Communion in the Hand: What is the History? [UPDATED]

The book by Enrico Zoffoli, Communione sulla mano? Il vero pensiero della Chiesa secondo la vera storia del nuovo rito โ€“ โ€œCommunion in the Hand? The True Mind of the Church according to the True History of the New Riteโ€ โ€“ was published in Rome in 1990. In it, the author attempted to demonstrate that communion on the tongue was in use in Rome in the 5th-6thย century and passed from there into the regions of Gall in the 7thย century.

Zoffoliโ€™s book was soon reviewed in Ecclesia Orans by Matias Augรฉ, longtime professor at the Benedictine pontifical liturgical institute of Santโ€™ Anselmo in Rome, and more recently a member of the commission appointed by Pope Francis to examine Liturgiam authenticam and the issue of liturgical translation. Augรฉ shows that the authorโ€™s historical claims are not supported by the sources, and raises critical questions as well about the authorโ€™s methodology.

Pray Tell offers in translation Augรฉ’s review of Zofolli, in the hopes that it will be a constructive contribution to the discussion which has recently arisen:ย “Concerning Communion in the Hand” by Matias Auge.

*ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  *ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  *

Pray Tellย Readers will also be interested in Fr. Augรฉ’s recent blog post covering much of the same territory: “La distribuzione della Communione sulla mano: storia o ideologia?” (“The Distribution of Communion in the Hand: History or Ideology?”). (Let Google Translate work for you and you’ll have a pretty good translation – that service is getting better and better.)

Augรฉ’sย post is especially interesting because it addresses the historical errors in the recent bookย La distribuzione della Communione sulla mano by Federico Bortoli. It is this historically inaccurate book for which Cardinal Sarah wrote the preface that has recently aroused controversy.

Featured image: Institution of the Eucharist, Giusto di Grand (Joos van Wassenhove), active c. 1460-1480.

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

16 responses to “Communion in the Hand: What is the History? [UPDATED]”

  1. Rita Ferrone Avatar
    Rita Ferrone

    Brilliant and judicious. Thank you for offering this article.

    1. Nancy r Ballard

      Did Jesus give bread in the hand or did he put it directly into their mouths directly? Was Jesus worried for nano particles of bread?

      1. Paul Inwood

        Neither. He put it on the table and said “Help yourselves” !!

        The same may be true of Communion from the chalice. The late Clifford Howell, SJ, used to say “When I invite you round and offer you a glass of sherry, I don’t thrust it into your paw. I place it on the table in front of you and say ‘Here you are’.”

        In other words, the whole thing hinges around how you define the word “administer”.

  2. Aiden Riley

    Itโ€™s very interesting that the change in reception took place during the time of the change from leavened to unleavened bread. The author argues, the reason for this change was to protect against dropping the particles of unleavened bread that cling to the hands. This makes sense to me considering what St. Cyril of Jerusalem said about the care one should have when receiving communion in the hand โ€” to care even for the particles because they are more precious than gold dust. Since we are still using unleavened bread, it can be argued that we should continue the practice of communion on the tongue. Even if it were a 9th century development, it agrees with the mind and spirit of the Fathers prior to the 9th century. It preserves in essence the reverent reception of the Eucharist as described by them more than our contemporary practice.

    1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
      Anthony Ruff, OSB

      Well no, that’s not quite what the author argued. You seem to have shoe-horned his varied statement into the mold of the position you held before reading the piece. Read it again. The author argues that there is a cluster of things which came together in the Carolingian era to bring about changes which he clearly does not think are all to the good, and surely not the mindset of the Fathers. “Respect becomes distancing!” the author writes, with exclamation point for emphasis. Statements like that might have helped you grasp his argument better.

      “We should continue the practice of communion on the tongue…” – well, we can’t very well continue a practice not used by most Catholiccs for nearly 50 years now.

      awr

  3. Reyanna Rice

    I know tradition and history are important considerations, but we also need to read the signs of the times. The times we are living in have more and more virulent viruses that only require a small amount of viral material to infect. We also have the issue of the โ€œ super bugsโ€ that are resistant to almost all antibiotics. To engage in a practice where there is significant potential for contact with another personโ€™s potentially infective body fluids ( saliva ) and then carrying that to the next orrson in the communion line is dangerously irresponsible. I have observed this happening. Just recently I had a conversation with a priest who told me he often encounters this when someone wants communion on the tongue: his fingers come in contact with someoneโ€™s tongue. Bless him that he says he will then reach down to his alb to wipe off his fingers, but that is not a totally effective way to sanitize the hand. Believe me I know because I worked as a clinical lab scientist in hospitals for 40 years. Bad hand sanitizing is a big issue in hospital contracted Infections. The cup is surprisingly not as big of an issue because of the presence of alcohol in wine and IF the EMโ€™s are trained to wipe the cup properly. I know a microbiologist who studied this extensively. Also the CDC has apparently studied it. Imho, we should not engage in the practice of communion on the tongue for any reason because of the serious potential for spreading disease.

