I sometimes wonder if the prelates of the Catholic Church who promote communion on the hand and resist communion on the tongue (or worse) kneeling really believe in the real presence and all it entails.
This article from Rorate is a worthy read for the novice Traditional Catholics, but also for the veterans.
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, dignity, and protection against profanation
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.
Comments
Post a Comment