I Make a Terrible Radtrad (On Communion in the Hand)

In September 2002, the Angelus, a magazine printed by the Society of St. Pius X, published a study entitled "Is Communion in the Hand a Sacrilege?" by a former Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist named Charles Andre St. George. He and his son performed 25 "Communions" with unconsecrated altar bread, placing the bread in the hand of the "communicant," and found that the hosts shed an average of 3.68 particles each time. Mr. St. George then reasoned that were this a real Communion, the particles "would eventually detach from the palms and fingertips of these communicants as they changed position to folded hands and the particles would drop to the floor, or be brushed against their clothing and detach, or find their way to destinations unknown" and concluded that "Catholics who have gone to Mass at a church where there has been communion in the hand encounter a veritable minefield where they have mindlessly, repeatedly set their heels against the Holy Face of Jesus Christ Himself!"

This thesis has convinced many Traditionalists that they are morally obliged to completely avoid churches where Communion has been distributed in the hand, perhaps even if they have no other means of fulfilling their Sunday obligation. And since many require a half an hour or more to travel to the nearest Tridentine or Eastern Rite Liturgy, those who have been convinced of this thesis might be prevented from going to daily Mass, and from completing such devotions as the first Fridays and first Saturdays. Thus their sanctification is impeded and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart is unfortunately prolonged.

Now, while I would certainly advise anyone with access to a Tridentine, Dominican, Byzantine, Maronite, Coptic, or for that matter any liturgy over 50 years old to go to it instead of the objectively inferior Pauline (Novus Ordo) Mass (provided the alternative liturgy is not schismatic, of course), I must advise anyone with access only to a Pauline Mass, even if Communion is distributed in the hand there, to attend that Mass, and to attend it frequently; one who cannot go to any daily Mass besides the Novus Ordo should have no compunction about, and indeed should relish, going to daily Novus Ordo Mass.

Now, I feel it wise to attach a caveat to what follows: I am in no way arguing that Communion in the hand has been good for the Church or that it was prudent to reintroduce it. On the contrary, I think the decision to permit Communion in the hand has been disastrous; I think that the practice, in the modern form, is less conducive to reverence and far less rich in symbolism as compared to Communion on the tongue; I think that it plays into the hands of wicked predators who would steal the Eucharist for their own perverse ends (e.g. Satanic rituals). All I desire to establish with this essay is that Communion in the hand in not a sacrilege and does not necessarily tend toward sacrilege, and that one may attend Mass and walk around in Novus Ordo churches without in any way committing sacrilege.

Communion in the Hand in the Early Church

Before directly engaging the argument presented by the SSPX, I would like to point out that the laity received Communion in the hand quite frequently in the early Christian Church. St. Basil the Great, for example, witnesses to this practice. Some traditionalists have quoted a fragment from his 93rd Epistle where he says that "for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence" and concluded that he believed that it would be a "serious offence" were someone to take Communion in his own hand in time of peace. However, this interpretation does not hold water when the passage is read in context:

"It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time" (St. Basil the Great, Letter 93).

Other Fathers and Councils endorse Communion in the hand as well:

"In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?" (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:21).

"Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely" (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Ephesians).

"Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God" (Quintsext Synod of Trullo, Canon CI).

"[Caedmon] accordingly went [to the house to which those that were sick, and like shortly to die, were carried], and conversing pleasantly in a joyful manner with the rest that were in the house before, when it was past midnight, he asked them, whether they had the Eucharist there? They answered, 'What need of the Eucharist? for you are not likely to die, since you talk so merrily with us, as if you were in perfect health.' ­'However,' said he, 'bring me the Eucharist.' Having received the same into his hand, he asked, whether they were all in charity with him, and without any enmity or rancour?" (St. Bede the Venerable, Ecclesiastical History of England, 4:24)

"Let us draw near to [the Eucharist] with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire" (St. John Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa Book IV, ch. XIII).

