church’s perennial teaching and affirmed Communion on the tongue as the prescribed custom. In this document the Church states that,
In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner [Communion on the tongue] of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist.[28]
Stressing the concept of lex orandi, lex credendi, the document goes on to state, “This reverence is a sign of communion not in common bread and drink but the Body and Blood of the Lord.”[29] Before the publication of Memoriale Domini, several episcopal conferences (namely the Bishops of Holland, Germany, Belgium, and France) had asked Pope Paul VI to allow the usage of placing the consecrated Bread in the hand of the faithful.[30] In response to this, Pope Paul VI decreed that each bishop in the entire Latin Church should be asked his opinion regarding the appropriateness of introducing Communion in the hand.[31] The following summarizes the collective responses of the bishops to the three questions that were asked:
1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which, besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy Communion in the hand would be permitted?
Yes – 567 (27%)
No – 1,233 (58%)
Yes, with reservations – 315 (14%)
Invalid Votes – 20 (1%)
2. Should experiments with this new rite first take place in small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?
Yes – 751 (38%)
No – 1,215 (60%)
Invalid Votes – 70 (2%)
3. Do you think that the faithful, after a well-planned catechetical preparation, would accept this new rite willingly?
Yes – 835 (39%)
No – 1,185 (55%)
Invalid Votes – 126 (6%)
[32]
From the responses received, Paul VI and the CDW concluded, “…it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.”
[33] The document is clear that the prescribed norm of Communion on the tongue should not be changed stating, “the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.”
[34] Stressing that Communion on the tongue is the preferred method of reception the document states, “The Apostolic See therefore
strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe
zealously this law…”
[35] (emphasis added).
The indult (permission) is not the same as prescribing or encouraging
Despite a strong reaffirmation of Communion on the tongue as the prescribed method of reception, the CDW and Paul VI paradoxically provided an indult or an allowance to practice Communion in the hand.
[36] Proponents of Communion in the hand will be quick to point to this indult as evidence that the Vatican is in some way equally supportive of the practice of receiving the Blessed Sacrament in the hand. This logic is obviously flawed. Providing one permission to act in a certain way is clearly not the same thing as encouraging that conduct. If you were invited to a wedding and in the invitation the bride and groom specifically asked people to dress in formal attire, would you still feel comfortable showing up in blue jeans and a t-shirt simply because you had also heard that the host would not actively bar your entry?
The specific criteria for the indult were not met in the United States
According to Memoriale Domini, in order to qualify for the 1969 indult, the following criteria must be met:
1. The contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, had to have been already developed in a place;
2. The episcopal conference must vote in favor of allowing Holy Communion in the hand by a two-thirds majority in a secret ballot;
3. Danger must be avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions about the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful;
4. Any other improprieties must be carefully removed.
[37]
A close examination will show that these criteria were not met in the case of the US episcopate.
1. It was never established that Communion in the hand had developed as a widespread practice in the US at the time the indult was requested. In a June 12, 1977 edition of the National Catholic Register, Bishop Blanchette of Illinois explains how the US bishops never sought to determine if Communion in the hand had become an established practice within their dioceses.
[38] Bishop Blanchet explains,
I said we are now going to discuss and probably vote on whether we want to petition the Holy See, and we have not established that a contrary usage prevails. I said a simple way to do that would be to ask the Ordinaries to indicate whether in their dioceses the contrary usage prevails. The Ordinaries should know, they are the shepherd of their dioceses. He has been asked to obey and his priests have been asked to obey. So if anybody knows whether the contrary usage prevails, he should. And so I asked that the agenda be amended so that the first step – finding out whether the contrary usage prevails – could be verified, and if it were verified then could we get on with the rest of the agenda. But if the first step is not verified, how can we logically go on to the second step? That was my motion.[39]
Bishop Blanchet’s motion was supported by 5 bishops and the Chair, however, the opposition voted by show of hands to declare the president out of order and no vote was made on the larger motion.
[40] Cardinal Krol further highlights that the US Bishops had not met this first criteria for the indult stating that he was distressed that, “on the previous day a parliamentary device had been employed to deprive the bishops of a survey, suggested by Bishop Blanchette, of the Ordinaries on the current extent of the practice of giving Communion in the hand.
