Archbishop Suspends Communion in the Hand

Deo Gratias!!!

This shows that receiving in the hand was an indult and can be revoked and Recieving on the tounge is the norm!

4marks.com/articles/details.html?article_id=3967

EWTNews

12-May-2009 – N

Archbishop Suspends Communion in the Hand To Avoid Abuses of Eucharist

Rome, Italy, May 11, 2009 (CNA).- The Archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, has prohibited the reception of communion in the hand in three parishes of his archdiocese and has asked priests to be on the watch for those who may be abusing the Eucharist.

The archdiocesan press office released a statement with the new guidelines established by the cardinal. It pointed out that in 1989, “the resolution of the Italian Bishops’ Conference came into effect, authorizing, with the approval of the Holy See, the distribution of Holy Communion in the hand.”

However, the statement noted, recently there have been reports that this privilege has been gravely abused. Consequently, Cardinal Caffarra has decided that at the Cathedral of St. Peter, at the Basilica of St. Petronius and at the Shrine of the Virgin of St. Luke, “communion shall be distributed to the faithful only on the tongue.”

According to a letter by the vicar general of Bologna, Msgr. Gabriele Cavina, “grave abuses” have taken place, as “some have taken the Sacred Species as ‘souvenirs’,” “put it up for sale,” or worse, “have taken it to be profaned in satanic rites.”

The priest explained that numerous cases of profanation of the Eucharist has been by individuals who have taken advantage of the option to receive communion in the hand, especially during large celebrations or at churches attended by large numbers of the faithful. “For this reason, it is best to control the moment of the reception of Holy Communion by following the common norms which are well-known.”

Cardinal Caffarra said that during Mass, ushers should ensure that each person who approaches the altar to receive communion “consumes the host immediately and that no one be allowed to walk away with the Eucharist in their hands or to place it in their pockets.”

How sad that anyone would treat the Body and Blood of the Lord in any manner short of total reverence.

How wonderful that at least one more bishop recognizes this, and is actually doing something about it.

Prays for him and all priests in this, the year of the Priesthood.

No priests… no Eucharist…
No Eucharist… no Church.

.

Every single person in my parish takes communion in the hand. We are new to the parish (about 8 months) and have never seen this before. Has anyone else ever had this experience?

Redemptionist Sacramentum

[92.] 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. 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

Roman Missal

  1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the priest raises the host slightly and shows it to each, saying, Corpus Christi (The Body of Christ). The communicant replies, Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed and if the communicant so chooses, in the hand. As soon as the communicant receives the host, he or she consumes it entirely.

If, however, Communion is given under both kinds, the rite prescribed in nos. 284-287 is followed.

  1. When Communion is distributed under both kinds,

The chalice is usually administered by a deacon or, when no deacon is present, by a priest, or even by a duly instituted acolyte or another extraordinary minister of Holy Communion, or by a member of the faithful who, in case of necessity, has been entrusted with this duty for a single occasion;

Whatever may remain of the Blood of Christ is consumed at the altar by the priest or the deacon or the duly instituted acolyte who ministered the chalice. The same then purifies, wipes, and arranges the sacred vessels in the usual way.

Any of the faithful who wish to receive Holy Communion under the species of bread alone should be granted their wish.

  1. For Communion under both kinds the following should be prepared:

If Communion from the chalice is carried out by communicants’ drinking directly from the chalice, a chalice of a sufficiently large size or several chalices are prepared. Care should, however, be taken in planning lest beyond what is needed of the Blood of Christ remains to be consumed at the end of the celebration.

If Communion is carried out by intinction, the hosts should be neither too thin nor too small, but rather a little thicker than usual, so that after being dipped partly into the Blood of Christ they can still easily be distributed to each communicant.

  1. If Communion of the Blood of Christ is carried out by communicants’ drinking from the chalice, each communicant, after receiving the Body of Christ, moves and stands facing the minister of the chalice. The minister says, Sanguis Christi (The Blood of Christ), the communicant responds, Amen, and the minister hands over the chalice, which the communicant raises to his or her mouth. Each communicant drinks a little from the chalice, hands it back to the minister, and then withdraws; the minister wipes the rim of the chalice with the purificator.

  2. If Communion from the chalice is carried out by intinction, each communicant, holding a communion-plate under the chin, approaches the priest who holds a vessel with the sacred particles, a minister standing at his side and holding the chalice. The priest takes a host, dips it partly into the chalice and, showing it, says, Corpus et Sanguis Christi (The Body and Blood of Christ). The communicant responds, Amen, receives the Sacrament in the mouth from the priest, and then withdraws.

Yes, this has been a problem in our parish. The Eucharist has been (occasionally) found in the pews, in the missalettes, and even once outside on the ground. Our pastor suspended reception in the hand at the Mass where it was determined to be happening.