Note that Ss. Cyril and John Damascus not only advise the laity to take Communion in the hand, but to touch the Body of Christ to their eyes as well. Surely this would be even more conducive to fragments than the modern practice. Hence, either it would be a sacrilege to attend Mass at St. John Damascus' Church, or something is wrong with the logic of the Society of St. Pius X (N.B: There are also patristic witnesses to Communion on the tongue such as Pope St. Gregory the Great and the Synod of Rouen; Communion in the hand was not the universal practice of the early Church).

I would also like to comment that there is a strong point to the ancient form of Communion on the hand which even Communion on the tongue is lacking: it gives the communicant some time for private adoration of Jesus in the consecrated host. This could potentially be a very grace-filled moment and excite the communicant to greater reverence and devotion when he receives. Unfortunately, in the modern form of Communion in the hand (no altar rail and a line of people behind you waiting for you to get out of the way) this opportunity is gone. Thus with the modern form of Communion in the hand we have all the drawbacks of the ancient practice but we lose its central benefit.

St. Thomas Aquinas' Argument Against Communion in the Hand

St. Thomas is often cited as condemning Communion in the Hand: "[O]ut 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" (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 3). Of course, we all agree that St. Thomas was a brilliant and holy man, but really, anyone who looks twice at this particular argument should realize that it is clearly fallacious. If it were not lawful, in principle, for the unconsecrated hands of a layman to touch the sacred species, it would not be lawful for his unconsecrated tongue, or esophagus, or stomach lining to touch it either. In short, if the laity can't touch the Sacrament they can't receive it. In any case, St. Thomas Aquinas is not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. The Magisterium has permitted the laity to receive in the hand in many parts of the world, so we have no right to say that this practice is intrinsically wrong (cf. Matt 16:19).

Whether it is a Sacrilege to Step on Miniscule Fragments Shed from Consecrated Hosts

Now to tackle the meat of Mr. St. George's thesis. Of course, in no way do I intend to question Mr. St. George's honesty; I have ordered a packet of altar bread, and repeated his study, albeit with far less rigor, and have found that yes, taking Communion in the hand does create tiny crumbs. I would clear my palm of particles which could be mistaken for bread, place an unconsecrated host thereon, then remove and eat it. Next, I would inspect my palm under a bright light, and usually find a few tiny white specks. I am surprised that Mr. St. George found a particle 1.5 mm in length, since the largest I measured was around .5 mm, and my package had been jostled quite a bit in the mail (some pieces were even broken). Most I would estimate at .1 to .2 mm in length. But in any case, my issue is not with Mr. St. George's data, but with his conclusions.

To begin, a Sacrament consists of an outward sign which signifies an inward, supernatural, grace-giving reality. Both the sign and the thing signified are necessary for a valid Sacrament. Hence, if the sign is destroyed, the thing signified ceases to be present as well. Thus the Church teaches that when, after transubstantiation, the accidents of bread and wine are destroyed, the substance of the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ depart. This applies when the Sacred Species are digested in the stomach, when they are corrupted, or when the Blood is diluted beyond recognition or the Body ground to paste. I will quote the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Summa in this regard:

"The permanence of Presence... is limited to an interval of time of which the beginning is determined by the instant of Consecration and the end by the corruption of the Eucharistic Species. If the Host has become moldy or the contents of the Chalice sour, Christ has discontinued His Presence therein. Since in the process of corruption those elementary substances return which correspond to the peculiar nature of the changed accidents, the law of the indestructibility of matter, notwithstanding the miracle of the Eucharistic conversion, remains in force without any interruption." ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm )

St. Thomas put it thusly: "But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain" (Summa Theologica, III, Q. 77, Art. 4).