He feared that the bishops were beginning a policy of legalizing any abuse of law, and he said that far from being an abuse of freedom, law is in reality a protection of freedom. (Emphasis added)
[41]
2. There were irregularities that call into question whether a legitimate two-thirds majority was achieved within the US Bishops. According to Father Chris Alar in a February 2023 lecture, the initial vote fell short of the two-thirds necessary,
[42] prompting Cardinal Bernardin of Chicago to gather absentee ballots including retired bishops who no longer oversaw a diocese.
[43]
3. The fact that the percent of Catholics who believe in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist fell from 87% in 1950 to 30% in 2019,
[44] is strong evidence that dangers of insufficient reverence or false opinions about the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful have NOT been avoided.
4. One need only do a quick YouTube search to find a half a dozen examples of what would certainly be considered “other improprieties” surrounding distribution of the Holy Communion and Holy Mass more generally.
Memoriale Domini was accompanied by a letter that can be found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-47). This letter added additional criteria that must be met to receive the indult. The following are additional criteria that are most relevant to the present article:
The new method of administering Communion should not be imposed in a way that excludes the traditional usage….
It is, above all, necessary that an adequate catechesis prepares the way so that the faithful will understand the significance of the action and will perform it with the respect due to the sacrament. The result of this catechesis should be to remove any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the Eucharistic presence, and also to remove any danger or even suggestion of profanation.
The fact that the lay person is now able to receive Holy Communion in the hand should not suggest to him that this is ordinary bread, or just any sacred object.
[45]
John Paul II makes clear that the first of the above criteria has not been met when he stated, “[i]t also happens 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.”
[46] The fifty-seven percent drop in belief in the real and substantial presence indicates that sufficient catechesis has clearly not been provided to instill in the faithful in the real and substantial presence of our Lord.
Thus, the Holy See never encouraged, but rather allowed the practice of Communion in the hand. In the US, it is questionable as to whether the initial criteria to receive the indult were ever met. It is clear that the ongoing criteria needed to maintain the indult have not been met.
Even if the indult is accepted in the United States, faithful Catholics CANNOT be denied Communion on the tongue
The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacrament states that,
If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest rises the host slightly and shows it to each saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the hand, the choice lying with the communicant.[47] (emphasis added)
This right of the communicant to choose Communion on the tongue is reinforced by the CDW in Redemptionis Sacramentum stating,
Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, 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.[48] (emphasis added)
Since Memoriale Domini, the CDW has made it clear, at least three times, that Communion in the hand cannot be forced. An April 3, 1985 letter to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops (later renamed USCCB) states,
The Holy See, since 1969, while maintaining the traditional manner of distributing Communion [on the tongue], has granted to those Episcopal Conferences that have requested it, the faculty of distributing Communion by placing the host in the hands of the faithful…. The faithful are not to be obliged to adopt the practice of Communion in the hand.[49] (emphasis added)
In a response to a query published in Notitiae (April 1999) the CDW reiterated that,
Certainly it is clear from the very documents of the Holy See that in dioceses where the Eucharistic bread is put in the hands of the faithful, the right to receive the Eucharistic bread on the tongue still remains intact to the faithful. Therefore, those who restrict communicants to receive Holy Communion only on the hands are acting against the norms…[50](emphasis added)
In response to a concerned Catholic in 2009, Fr. Anthony Ward S.M., under-secretary for the CDW responded:
This Congregation wishes to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22, June 2009 regarding the right of the faithful to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. This Dicastery observes that the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (25 March 2004) clearly stipulates that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue” (n. 92), nor is it licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful who are not impeded by law from receiving Holy Eucharist (cf. n. 91).[51]
The CDW has thus been clear and consistent in its instruction that the faithful may not be denied Communion on the tongue.
Point 6: Communion on the tongue kneeling ensures a proper disposition of humility and belief prior to receiving our Lord
In explaining the connection between the outward posture of kneeling and the inward mindset of humility, St. Thomas Aquinas explains, “Humility makes a prayer worthy of being heard….”