This will stop abuses… because people lack the ability not to chew, swallow or take it out of their mouths? If they want to sell it, they are going to find away to smuggle them out. Placing It in a hand or mouth will not make a difference. Also how do they know it is used in satanic rituals? Did they send him pictues with the date and where the eucharist was stolen? Call me cynical but maybe he should just be honest and say he does not like that form, instead of making up excuses. I would be fine with that as a bishop it is his right over his flock.

Keep in mind that he only did this in 3 parishes. While there’s always the possibility that a bishop might do this simply because he doesn’t like it (and I don’t mean to imply that such is his motivation) I would think that if that were the case, he would have done so for the entire diocese, not just 3 parishes.

Although I’m not at all familiar with the area, it does sound like these 3 churches might be popular with tourists–based only on the names, so it’s just a guess.

This is also old news. As I recall this was done over a year ago.

This shows that the “idea of CITH” can be revoked and that it is not a “Universial Norm”.

There are those who believe that you can not refuse someone “CITH” if the choose to recieve it in that manner.

I hope this catches on.

I have never been to a parish where everyone received in the hand. I try not to watch others receive, so I’ve never counted or done the math. :shrug:

What this “shows” is the unfortunate reality that some sad individuals would profane the Body of Christ in the most unspeakable ways. This is not a time to “celebrate” the ending of communion in the hand in three parishes in Rome; it is to show sorrow that the Body of Christ has been handled in such a way. The way of reception of the Most Holy Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is a far second compared to the interior disposition of the person receiving; it isn’t the “us vs. them” politics of communion in the hand versus on the tongue.

To protect Holy Communion from being disrespected should be commended. This is a major step and it should be rewarded.


The first and up-most priority would be to limit the profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. As can be seen – the addition of communion in the hand clearly widen the doorway to profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. So removing the addition of CITH to limit the profanation --takes precedence over the disposition of the person receiving.

Rewarded how?

The “first and up-most priority” is to celebrate the sacraments to provide for the sanctification of the souls of Christ’s flock. It is just as much a “profanation” to receive communion when one is not properly disposed; what solution do you propose for that? While I am not personally overly supportive of communion in the hand, I do think that too many use the issue politically instead of in regards to the celebration of Mass. Your decision of “removing the addition of CITH to limit the profanation --takes precedence over the disposition of the person receiving” is simply your opinion.


That is a given—but whether a person is properly disposed–is not something that a priest can not readily discern. Communion is offered with the objective that the person Is properly disposed—if the person isn’t–this is a profanation taken on by the person against the objective of the Church.

Actually no – what you call simply my opinion—is based on what the Church herself dictates. Take note–the Church states that just the risk of profanation is enough to withdraw CITH. So while there be some that may be “properly disposed”—the risk of profanation in any way of form–is enough to withdraw CITH over all in a parish–or if the case may be the diocese.

RS-2004

[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.

Would you not admit that there is also a risk of profanation with communion on the tongue, too? So, what is the definitive answer?


If you take a second look at my post #13—you will notice I said --limit–the profanations of the Blessed Sacrament. There is still the possibility of profanation via communion on the tongue —but the addition of CITH widens and opens up the avenues of profanation of the Blessed Sacrament. The possibility of profanation cannot be done away with 100%–but what can be done is to close down avenues that add to profanation of the Sacrament. Here is where the Church dictates that risk is enough for the withdraw of CITH.

Do I have to remind you that the TLM was at one stage also only available by indult and the OF was the Universal Norm? I suppose at that point you were hoping that the TLM would be done away with too.

This idea of ‘xyz is only an indult, therefore it’s less-than in some fashion’ is a logical fallacy of the worst order and to argue thusly does no favours to those who dislike CITH.

At the very least, Summorum Pontificum shows how quickly the indult can become the norm (or at least the non-indult). Thus how little relationship there is between something being being norm or indult and being more or less reverent or appropriate.

Precisely. The initial article referenced in this thread is being used as a political tactic to promote the abolishment of communion in the hand because some regard CITH as being “less-than” communion on the tongue. It reminds me of the thread regarding women and the wearing of pants. There was a gist there that, for some reason, a woman who goes to Mass in pants is less worthy to receive than a woman in a skirt, regardless of the fact that the woman in the skirt could have been, for all we know, that most brazen sinner this side of the Mississippi, while the woman in pants may be a truly pious person. The Archbishop in Rome suspended CITH because of a certain, distinct problem, not because of a perceived lack of reverence among those in attendance. While I am not overly fond of communion in the hand, I do not share the opinion that if everyone received kneeling on the tongue, then reverence would increase. I go to Mass every week where the altar rail is used and people simply go up to it with the same mentality as at other churches where people line up to receive in the hand.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.