Note that St. Thomas explicitly says that "fine particles" of what used to be part of a consecrated host are not the Body of Christ. Now, the Roman Catechism does say that "the body of our Lord is contained whole and entire under the least particle of the bread" and I do not wish to commit the same error as those I am arguing against, viz., quoting St. Thomas against the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. However, note that the Roman Catechism says "the least particle of the bread." At some point a particle is so small that it is no longer possible to perceive that it is bread. Think of how many microscopic fragments must detach from the Sacred Species at every Communion. These particles, being imperceptible, are incapable of functioning as a "sign" which points to Christ; they do not posses the accidents of bread and thus neither do they posses the substance of Christ. I think that this principle can be applied, in a limited fashion, to particles visible to the naked eye (by someone with sharp vision, under a bright light) as well. Certainly one who inspects his hand after Communion, if he sees tiny white flecks thereon, can infer that they came from the consecrated host, and is morally obliged to consume them (indeed I am of the opinion that those who receive on the hand are obliged to inspect their hands). However, once these particles fall to the floor, it is no longer possible to discern that they are of the form of bread; if we were to pick them up we would not be able to say "I see bread" or even "I see a bread crumb" since with relatively few exceptions all the particles I found on my palm were small enough as to be indistinguishable from a speck of dead skin or some such. In sum, I believe that once these miniscule particles are dropped to the floor, Christ leaves. Thus we should not have to worry about stepping on Him when we visit a Novus Ordo Church.

A Blessing and a Caveat from the Vatican

John Paul II has clearly given his blessing to the practice of Communion in the hand:

"It also happens, on occasion, 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. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized." (Pope John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, 11)

The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments approve of this practice as well. However, I have noticed that they often attach the same caveat that we saw from St. Cyril above, viz., that the recipient is obliged to take special care about particles which might become detached from the consecrated hosts:

Congregation for Divine Worship, Letter En reponse a la demande, to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: "5. Whatever procedure is adopted, care must be taken not to allow particles of the eucharistic bread to fall or be scattered."

Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, Instruction Immensae caritatis, on facilitating reception of Communion in certain circumstances, 29 January 1973, Part 4. Devotion and reverence toward the Eucharist in the case of communion in the hand: "On the part of both the minister and the recipient, whenever the host is placed in the hand of a communicant there must be careful concern and caution, especially about particles that might fall from the hosts."

Congregation for Divine Worship, 3 April, 1985: "Care must be taken that fragments of the consecrated host are not lost."

Monsigniore Pedro Lopez Quintana, writing for the Secretariat of State in response to Mr. St. George's study, said "church regulations say that both the priest offering communion and the recipient are responsible... for the particles which are visible without the use of optical instruments."

I can only conclude that the Vatican issues these instructions for a reason, and that there is a real danger of being rude to Jesus, in so far as one who receives Communion on the hand without inspecting, if crumbs are detached from the host, forces Him to depart prematurely from particles intended for consumption. I would very strongly advise anyone who receives on his hand to thoroughly expect both his palm and his fingertips for particles of the Sacred species (based on the above Vatican instructions I believe this is a moral obligation). Or better yet, I would advise him to lick the area even if he does not see anything, just to be on the safe side. Or best of all, I would advise him to just receive on the tongue.

Conclusion

Taking Communion on the tongue is a venerable, lower-case t tradition of the Catholic Church. Yet while I am unequivocally opposed to the destruction of venerable lower-case t traditions, by the same token I am against conflating them with Sacred Tradition, the source of revelation. To receive Communion in the hand is absolutely not wrong in principle, as should be clear by now. And while it might be wrong to do so without taking special precaution not to drop any particles of the sacred species, this does not preclude others from attending churches where this is done, since once the .15 mm speck is on the ground, there is no longer any sign, and thus the thing signified is gone. It is not a sacrilege to walk around in a Novus Ordo Church. Therefore, one who is unable to go to any daily Mass besides the Pauline should go there with a clear conscience (provided there are no liturgical abuses which actually do render it sacrilegious), put up with the prayers that do not express the Church's theology of penance and sacrifice as fully as those of other liturgies, and receive the Body and Blood of Christ. And go frequently.

I am indebted to I. Shawn McElhinney and "Matt1618" for their article "The Red Herring of Communion in the Hand", in which I found the patristic passages cited in this essay. What can I say, most everyone is right about something.

Ben Douglass
January 28, Anno Domini MMV