[52] St. Thomas goes on to outline two key reasons that keeling is a symbol of humility,
First, a man belittles himself, in a certain way, when he genuflects and he subjects himself to the one he genuflects before. In such a way he recognizes his own weakness and insignificance. Secondly, physical strength is present in the knees; in bending them a man confesses openly to his lack of strength.[53]
As Dr. Kwasniewski explains, “Kneeling is a vivid and heartfelt expression of worship, of the adoration that is due to our Lord and God. Further evidence that kneeling is the right and proper expression of worship due to our Lord can be found within Scripture. According to Cardinal Malcom Ranjith:
We see Peter kneeling before Jesus (Lk 5:8); Jairus who knelt to request the healing of his daughter (Lk 8:41); the Samaritan who returned and knelt to give thanks to Jesus (Lk 17:16); and Mary the sister of Lazarus, who, on her knees, asked for the favor of having her brother brought back to life (Jn 11:32). [54]
Proponents for reception of Communion in the hand and standing often argue that to kneel is somehow undignified and treats the recipient as a child to be fed to be fed by the priest. This argument seems to miss the point entirely, however. Pope John XXIII stressed the importance of approaching our Lord as children when he stated, “We all kneel, like children following the example of their good mother, before the great mystery of love of her blessed Son, Jesus.”
[55]
In some circumstances, kneeling before another mortal man could be considered undignified, but kneeling before our Lord, is precisely the correct posture. Kneeling for reception of the Eucharist is not intended as a gesture of humility directed at the priest, though the priest is due respect in his own right. Rather, kneeling for reception is a gesture of humility directed towards the priest at the time of consecration when he is acting in persona Christi. Similarly, kneeling is a gesture directed to our Lord who is really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament.
This posture drives the correct mindset of vulnerability, that of an innocent child. The Congregation for Divine Worship speaking on behalf of Pope Paul VI makes clear that kneeling in no way diminishes the value of the individual recipient stating, “The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament, and it is part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body.”
[56]
Point 7: Communion on the tongue while kneeling ensures proper adoration, reverence, decorum, and dignity
As someone who received Communion standing and in the hand for much of my life, I can say with certainty that many Catholics who receive in this manner feel as though they are demonstrating proper adoration, reverence, decorum, and dignity to our Lord. These same Catholics do not intend their method of reception as an abuse or a profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. As early Church practices demonstrate, it is possible to receive Communion in the hand with the necessary mindset, belief, intent, and with protections in place to prevent profanation or the accidental mistreatment of the Eucharistic species.
As noted in Point 4 above, however, the additional protections that accompanied reception in the hand in the early Church (i.e. purifying the hands pre and post reception, placing the Eucharist on a clean sheet, bowing one’s mouth to the palm of the hand rather than picking the Eucharist up with the left hand) are no longer in place with the modern method of receiving Communion standing and on the hand. It is important not to equate ancient practices of receiving Communion in the hand with the modern form of the same. It is also best to frame this point as deciding which method of reception (in the hand standing or on the tongue kneeling) is more reverent, which is most likely to ensure proper protection against abuses or profanation, and which is most likely to drive belief in the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As Bishop Schneider reminds us, we are called to Quantum potes, tantum aude (“Do as much as you can”).
St. Augustine warned that, “We sin if we do not adore the Eucharistic Body of the Lord when we receive It… no one eats that flesh without first adoring It… We should sin where we do not adore It.”
[57] In comparing reception of Communion standing and in the hand versus kneeling and on the tongue, Bishop Schneider explains, “… kneeling in and of itself already is a gesture of adoration. However, those who communicate while standing must first make a gesture of reverence, this is, of adoration.”
[58] To show proper adoration while receiving standing an additional step is required (e.g. bowing as an additional gesture of reverence). Catholics who are not properly taught may omit this additional gesture of reverence. Reception while kneeling is inherently a gesture of reverence and thus it is more likely to reduce the risk of inadequate adoration.
The Congregation for Divine Worship speaking at the direction of Pope Paul VI stated that, “This manner of communicating [kneeling and on the tongue], which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that the Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity…”
[59] St. Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI, both affirmed the importance of kneeling. Pope John Paul II reinforced kneeling as a preferred posture for adoration stating that the Virgin Mary, “should inspire us every time we receive Eucharistic communion.”
[60] According to then Cardinal Ratzinger, “Kneeling is the right, indeed the intrinsically necessary gesture before the living God.”