    1. Gerard Flynn

      Many thanks for posting. A wonderful read. An object lesson in the art/science of review.

      Thereโ€™s a typo in the dates for Pope Eutychian (275-283).

      1. Anthony Ruff, OSB Avatar
        Anthony Ruff, OSB

        Thanks! Corrected.
        awr

  4. The article entitled Communion in the Hand authored by Matias Aug’e quotes F.X. Funk who refers to an “extremely weak” man who received our Lord and King directly on his tongue.

    In regards to receiving the Eucharist directly by tongue Matias later adds, “that in these episodes we are always dealing with exceptional cases, that is, always and only of the sick.”

    Yup.

    1. Pete Williamson

      Are we not all weak sinners?

      1. Michael Marchal

        And that is one of those comments which overstates the case. The obvious answer is yes, but the New Testament is trying very hard to make us realize that we are more than that. Most importantly it is trying to make us realize and live the fact that we are God’s beloved sons and daughters. That is my my problem with the Roman Rite response to the Invitation to Communion: say but the word and my soul will be healed. The required word was spoken more than 2000 years ago. Why are we still asking for it?

      2. Pete Williamson

        Because we still need healing! Christ reaches out to his disciples following His Resurrection, after they abandoned Him at the moment when he saved sinners by His Cross. Jesus restores them to a proper relationship with Him. He doesn’t say mission accomplished and ride off into the sunset. He shows personal care for His followers to strengthen their faith, and enable them to continue His work of reconciling the world to Himself. There is a continual need to hear the Word spoken to us in order to continually renew and sustain us. I am not sure how your claim that the New Testament precludes spiritual healing after Christ since the Apostles went about doing the same thing as He did, and then Christians throughout ages did what they did. And guess what? They all acknowledged they were sinners and redeemed sons and daughters. Was Christ sacrifice once for all? Yes. But it is “overstated” to suggest that once for all means, the Lord did not want to reach into individual human existence at moments of great pain, sadness, failure, and shame. That would seem to make God a cold and distant banker who has forgiven our debts and not a loving Father who wants to help his children to flourish, grow, and trust in Him more and more.

  5. Michael Marchal

    It is strange to read something that I agree with almost totally that is meant as a rebuttal of my statement.
    Yes, we are all sinners, but when that is overshadowed, it becomes a trap.
    Yeah s, we all need ongoing healing, but is that what we should be saying every time we receive?

    1. Pete Williamson

      Yes. I have not met anyone who thought they were whole in their personhood (aka a finished project) and being made whole in the Gospels is signified by Jesus’ healing of blindness, lameness, muteness, being deafness, and other sicknesses. If none of us (or at least the majority) are not entirely whole then it would seem we are always in need of further healing (aka wholeness.) Which leads me to oppose the idea that we should remove the request for healing from the Communion Rite since it would go against one of the most common actions of our Lord in the Gospels. Which was to make the sinner and child of God, whole by his healing power which is present to us in the sacraments including the Eucharist in which we encounter the living, crucified, and resurrected Lord who heals.

    2. Karl Liam Saur

      I don’t see it as overshadowing at all. It’s an aspirational statement of trust (Faith) and Hope that moves through and beyond Humility (it’s not modesty), which the fuller Scriptural phrase points to in the original Scriptural context.

      Then again, I have memories from 30 some odd years ago of a recurring presider who hectored the congregation into omitting the “not”….

  6. jscott

    Yes we all need healing and forgiveness every day. I think Michael may have just been balancing this fact with another, namely, “we are all God’s beloved sons and daughters”. For some, this last is harder to realize and accept than the awareness of sinfulness. And for some, the opposite is true: “of course God loves me and forgives my little peccadilloes. After all, it’s me!”

    Holding together both deep personal sin and deep acceptance and love is hard. Oil and vinegar.

    “Lord, make me a decent salad dressing.”


Posted

in

, ,

by

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading