Regarding Cardinal Sarah's Comments on Holy Communion in the Hand

A few days ago, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, authored a preface to a new book by an Italian priest, Fr. Federico Bortoli, entitled "The Distribution of Communion on the Hand: Historical, Juridical and Pastoral Profiles". The full preface can be found here, and one can only hope the book will be translated into English at some point soon. In any case, Cardinal Sarah makes many good points throughout, quoting many saints and popes in the short preface. He points out the following:

Why do we insist on receiving Communion standing and on the hand? Why this attitude of lack of submission to the signs of God? May no priest dare to impose his authority in this matter by refusing or mistreating those who wish to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. Let us come as children and humbly receive the Body of Christ on our knees and on our tongue. The saints give us the example. They are the models to be imitated that God offers us! 

But how could the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the hand become so common? The answer is given to us — and is supported by never-before-published documentation that is extraordinary in its quality and volume — by Don Bortoli. It was a process that was anything but clear, a transition from what the instruction Memoriale Domini granted, to what is such a widespread practice today (...) Unfortunately, as with the Latin language, so also with a liturgical reform that should have been homogeneous with the previous rites, a special concession has become the picklock to force and empty the safe of the Church’s liturgical treasures. The Lord leads the just along ‘straight paths’ (cf. Wis. 10:10), not by subterfuge. Therefore, in addition to the theological motivations shown above, also the way in which the practice of Communion on the hand has spread appears to have been imposed not according to the ways of God.

Holy Communion of Mary Magdalene- Bernardino Campi

He also notes that "it is appropriate to promote the beauty, fittingness and pastoral value of a practice which developed during the long life and tradition of the Church, that is, the act of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue and kneeling." It's refreshing to hear these things spoken about, and it moves me to want to receive Communion kneeling always. Unfortunately, my parish doesn't have a Communion rail, making this difficult, although I have virtually always received on the tongue and will continue to do so. Perhaps this is a call for me to be more brave. In any case, some people have gotten ruffled feathers after hearing these comments. Or, they have given some strange reasons as to why the Church "re-adopted" this practice of Communion in the hand. I'd like to respond to these comments I've seen and heard, and point out that the reintroduction of Communion in the hand in the 20th and 21st century in the Latin Rite may, in part, be a form of antiquarianism.

First, I think we have to realize that even though reception of Communion in the hand was the norm in some places in the early Church, it was done much more differently than it is today. Most people don't even so as much as bow before they receive the Eucharist in the hand; there is no real sign of reverence or adoration given to our Lord in the Eucharist before consuming it, which directly contradicts what St. Augustine exhorted all Christians to do: "No one partakes of this Body until he has first adored, and we not only do not sin when we adore It, but would sin if we did not adore It." Even though it is required that we all at least bow in adoration before receiving, is this really happening in our churches during each Mass? Have we as Roman Catholics really benefited from this permission to receive Communion in the hand?

I would venture to say, no, we have not benefited, as can be seen in how many people disregard the Real Presence when polled. Couldn't we say that the way the tradition in the Latin Church developed, to receiving on the tongue and kneeling, was a good thing, fostering a deeper appreciation for the Holy Mystery? The same is true in the Byzantine, East and West Syrian, Armenian, and Coptic Rites of the Church. All of the particular Churches of these rites distribute Communion via intinction. Actually, Bishop Athanasius Schneider posits a very plausible point on where this tradition developed, and it may have came from Jesus Himself:

"One can suppose that during the Last Supper Christ would have given the bread to each apostle directly in the mouth and not only to Judas Iscariot (see Jn 13:26-27). In fact, there existed a traditional practice in the Middle East of Jesus' time that continues even to our own day, by which the head of the house feeds his guests with his own hand, placing a symbolic piece of bread into the mouths of the guests". (p. 30)

But let's look back to the practices of some in the early Church who received the Eucharist in the hand. How did they do so? They did so in a very, very different than we do today. Before they received the Eucharist, the faithful had to wash and purify their hands. The palm was also purified or washed immediately after reception, as the palm of the hand acted as a kind of paten. But what about the other hand then? Because in the Latin Rite today, we have the Host placed in the palm of one hand (say, the right hand) and then pick up the Host with their left to consume it. Well, it turns out that the practice of the Church during this time when reception in the hand was the norm was much different. "The faithful bowed profoundly, receiving the Body of the Lord into the mouth directly from the right hand and not from the left. The palm of the hand served as a kind of paten or corporal..." Is this how Communion is consumed in the Latin Rite in the 21st century? No.