[61]
Point 8: Communion on the tongue while kneeling ensures proper protection against profanation
In addition to considering which method encourages
more reverence, one must also consider which method is
more likely to protect against profanation (intentional or accidental) of the Blessed Sacrament. Proper concern for even the smallest fragment of the Sacred Species was a critical point of discussion among early Church fathers. According to Bishop Schneider, “The fathers of the Church demonstrated a lively concern that no one lose the smallest particle of Eucharistic Bread…”
[62]
St. Cyril of Jerusalem - …take care to lose no part of It [the Body of the Lord]. Such a loss would be the mutilation of your own body. Why, if you had been given gold-dust, would you not take the utmost care to hold it fast, not letting a grain slip through your fingers, lest you be so much the poorer? How much more carefully, then, will you guard against loosing so much as a crumb of that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?[63]
Tertullian - We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground.[64]
St. Ephrem – Jesus filled up the Bread with Himself and the Spirit and called It His living Body. That which I have now given you, says Jesus, do not consider bread, do not trample underfoot, even the fragments. The smallest fragment of this Bread can sanctify millions of men and is enough to give life to all who eat It.[65]
In discussing why reception of Holy Communion on the tongue is the prescribed method, the CDW notes that, “… any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way, will be avoided.”[66] Additional studies have been done demonstrating that reception of Communion in the hand involves several additional steps and points at which small particles of the Blessed Species could be lost or dropped to the floor.[67]
Point 9: Communion on the tongue reinforces the need for the priesthood
In 2 Samuel 6:1-7, we find the story of Uzzah who touched the ark of the covenant. While the ark was being transported, the oxen pulling the cart stumbled and Uzzah took hold of the ark to prevent it from falling. Despite this seemingly well-intentioned gesture, Uzzah was struck down and died for breaking God’s law. While this may seem like harsh retribution for a seemingly well-intentioned action, we can take away two lessons from this passage.
One, God had given Moses and Aaron specific instructions on which men were permitted to carry the ark, the Kohathites. The point here is that well intentioned or not, to break God’s law can bear dire consequences. Two, in 2 Samuel 6:3, we can see that the ark had stayed for a period of time in Abinadab’s house where his sons, Uzzah and Ahio may have become accustomed to its presence. The point here is that we should not forget to recognize the holiness of God as something set apart from common things. Becoming too familiar with Him can lead to an irreverent attitude if left unchecked. These forces can lead to the sin of presumption and open the door for additional sin.
We would do well to remember the story of Uzzah when contemplating the proper disposition for reception of Holy Communion. As Bishop Schneider reminds us, we should approach God’s presence in the Blessed Sacrament with
Cum amore ac timore (“With love and fear”). While we should feel God’s infinite love in the reception of Holy Communion, this should be balanced against the fear of receiving Him unworthily. If we do not approach the Sacred Species as something holy to be touched only with consecrated hands, then the lay faithful may be tempted to a disposition of overfamiliarity and may begin to think of the consecrated Eucharist as mere common bread. As God provided Moses and Aaron with specific instructions for which men could carry the ark, so too does Holy Mother Church provide us with instructions for which men are permitted to touch the Blessed Sacrament. It is for this reason that we consecrate the hands of priests. St. Thomas Aquinas tells us,
… out of reverence toward 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 to touch It except from necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.[68]
This same emphasis on the priest’s consecrated hands can also be seen in the Catechism of the Council of Trent 1566,
To safeguard in every possible way the dignity of so august a Sacrament, not only is the power of Its administration entrusted exclusively to priests, but the Church has also prohibited by law any but consecrated persons, unless some case of great necessity intervene, to dare handle or touch the sacred vessels, the linen, or other instruments necessary to its completion. Priests themselves and the rest of the faithful may hence understand how great should be the piety and holiness of those who approach to consecrate, administer, or receive the Eucharist.[69]
Proponents of receiving Communion in the hand will be quick to point out that every element of the human body is in some way profane or unworthy to receive such a precious gift. After all, if my hands are unconsecrated and thus unworthy to touch our Lord, how is my unconsecrated tongue and mouth any more worthy. On a superficial level this argument seems appealing. After all, at Mass we regularly proclaim, “Domine, non sum dignus” or “Lord, I am not worthy to receive You.” It is true on a metaphysical level, as fallen human creatures, we are never fully worthy to receive our Lord absent His grace.
There is a twofold fallacy in this logic. First, and most importantly, in the Traditional Rite of Baptism, the priest consecrates the mouth of each person being baptized by placing salt in the individual’s mouth.
[70] Thus, under the Traditional Rite there is a consistency and an effort to follow St. Thomas Aquinas’ call to let nothing touch the Sacrament but that which is consecrated. There has been a departure from this consistency with the Novus Ordo Rite of Baptism. Second, simply being imperfect does not give us license to stop striving to receive Holy Communion in the
worthiest means we are able. It is poor logic to say that simply because I cannot run a marathon, I should not get off the couch and at least try to jog a mile. The issue is more one of
fittingness, and we must still strive to receive as fittingly and worthily as possible.
