The question of Communion on the tongue or in the hand elicits a lot of discussion. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM), the official instruction of the Catholic Church on how to celebrate Mass, states: “The communicant ... receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand” (161, emphasis added).
In Canada, we are now permitted to receive holy Communion either on the tongue or in the hand. But Communion in the hand is allowed only as an indult, a special exception from the norms (official guides or rules) of the Universal Church, one that needs to be specially approved by Rome. The norm for the Universal Church remains Communion on the tongue.
So should it matter whether we receive Communion on the tongue, versus on the hand, especially if this practice is now allowed? A closer look into the history behind how this indult was originally granted is revealing.
Memoriale Domini, a 1969 Church document on reception of Communion, outlined St. Paul VI’s decision on this matter. After much study and special consultation with all the Bishops of the world, he concluded that “Communion [on the tongue] must be retained ... not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist ... This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in ‘ordinary bread and wine’ that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord.”
So how did it happen that some countries were eventually allowed the indult of reception in the hand as well?
A few countries had already illicitly allowed Communion in the hand. Chief among the reasons was that some felt Communion in the hand represented the most ancient form of Communion in the early Church.
But while it is true that Communion in the hand certainly happened in the early Church, it is unclear exactly when this practice started and how universal it was. There are quotes from Church Fathers supporting both practices.
A quote, purported to be from St. Cyril of Jerusalem (around AD 350), is often given in support of reception in the hand: “placing thy left hand as a throne for thy right, which is to receive so great a King ... receive the body of Christ.” But scholars now tell us that this quote was likely not written by St. Cyril at all, and several ancient manuscripts attest to this.
On the other hand, there is also ample testimony from great saints like St. Basil, St. Gregory the Great, and St. Leo the Great, among others, suggesting that reception on the tongue was the standard for the early Church.
For example, St. Basil the Great, doctor of the Church (AD 330–379), would teach: “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution” (e.g., the laity could touch the Host to distribute it secretly).
The Councils of Saragossa (AD 380) and Toledo (fifth to seventh centuries) threatened excommunication to anyone who continued receiving holy Communion by hand.
Similarly, the Synod of Rouen (AD 650) decreed: “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman ... only in their mouths.”
The Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (AD 680–681) also forbade the taking of Communion in the hand by the laity, under threat of excommunication. And the Council of Trent (1565) added, “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
This brings us to St. Thomas Aquinas: “The dispensing of Christ’s body belongs to the priest ... out of reverence towards 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” (Summa Theologica). This is a powerful testimony, as much of the Church’s theology is based on the theology of St. Thomas.
Taking all this into consideration, Memoriale Domini declared: “From the time of the Fathers of the Church ... Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid ... the dropping of Eucharistic particles [today, consecrated Hosts are regularly stolen for use in satanic Masses and other blasphemous practices – even sold on eBay!]; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.”
It then mandated that “this method of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be retained” and “emphatically” urged “bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed ... by the majority of Catholic bishops.”
But after all this, Memoriale Domini then added a surprising disclaimer, leaving an avenue open to those bishops currently in disobedience over this issue. “Where ... Communion on the hand prevails,” bishops could request an indult to continue this practice, and Rome would consider it.
And these countries requested exactly that – and the indults were given – I am sure much to the sadness of St. Paul VI. A flood of requests then followed from countries, including Canada, where Communion on the hand did not prevail. These countries hadn’t been given permission to even ask for this indult. But ask they did.
Now some might say, “What’s the big deal?” After all, we are talking disciplines here and not unchangeable doctrines. True. And this is certainly not an area about which to quarrel or to judge one another’s spiritual intentions. Many insist that they feel equal reverence when receiving in the hand, and that the key is the attitude of the heart. There is truth in this too.
But the point is that the very document that permitted the seeking of an indult for Communion on the hand in very limited cases at the same time strongly advocated for Communion on the tongue, adding that it “is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist” and is “needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body” (Memoriale Domini).
With bodily signs we show interior beliefs. In “The Theology of Kneeling,” an excerpt from his book The Spirit of the Liturgy (2000), Cardinal Ratzinger highlights this truth: “the bodily gesture itself is the bearer of the spiritual meaning ... when someone tries to take worship back into the purely spiritual realm and refuses to give it embodied form, the act of worship evaporates.” Later, as Pope Benedict XVI, in continuity with St. John Paul II, he gave Communion to the faithful on the tongue while they knelt.
I write this not to stir up controversy, but to provide a context against which individuals may decide how best to receive Jesus’ Precious Body and Blood, especially in our current culture. Many faithful Catholics are unaware of all of this background, as I was. Perhaps it is worthwhile to reconsider how we receive the Eucharist, for “not as common bread and common drink do we receive these” (St. Justin Martyr, AD 150).