The Holy Eucharist administered in Chicago, 1973

As far as I know, out of the six distinct rites of the Catholic Church, only those particular Churches of the East Syrian Rite periodically permit reception of Communion in the hand. However, I have attended the Holy Qurbono in the Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Catholic Churches. Each time I've attended, Communion was always given directly into the mouth via intinction. I have also received Holy Communion in each of the other Eastern Rites of the Church, save the Armenian Rite. The practice of the Armenian Catholic Church is also to give the Eucharist to the faithful on the tongue via intinction. When attending the Holy Qurbono in the West Syrian Rite, at a Maronite Catholic parish, I was given Communion on the tongue via intinction. When I received Communion in the Alexandrian Rite at an Eritrean Catholic parish, it was one the tongue via intinction. When I receive Communion at a Byzantine Rite parish (be it Ukrainian, Melkite, Ruthenian or otherwise) it is always on the tongue via intinction.

A note regarding the Byzantine Rite though. When concelebrating priests and deacons receive Communion during the Divine Liturgy, they receive it on their right palm and cover the Eucharist with their other hand (not touching it) as they walk to the other side of the altar. When they receive it, they bring their face down directly to their hand to consume. You'll often see the priests licking, or gently sucking, their hand to ensure all particles of the Eucharist are consumed, especially since leavened bread is used in the Byzantine Rite. Their hands are then purified, just as the sacred vessels are.

Furthermore, if we go back to the practices of the early Church, Bishop Schneider points out that "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. Instead, he had to take the Body of the Lord from the palm of his hand and, with that, place It directly into his mouth... 'The priest,' we read in the anon of John Bar-Abgari, '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.'"

All this follows with the ancient practice of receiving Communion in the hand. I again ask, do we do this in the Latin Rite now that this practice of receiving in the hand has been re-introduced by indult in the 20th and 21st centuries? No, we do not.

Often, people who favor this modern day practice cite the following from St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

"In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the body of Christ, saying over it, 'Amen.' So then, after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members."

Again, let's honestly ask ourselves a couple questions, since we are supposedly "going back" to the original way we received Communion: Do we (and by we, I mean Catholics in general) see our hands as a throne for Christ the King? Are we actually hollowing our palms before we receive the Body of Christ? Are we also "carefully hallowing our eyes"? I would argue, given the way people grab the Eucharist from the priest, or receive it one handed while holding a baby or cane, that we do not, overall. We have to be honest with ourselves and realize that this push several decades ago to receive on the hand (while licit) is truly antiquarian. We've taken this way of receiving Communion on the hand out of context, otherwise we'd be purifying our hands and making more acts of reverence as we see still happening in the Byzantine Rite. Pope Pius XII put it well in Mediator Dei:

"The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man. 

"Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion...But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. (MD 61, 62)"

Communion of the Jagiellons at Jasna Góra in 1477

Writing before the Second Vatican Council, the "more recent liturgical rites" he mentions include the Tridentine Rite that developed immediately before and after the Council of Trent. Like it or not, we have to admit after reading Pius XII's words that, yes, receiving Communion on the tongue while kneeling is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's why I always scratch my head when people make comments like the following:

"I was told that the switch was made to receiving communion on the tongue back in the day (not sure when), because people were becoming too extreme in their reverence for the host, and were taking it home and building little adoration chapels for it, rather than consuming it."

Perhaps this did indeed happen in some places during the medieval era. It definitely sounds plausible. But was this the only reason to receive Communion on the tongue? Certainly not! First and foremost, this development in the Sacred Liturgy "owes its inspiration to the Holy Spirit". To simply say that this happened because people were taking the Eucharist home is ridiculous, especially in light of how the other five principle rites of the Church developed across the world. Second, many Biblical parallels can be seen as an inspiration for this practice in all the Church's rites, such as when Ezekiel symbolically receives the Word of God directly into his mouth as a scroll (Ez 2:8-9; 3:2-3), or Psalm 81:10, which reads "I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it."

Please note I'm not saying it is sinful to receive in the hand, or we are incapable of doing so reverently. We are capable. But Cardinal Sarah isn't talking about these people. He's talking about the people who pick up the Eucharist out of their hand absent-mindedly, and that receiving in the hand while standing is not helping them to truly understand the august majesty of the Eucharist. I know that if I ever did receive Communion in the hand, say at a Syro-Malabar Catholic parish that is not distributing the Sacrament via intinction, I would bring my palm directly to my mouth to receive our Lord. This is in keeping with the way Communion used to be received in the hand. The way we receive it now in the Latin Rite, we must admit, is a novelty. We developed a bit differently than the Eastern Rites did, but we maintained a reverence for the Eucharist. For some, that reverence has disappeared. Cardinal Sarah is simply calling us to receive our Lord in a reverent manner once again. If you receive in the hand, do so reverently. Again, this is a practice that is licit in the Church today. But Cardinal Sarah knows that some who consume the Host in this way do not do so reverently, and it is to these people that he is speaking.