If the lay faithful are permitted to touch the Blessed Sacrament with their unconsecrated hands, there can be a twofold detriment to both belief in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and reduced appreciation for the need of the priesthood. We can see this twofold detriment evidenced by the fifty-seven percent decrease in belief in the real and substantial presence
[71] during the same timeframe as a significant decrease in the number of Catholic priests.
[72] In the words of St. Pope John Paul II:
One must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and they distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them…. How eloquent therefore, even if not an ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary! To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist.[73]
Point 10: Communion on the tongue is supported by recent popes
Traditional and liberal Catholics often disagree with respect to many of the changes introduced within the Church in the wake of Vatican II. While respectful disagreements will undoubtedly abound for topics such as changing the language of the Mass from Latin to the vernacular, on this topic, traditional and liberal Catholics
should be united as the teaching from the Holy See has remained surprisingly consistent when looking to both pre and post Vatican II teachings. One need not look back as far as a Pius IX to find an orthodox position regarding the prescribed method of receiving Holy Communion. Indeed, many modern Catholics may be surprised to find that popes such as John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI, all of whom are generally considered to be more liberal or moderate popes within our modern era, were decidedly in support of the traditional orthodox method of receiving Communion on the tongue.
Pope John XXIII: “We all kneel, like children following the example of their good mother, before the great mystery of love of her blessed Son Jesus.”
[74]
Pope Paul VI: “In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner [Communion on the tongue] of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist.” The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord's body.
[75] “After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom ‘the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule’ the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful [on the tongue] should not be changed.”
[76]
Pope John Paul II: “There is an apostolic letter on the existence of a special valid permission for this [Communion in the hand]. But I tell you that I am not in favor of this practice, nor do I recommend it.”
[77] “In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharistic species have been reported, cases that 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 toward the Eucharist.”
[78]
Pope Benedict XVI: then-Cardinal Ratzinger assured that, “Communion only reaches its true depth when it is supported and surrounded by adoration."
[79] “The practice of kneeling for Holy Communion has in its favor a centuries-old tradition, and it is a particularly expressive sign of adoration, completely appropriate in light of the true, real and substantial presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the consecrated species.”
[80]
Conclusion
As each of us endeavor for a deeper understanding regarding the mysteries of the most Blessed Sacrament, let us strive in charity to support one another and to support those Catholics who find themselves struggling in the many challenges faced within our Church. May we always approach the Eucharist with love and fear and may we always work to do as much as we can to honor our Lord within the Sacred Species.
Prayer
The following prayer is taken from Maria Stang, a German mother and grandmother of the Volga, who was deported to Kazakhstan during Stalin’s regime. She prayed these words:
[81]There, where my dear Jesus dwells,
Where He is enthroned in the tabernacle,
There I wish to be kneeling continually.
There, I wish to pray unceasingly.
Jesus, I love You deeply.
Hidden Love, I adore You.
Abandoned Love, I adore You.
Despised Love, I adore You.
Love trampled underfoot, I adore You.
Infinite Love, dying on the Cross for us, I adore You.
My dear Lord and Savior, make it be that I am all love and expiation toward
the Most Blessed Sacrament in the heart of Your most loving Mother Mary. Amen.
NOTES
[1] Schneider, Athanasius. Dominus Est – It is the Lord: Reflection of a Bishop of Central Asia on Holy Communion. trans. Rev Nicholas L. Gregoris (Pine Beach, NJ: Newman House Press, 2008) 50.
[2] Kwasniewski, Peter. The Holy Bread of Eternal Life: Restoring Eucharistic Reverence in an Age of Impiety (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press. 2020) 73, citing Sacra Tridentia Synodus. 1905: “Those who approach the Holy Table should do so not out of routine, or vainglory, or human respect, but that he wish to please God, to be more closely united with Him by charity, and to have recourse to this divine remedy for his weakness and defects.”
[3] Kwasniewski, The Holy Bread of Eternal Life, 74.
[4] Smith, Gregory A. “Just one-third of US Catholics agree with their church that the Eucharist is the body, blood of Christ,” Pew Research Center (August 2019): accessed April 1, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/.
[5] “Frequently Requested Church Statistics” CARA (2020): accessed April 1, 2023, https://cara.georgetown.edu/faqs, aggregating data from the Official Catholic Directory (OCD), the Vatican’s Annuarium Statisticum Ecclesia (ASE), and other CRA research databases. Georgetown Data taken from 195 dioceses who belong to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops including 50 states, the District of Columbia, the US Virgin Islands, and all U.S. military personnel stationed overseas. Stating that: “59,426 priests in 1965 and 34,344 in 2022 (a drop of 25,082); 12,096 religious brothers in 1965 and 3,516 in 2022 (a drop of 8,580); and 178,740 religious sisters in 1965 and 36,321 in 2022 (a drop of 142,419).”
[6] Schneider, Athanasius. Christus Vincit – Christ’s Triumph Over the Darkness of the Age. (Brooklyn, NJ: Angelico Press. 2019) 220.
[7] Schneider, Dominus Est, 46, citing J.R. Luth, “Communion in the Churches of the Dutch Reformation to the Present Day,” in Charles Caspers, ed., Bread of Heaven, 101.
[8] Schneider, Dominus Est, 46, citing J.R. Luth, “Communion in the Churches of the Dutch Reformation to the Present Day,” in Charles Caspers, ed., Bread of Heaven, 108.
[9] Davies, Michael. Cranmer’s Godly Order, vol. 2, of Liturgical Revolution, 2nd ed. (Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2021) 210.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid., 213.
[12] Schneider, Dominus Est, 27, citing, Pope Gregory the Great, Dialogues III, Pope Gregory the great recounts how Pope Agapitus (535-536) distributed Communion in the mouth.
[13] Schneider, Dominus Est, 27, citing, J. A. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Solemnia). (Westminster, Md: Christian Classics, 1986), vol. 2, p.381.
[14] Schneider, Dominus Est, 27, citing, Gian Domenico Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collection, 10:1 199-1200.
[15] Schneider, Christus Vincit, 222.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid, at 224.
[18] Schneider, Dominus Est. p. 37, citing St. Athanasius, Ep. Heort, 5. See also J.A. Jungman, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum Solemnia) (Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, 1986), vol 2, p. 380 no. 11.
[19] Schneider, Dominus Est, 38, citing St. Cyprian, Ep. 58, 9; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Myst. 5, 21; St. John Chrysostom, In I Cor. Hom. 25,5; Theodore of Mopsuestia, Cat. Hom. 16, 27.
[20] Schneider, Dominus Est, 38.
[21] Schneider, Dominus Est, 38, citing Canon of John Bar-Abfgari: “Sacerdoli praecipit, ut palmis manuum particulam sumat, neve corporis particulam manu ore inferat, sed ore capiat, quia caelestis est cibus.” (Danzinger, Vol 1, p. 81).
[22] Schneider, Dominus Est, 40.
[23] Schneider, Christus Vincit, 225.
[24]Ibid., 226.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Kwasniewski, The Holy Bread of Eternal Life, 91.
[27] Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion. The Congregation of Divine Worship, May 29, 1969.
[28] Ibid.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
[34] Ibid.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid. See also, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-47), stating: “No matter which method is adopted, one will be careful not to allow any fragment of the host to fall….”
[38] Bishop Blanchette, National Catholic Register, June 12, 1977. See also, “Minutes of the Nineteenth General Meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops” (Chicago, Illinois, May 3-5 1977) 5-6, “Bishop Blanchette and five other bishops proposed in writing the following amendment to the agenda item concerning Communion in the hand: A written vote by the Ordinaries as to whether the contrary usage, that of placing Holy Communion in the hand, prevails in this country as is required by the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion of the Sacred Congregation of Divine Worship, 29 May, 1969, before a vote is taken to see if a national conference of bishops is to seek a dispensation from the common usage; and that the agenda be adopted with the stipulation that the vote on Communion in the hand be taken only if the vote mentioned above is affirmative….”
[39] Ibid.
[40] “Minutes of the Nineteenth General Meeting of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops” (Chicago, Illinois, May 3-5 1977) 6, “The Chair indicated that this would be done since five bishops had seconded the motion. Bishop McManus asked whether the motion was in order. He sought direction from the Chair on how such an amendment might be overruled if it were ruled in order. Archbishop Bernardin ruled the motion in order, and explained that his ruling could be overruled by appealing the decision from the Chair to the body of Bishops. Bishop McManus then appealed the decision from the Chair to the body of bishops. Bishop McManus then appealed the decision, and the appeal was seconded. In a division of the House, the Chair ruled that his ruling was not sustained, and the amendment was declared out of order.” See also, Westen, John H, “5 reasons why Catholics should only receive Holy Communion on the tongue” Lifesite News, June 23, 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72XIbsiQ72Q.
[41] Ibid., 33.
[42] Ibid., “Later in the meeting Archbishop Bernardin reported that the vote had fallen short of the required two-thirds of all de jure members and that the matter could not be concluded until the absent bishops were polled.”
[43] Fr. Chris Alar. “Communion: Hand or Tongue? Allowed or Sacrilege?”, Divine Mercy, February 25, 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_rY0Tj4bYM.
[44] Smith, Gregory A. “Just one-third of US Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ,” Pew Research Center (August 2019): accessed April 1, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/.
[45] Acta Apostolicae Sedis (pp. 546-47). https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/instruction-on-the-manner-of-distributing-holy-communion-2195.
[46] Dominicae Cenae 11.9.
[47] General Instruction of the Roman Missal, The Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. 2011 U.S. edition. November 12, 2002. n. 161.
[48] Redemptionis Sacramentum – Instruction on Certain Matters to be Observed or to Be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, The Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. March 25, 2004. Art. 92.
[49] Congregation for Divine Worship, April 3, 1985 letter to the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
[50] Congregation for Divine Worship, Notitiae. (April 1999).
[51] Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter to unnamed Catholic. June 22, 2009.
[52]Kwasniewski, The Holy Bread of Eternal Life, 89, citing St. Thomas’ Commentary on the epistle to the Ephesians.
[53] Ibid., 89-90.
[54] Ibid., 91.
[55] Schneider, Dominus Est, 33, citing Blessed Pope John XXIII, La Madonna e Papa Giovanni (Catania, 1969), 60.
[56] Memoriale Domini, Congregation for Divine Worship, 1969.
[57] Schneider, Dominus Est, 31.
[58] Schneider, Dominus Est, 33, citing Instruction Eucharisticum mysterium, no. 34; Instruction inaestimabile donum No. 11.
[59] Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion. The Congregation of Divine Worship, May 29, 1969.
[60] Schneider, Dominus Est, 33, citing Ecclesia de Eucharistia, No. 55.
[61] Schneider, Dominus Est, 32, citing Cardinal Ratzinger, the Spirit of the Liturgy (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2000), 90.
[62] Schneider, Dominus Est, p. 34.
[63] Schneider, Dominus Est, p. 34, citing Mystagogical Catecheses, 5,2.
[64] Schneider, Dominus Est, p. 34.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Memoriale Domini, 1969.
[67] EXPERIMENT: Communion in the Hand. True Faith Talks. March 5, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXPDXf1gwks.
[68] Aquinas, Thomas, Suma Theologiae, 16 ST, III, Q. 82, Article 13.
[69] Kwasniewski, 97, citing The Catechism of the Council of Trent for Parish Priests, edited under the guidance of St. Charles Borromeo, issued by order of Pope St. Pius V.
[70] Kwasniewski, 116.
[71] Smith, Gregory A. “Just one-third of US Catholics agree with their church that Eucharist is body, blood of Christ,” Pew Research Center (August 2019): accessed April 1, 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/05/transubstantiation-eucharist-u-s-catholics/.
[72] “Frequently Requested Church Statistics” CARA (2020): accessed April 1, 2023, https://cara.georgetown.edu/faqs.
[73] Kwasniewski, 95 citing Dominicae Cenae: “John Paul II unfortunately goes on to say that the faculty of handling and distributing the Blessed Sacrament can be extended beyond ordinary ministers “to meet just need,” which compromises the theological point he is making, and introduces incoherence between office, sign, and praxis.
[74] Schneider, Dominus Est, 33, citing Blessed Pope John XXIII, La Madonna e Papa Giovanni (Catania, 1969), 60.
[75] Memoriale Domini, 1969.
[76] Ibid.
[77] Pope John Paul II responding to a reporter from Stimme des glaubens magazine during his visit to Fulda, Germany in November 1980.
[78] Dominicae Cenae 11.9.
[79] The Spirit of the Liturgy. Ignatious Press, 2000. 90.
[80] Cited in letter This Congregation of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, July 1, 2002.
[81] Schneider, Dominus Est, 50.
