Skip to main content

Middle of the Wedge - Holy Communion, Kneeling & On the Tongue

Image
By

The Blessed Eucharist - Separating the Catholics from Protestants like the Men from the Boys

Catholic Doctrine

The middle of the wedge, the part that does the work of splitting the wood.

It is very apropos that the reception of the Holy Eucharist is really the great divide between Catholics and Protestants.



At its basic level, Catholic believe the words of Christ recorded in the Bible, and Protestants do not:
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples and said: Take and eat. This is my body. 27 And taking the chalice, he gave thanks and gave to them, saying: Drink all of this. 28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. 
Matthew 26: 26-28
The Catholic Church believes what Christ taught, as explained in the Council of Trent. Namely, when the words of consecration are said with the correct form, matter and intention by a validly ordained priest the substance of the bread and wine are completely transformed into the substance of the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Trent Chapter 4). This transformation is called Transubstantiation.

In chapter V of the Thirteen Session of the Council of Trent, the Church explains:
... there is no room left for doubt, that all the faithful of Christ may, according to the custom ever received in the Catholic Church, render in veneration the worship of latria, which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament. ... for we believe that same God to be present therein, ...
The Catholic Church teaches that:
No less of caution should be observed by pastors in explaining the mysterious manner in which the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread. Indeed, discussions of this kind should scarcely ever be entered upon. Should Christian charity, however, require a departure from this rule, the pastor should remember first of all to prepare and fortify his hearers by reminding them that no word shall be impossible with God. (The Roman Catechism)
With respect to who should dispense the Holy Eucharist St. Thomas in the Summa  wrote:

... the dispensing of Christ's body belongs to the priest for three reasons.
 First, because, as was said above (Article 1), he consecrates as in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His body at the supper, so also He gave it to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ's body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him.
 Secondly, 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 consecrated gifts to the people.
Thirdly, because 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, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency.
To summarize the teaching we have the following:

  1. The Eucharist is God
  2. The smallest particle of a consecrated host or drop of consecrated wine is also God
  3. Dispensing (following the Summa) of the Holy Eucharist belongs to the priest.

Communion in the Hand - Protestant Style


It is a fact that the present dominant practice in Latin Churches started as an abuse in Holland.  This practice was eventually allowed under an indult and in this form it has spread throughout the majority of the Latin Rite (Novus Ordo).  While there is a claim that this is a return to a older discipline (see reference below), I want to point out that it started as an abuse and that the norm of the Catholic Church for at least 1000 years has been to receive Holy Communion on the Tongue from the Priest.


Traditional Catholics have long held that communion in the hand as currently practiced in the Catholic Church, as does much of the liturgy, is an imitation of protestant 'reformers'. It would be useful to have an understanding of how some of the 'reformers' perceived Communion on the Tongue and only from the hands of a priest. Here are Martin Bucer's words to Cranmer:

I cannot see how the seventh section requiring the bread of the Lord to be put not in the hand, but in the mouth, of the recipient, can be consistent. Certainly the reason given in this section, namely, lest those who receive the bread of the Lord should not eat it but take it away with them to misuse it for superstition or horrible wickedness, is not, it seems to me, conclusive; for the minister can easily see, when he puts the bread in the hand, whether it is eaten or not. In fact, 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 honour they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. The Lord undoubtedly gave these, His sacred symbols, into the hands of the Apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in doubt that this was the usage observed in the churches until the advent of the Roman Antichrist.
 As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman AntiChrist is to be detested, and the
simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, 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 those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or 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, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards
against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand. (Communion in the Hand and Similar Frauds - Michael Davies)
This, rather lengthy quotation, then is the opinion of a an arch heretic and the reason for placing the Eucharist in the hands of the Laypeople.

What strikes me the most is the unbridled hatred for the Catholic Church that exists in a person when they leave in such a circumstance.

But of more importance is the two reasons that he gives for supporting communion in the hand. In one step they undermine two Dogmas of the Church:
  1. The Real Presence
  2. The Sacramental Priesthood
These are fundamental to Church Teaching and particularly to the Sacrament by which the life of grace flows from the Church to us.

Current Church Law


Just in case there is a temptation to dis-regard the above words etc, here is a recent document (2004) from the Vatican that I would like to draw your attention:

[92.] 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. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]
[93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180] (Redemptionis Sacramentum)
It is should be noted that the faithful have the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue. Communion in the hand is only permitted under an indult.

With communion on the hand there is an ever present risk of profanation in that a particle (ie fragment) may fall from the hands of the communicant if they do not purify their hands immediately.  The most readily available method is for them to lick their hands.

Of course, this would seem somewhat unsanitary in our current culture, although perhaps it would eliminate the 'handshake of peace'.


Recommendations

I have summarized in this article some key points about Church Teaching on the Eucharist and some reasons given by protestant 'reformers' for giving Communion in the Hand.

The best way for a Latin Rite layperson is on the tongue, kneeling, from a priest. By doing so you will:

  1. Profess your belief in the Real Presence
  2. Reinforce the belief in the Sacramental Priesthood
  3. Prevent the loss and profanation of the Blessed Sacrament
  4. Not participate in the profanation that occurs when Eucharistic Ministers don't purify their hands.
  5. Not risk committing the sin of sacrilege.







Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

De Veritate - St. Thomas Aquinas - What is necessary to believe explicitly?

By
I was recently introduced to a work of St. Thomas De Veritate ( Source ) in the course of an argument concerning the minimum content of explicit faith.  When I submitted the following quote as proof: Theological faith, that is, a supernatural faith in Revelation, is necessary, and this is an effect of grace (D 1789); nemini unquam sine ilIa contigit iustificatio (D 1793). As far as the content of this faith is concerned, according to Hebr. 11, 6, at least the existence of God and retribution in the other world must be firmly held, necessitate medii (by the necessity of means) with explicit faith. In regard to the Trinity and the Incarnation, implicit faith suffices. The supernatural faith necessary for justification is attained when God grants to the unbeliever by internal inspiration or external teaching a knowledge of the truths of Revelation, and actual grace to make the supernatural act of faith. Cf. De verite 14, I I.Ott - Fundamentals of Dogma p241 In response my opponent ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Comparision of the Tridentine, Cranmer and Novus Ordo Masses

By
+ JMJ I downloaded the comparison that was linked in the previous article on the mass (here) . ... a very good reference! P^3 From: Whispers of Restoration (available at this link) . CHARTING LITURGICAL CHANGE Comparing the 1962 Ordinary of the Roman Mass to changes made during the Anglican Schism; Compared in turn to changes adopted in the creation of Pope Paul VI’s Mass in 1969 The chart on the reverse is a concise comparison of certain ritual differences between three historical rites for the celebration of the Catholic Mass Vetus Ordo: “Old Order,” the Roman Rite of Mass as contained in the 1962 Missal, often referred to as the “Traditional Latin Mass.”The Ordinary of this Mass is that of Pope St. Pius V (1570) following the Council of Trent (1545-63), hence the occasional moniker “Tridentine Mass.” However, Trent only consolidated and codified the Roman Rite already in use at that time; its essential form dates to Pope St. Gregory the Great (+604), in whose time the R...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5b - How Did We Get Here??? ... A Continued Anlaysis using ChatGPT.

By
 + JMJ Part 5b How Did We Get Here??? So in the previous ChatGPT analysis the LLM ‘concluded’ that there was continuity in doctrine. So now we’re going to explore this element. There is some repetition but I don't have time right now to do a lot of editing.  I think instead we'll have a Part 5c where I try to pull it all together with some old fashioned human sense making. At the end point, I think the LLM collects an interesting if somewhat skewed perspective: The SSPX mapping hinges on this claim: That Vatican II affirms (at least implicitly) propositions that the Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemned. The broader Church response is: The same propositions are still rejected—but Vatican II is addressing different categories (political, pastoral, anthropological) rather than reversing doctrine. While the summary of the SSPX position seems close, that of the broader Church seems to be either an outright AI hallucination or a consensus point from the literature that it used...
Post a Comment
Read more

News Roundup: April 30, 2026

By
 + JMJ I just realised that I haven't posted the latest Roundup ... and there is a lot in the roundup as the media storm around the SSPX continues! I also just noticed this article: European Conservative: Why the SSPX Bishop Decision Matters Far Beyond Church Politics (link) .  P^3 === Popes Past Present and Future Papal News and Views Cardinal Fernandez maintains that Francis is not dead- metaphorically Pope Leo XIV Reopens Amoris Laetitia File | FSSPX News Pope Leo: “We Do Not Agree with the Formalized Blessing of …Homosexual Couples” - OnePeterFive RORATE CÆLI: How Pope Leo is Reshuffling the Curia: Musical Chairs and Power Games RORATE CÆLI: A Giant Leap: The meaning of Cardinal Eijk’s Pontifical High Mass and the Rebirth of Dutch Catholicism RORATE CÆLI: A Sign of Continuity with the Pre-Francis Papacy: Pope to Wash Feet of Twelve Priests RORATE CÆLI: Vatican Blocks Continuity of Procedure of Beatification and Canonization of Argentine Bishop -- no new Satanellis Pope Leo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 5 - How Did We Get Here???

By
 + JMJ This is the fifth in this series and I think it may require a part b to show the controversial documents and teachings of the Pope post V2. P^3 Part 5 How Did We Get Here??? Introduction My family became ‘Traditional’ in early 1980’s and I didn’t realise until years later how early we entered the Fray. So the SSPX was slightly over a decade old when we started going to Mass. That is a young organization, as someone said at the consecrations “Aren’t you a little young to be a bishop?”, the response was, “That is something that time will change.” 1970: SSPX founded with diocesan approval (Abp. Marcel Lefebvre) 1974–1976: Vatican II disputes escalate; Lefebvre suspended a divinis 1988: Illicit episcopal consecrations → excommunications declared 2000: SSPX Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (signals openness to talks) 2009: Excommunications lifted by Pope Benedict XVI 2011–2012: Doctrinal talks with CDF collapse 2015–2017: SSPX granted faculties for confessi...
Post a Comment
Read more