• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

“Hand-Communion?” • Provocative Quotes

Jeff Ostrowski · September 7, 2021

Y FRIEND EARNED his doctorate in Theology from a German university during the 1970s. At that time, the Germans were pushing “Communion in the hand,” and they put together a brochure which tried to convince people this was an ancient practice. My friend said: “This is a beautiful brochure—with vibrant colors and splendid fonts—but you forgot to mention all the reasons the Church decided to abandon Communion in the hand…”

Loyalty Means Rejection? Much has been made recently about finding out whether Catholics “accept Vatican II.” This is a tricky subject because “accepting Vatican II” seems to mean deliberately and knowingly contradicting the documents promulgated by Vatican II—such as Sacrosanctum Concilium §36 and §116. We are supposed to ignore and denigrate the documents of Vatican II—and that somehow means we accept Vatican II. (Like I said, it’s confusing.) By the way, shouldn’t we accept all the councils? If someone asks you whether you accept Vatican II, perhaps the best response would be: “I accept all the councils of the Catholic Church; not just some of them.”

Communion in the hand: In 1965, Pope Saint Paul VI sent a survey to the bishops, asking: “Do you think a postive response should be given to the request to all the rite of receiving communion in the hand?” The results were as follows: (a) 1,253 were opposed; (b) 567 were in favor.

Not An Expert: Below are some interesting quotes regarding the reception of Communion in the hand. For the record, I’m not an expert on this subject—so I have ordered “Communion in the Hand” by Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise to educate myself.

The Council of Saragossa (380AD) declared “anathema” anyone who dared continue receiving Communion in the hand.

The Synod of Toledo (589AD) declared likewise.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (680AD) forbade the faithful from placing the Host in their hands, threatening transgressors with excommunication.

The Synod of Rouen (650AD) condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred through this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. Furthermore, this same synod decreed: “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywoman, but only in their mouths.”

Pope Saint Sixtus I (d. 125AD) said about the practice: “It is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand.”

Saint Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) said: “Out of reverence towards this Sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Question 82)

Pope Saint John Paul II said: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.” (Dominicae Cenae, February 1980)

Pope Saint Paul VI (1963-1978) said: “This method of distributing holy communion [on the tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist” (Memoriale Domini, 29 May 1969)

Speaking for myself: I cannot speak for anyone but myself. Personally, I believe laymen should never touch the Holy Eucharist, since that privilege belongs to priests (and deacons), who have consecrated their lives to God, pray the Divine Office daily under pain of mortal sin, and so forth. I am not comfortable “handling” the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Furthermore, reception of Communion in the hand (again, in my personal view) is bad—because our hands are dirty. Moreover, tiny particles might fall on the ground.

Being Consistent: From what I can tell, when hand-communion was allowed in the primitive church, the women were required to cover their hands with a white cloth. For instance, St. Caesarius of Arles (d. 542), noted 1 that men received Holy Communion on the hand, and women, on their hands covered with a veil (Sermon 227). If we desire to adopt “antiquarianism” (as Pope Pius XII put it), why don’t we require women to cover their hands with a white cloth? It strikes me as quite inconsistent.

Pope Saint Sixtus I, 115AD stated: “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.” That would mean that only ordained priests and bishops should handle the Sacred Vessels or their contents.

St. Basil the Great, 330-379 stated, “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.” This statement may very well have been made in response to St. Cyril of Jerusalem in 348 AD

The Council of Saragossa, 380, excommunicated anyone who dared continue to receive Holy Communion in the hand.

The Synod of Rouen, 650, condemned Communion in the hand to halt wide-spread abuses that occurred from this practice.

Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople, 680-681, forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening those who continued with excommunication.

Saint Thomas Aquinas, 1225-1274, In Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8, he says “Out of reverence toward this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.”
The Council of Trent, 1545-1565, “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.

Pope Saint Paul VI, in Memoriale Domini, he says, “This method (on the tongue) must be retained.”

Pope Saint John Paul II, in Dominicae Cenae, he says, “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.”


NOTES FROM THIS ARTICLE:

1   Omnes viri, quando communicare desiderant, lavant manus suas; et omnes mulieres nitida exhibeant linteamina, ubi corpus Christi accipiant. (“All men wash their hands before going to the altar, and all women hold a pure cloth on which they receive the Body of Christ.”)

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Follow the Discussion on Facebook

Filed Under: Articles, Featured Tagged With: Pope Paul VI Communion In The Hand, Traditionis Custodes Motu Proprio Last Updated: September 30, 2024

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Jeff Ostrowski

Jeff Ostrowski holds his B.M. in Music Theory from the University of Kansas (2004). He resides with his wife and children in Michigan. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“The main place should be given, all things being equal, to gregorian chant, as being proper to the roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.”

— ‘2011 GIRM, §41 (Roman Missal, 3rd Edition)’

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up