by: David L. Vise
Revision 2: November 4, 1995 (Feast of St. Charles Borromeo)
The Bible Speaks
"After David had taken counsel with his commanders of thousands
and of hundreds, that is to say, with every one of his leaders,
he said to the whole assembly of Israel: 'If it seems good to
you, and is so decreed by the Lord our God, let us summon the
rest of our brethren from all the districts of Israel, and also
the priests and the Levites from their cities with pasture
lands, that they may join us, and let us bring the ark of our
God here among us, for in the days of Saul we did not visit it.
And the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the idea was
pleasing to all the people.
Then David assembled all Israel, from Shihor of Egypt to Labo of
Hamath, to bring the ark of God from Kiriath-jaerim. David and
all Israel went up to Baalah, that is, to Kiriath-jaerim, of
Judah, to bring back the ark of God, which was known by the name
"LORD ENTHRONED UPON THE CHERUBIM". They transported the ark of
God on a new cart from the house of Abinadab; Uzzah and Ahio
were guiding the cart, while David and all Israel danced before
God with great enthusiasm, amid songs and music on lyres, harps,
tambourines, cymbals, and trumpets.
As they reached the threshing floor of Chidon, Uzzah stretched
out his hand to steady the ark, for the oxen were upsetting it.
Then the Lord became angry with Uzzah and struck him; he died
there in God's presence, because he had laid his hand on the
ark. David was disturbed because the Lord's anger had broken
out against Uzzah. Therefore that place has been called
Perez-uzza even to this day.
David was now afraid of God, and he said, 'How can I bring the
ark of God with me? Therefore he did not take the ark back with
him to the City of David, but he took it instead to the house of
Obed-edom the Gittite. The ark of God remained in the house of
Obed-edom with his family for three months, and the Lord blessed
Obed-edom's household and all that he possessed".
1 Chronicles 13: 1-14
The Church Speaks
The first paragraph in the above quotation is strikingly similar to
the text of Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of
Administering Holy Communion, published by the Congregation for
Divine Worship on May 29, 1969, and signed by the Holy Father Paul
VI, where it states:
"When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some
individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the
consecrated hosts in the people's hands be permitted in their
territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the
Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to
introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based
on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely
affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may
arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the
danger of a loss of reverence for the August sacrament of the
altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."
Three questions were therefore proposed to the bishops. Up to
March 12 the following responses had been received:
1. Does it seem that the proposal should be accepted by which,
besides the traditional mode, the rite of receiving Holy
Communion in the hand would be permitted?
2. Should experiments with this new rite first take place in
small communities, with the assent of the local Ordinary?
Yes: 751
No: 1,215
Invalid votes: 70
3. Do you think that the faithful, after a well planned
catechetical preparation, would accept; this new rite willingly?
Yes: 835
No: 1,185
Invalid votes: 128
From the responses received it is thus clear that by far the
greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline
should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed,
this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual
appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.
After he had considered the observations and the counsel of
those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" the
Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the
importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged
that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to
the faithful should not be changed.
The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and
people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed,
according to the judgement of the majority of the Catholic
episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred
liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the
Church."
The "Supreme Pontiff decreed that each bishop of the entire Latin
Church should be asked his opinion concerning the appropriateness of
introducing this rite" in a way remarkably similar to the way that
David consulted "with everyone of his leaders". The opinions were
obtained and the following was decreed: "The Apostolic See therefore
strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this
law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgement of the
majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present
rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common
good of the Church." This statement is so clear and direct that no
equivocation is possible. Just as in the response of the commanders
summoned by David that "the whole assembly agreed to do this, for the
idea was pleasing to all the people" so also it happened in Memoriale
Domini that "after he had considered the observations and the counsel
of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule" the
Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance
of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long
received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should
not be changed."
The Loophole
So what happened? Why do we see this practice in our churches?. The
answer is found in the penultimate paragraph of Memoriale Domini,
where it states:
"If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the
hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the
episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today's
often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the
conferences the duty and function of judging particular
circumstances, if any. They may make this judgement provided
that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false
opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind of the
faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed."
Thus, we see that the same document requiring the zealous observance
of Communion on the tongue for the "common good of the Church"
provided a condition we designate as a Loophole that has become the
pervasive practice, when it was intended to be only in "particular
circumstances" and only if the practice "has already developed in any
place" with the provision that "any danger is avoided of insufficient
reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the mind
of the faithful." What we have in the United States is an abuse, for
this practice (Communion in the hand) was not "already developed" in
our land at the time of the promulgation of Memoriale Domini, nor
could we consider honestly our case a "particular circumstance." It
is not surprising then, that we see more and more individuals who
disbelieve in the Real Presence of our Lord in the sacraments.
Anticipating this, the Holy Father (Paul VI) warned us by saying: "A
change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and
venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries
certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of
administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for
the August sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating
the true doctrine."
The Angelic Doctor
His holiness Paul VI was not alone in his concerns, for we can go as
far back as St. Thomas Aquinas (13th century) who in his Summa
Theologica, Volume III, Q. 82, Art. 13 states: "Secondly, because the
priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people,
hence as it belongs to him to offer the people's gifts to God, so it
belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people.
Thirdly, because out 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 to touch
it, except from necessity, for instance if it were to fall upon the
ground, or else in some other case of urgency."
The Ark of the Covenant as Precursor of the Eucharist
We started this article on a biblical note to establish the close
relationship between the Ark of the Covenant and the Eucharist. The
Ark was holy because the Spirit of the Lord overshadowed it and His
presence was around it and its contents, which were the manna,
Aaron's rod and the tablets of the Law. The Ark of the Covenant is
considered the archetype of the Blessed Virgin, for she carried
within herself the only person perfectly representing all the
contents of the Ark, Christ. He is the true bread from heaven. He
is the bread of life that performs miracles and signs as was the case
with Aaron's rod, and He by being the Word of God personifies the
commandments, which are the Will of the Father. We Catholics believe
that, after consecration, the resurrected Lord is actually present in
the host. The Lord does not overshadow the consecrated host but the
host is the Lord Himself. Our God is Holy, Holy, Holy and our hands
should not touch the host, the Lord, just as in a similar fashion God
showed us that the ark should never be touched, except by priests
consecrated to the service of the Lord.
Continuing now with our Biblical reading of the book of 1st
Chronicles, we observe that David declared that:
"No one may carry the ark of God except the Levites, for the
Lord chose them to carry the ark of the Lord and to minister to
him forever." (1 Chronicles 15: 2)
And David told the heads of the Levitical families that:
"Because you were not with us the first time, the wrath of the
Lord our God burst upon us, for we DID NOT SEEK HIM ARIGHT" (1
Chronicles 15: 13).
David properly ascertained what occurred with Uzzah when:
"he [Uzzah] died there in God's presence, because he had laid
his hand on the ark" (1 Chronicles 13: 10).
As the head of his people, David corrected the wrongdoing. Namely,
only priests consecrated to the service of the Lord were allowed to
handle the sacred, in his case the ark, in our case, the consecrated
bread. As we continue to read, we notice in 1 Chronicles 15: 14-15
that
"Accordingly, the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves
to bring up the ark of the Lord, the God of Israel. The Levites
bore the ark of God on their shoulders with poles, as MOSES HAD
ORDAINED ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF THE LORD".
Here we see that the problem was one of improperly following the
directives set up by Moses who spoke as the representative of God on
earth. As it pertains to our case, is it not known that the Pope is
the Vicar of Christ? Is it not known that the Seat of Moses was
replaced by the Chair of Peter? And, did he not say in his Memoriale
Domini that "the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion
to the faithful SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED"?
We also notice that David takes part in the celebrations of bringing
the ark to Jerusalem, and in 1 Chronicles 15: 26-28 it states:
"While the Levites, with God's help, were bearing the ark of the
covenant of the Lord, seven bulls and seven rams were
sacrificed. David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as were
all the Levites who carried the ark, the singers, and Chenaniah,
the leader of the chant; David was also wearing a linen ephod."
David was not only partaking of the celebrations but was clothed like
the Levites in fine linen, and, as if this were not enough, he was
wearing the linen ephod which was reserved only for the successor of
Aaron, the high priest (see Exodus 28: 1-43). David was thus acting
as the high priest of the God of Israel, the God Most High. Prior to
the existence of Israel, we find the first priest ever mentioned in
the Bible in Genesis 14: 18-20:
"Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought out bread and wine, and
being a priest of God Most High, he blessed Abram with these
words: 'Blessed be Abram by God Most High, the creator of heaven
and earth; And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your foes
into your hand.' Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything."
David is acting in full the part of Melchizedek, for he is the king
of [Jeru]Salem, bringing the ark of the covenant of the God of Israel
while
"he blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributed
to every Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf of
bread, a piece of meat, and a raisin cake" (1 Chronicles 16:
2-3).
Both the priesthood of Melchizedek and David are antecedents to the
true priesthood "according to the order of Melchizedek", to the true
King of Peace (Salem), the true Son of righteousness, the Son of
David (see Hebrews, chapter 7), our Lord Jesus Christ. Melchizedek
is not only the first priest mentioned in the Bible, nor did he just
introduce the bread and wine as offerings that our Lord Jesus later
consecrated as His Body and Blood of the New and Everlasting
Covenant, but Melchizedek is also the common theme between Christ and
David. This theme is brought up by both, first by David in Psalm 110
where he states in verse 1:
"The Lord says, to you, my Lord: 'Take your throne at my right
hand, while I make your enemies your footstool'."
This is verbatim the verse in Matthew 22: 44 that Jesus uses to
explain that He is the Messiah of whom David spoke. Psalm 110,
verses 2 & 3, establish the Kingship of the Messiah:
"The scepter of your sovereign might the Lord will extend from
Zion. The Lord says: 'Rule over your enemies'. Yours is
princely power from the day of your birth. In holy splendor
before the daystar, like the dew I begot you."
The priesthood is established in verse 4:
"The Lord has sworn and will not waver: 'Like Melchizedek you
are a priest forever'."
The titles and privileges of being at the same time King and Priest
is shared by the three of them and it is this commonality that helps
us understand the commonality of the Ark and the Eucharist, and why
the Pope calls us to avoid any "lessening of reverence toward the
noble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of
correct doctrine."
The Mass, The Sacrifice and the Eucharist
In chapter 16 of 1 Chronicles we see in an incipient form all the
components now present in the Eucharist. A key issue in our faith is
our emphasis on the concept of offering an acceptable sacrifice to
our Father in heaven. Christ as the new and everlasting covenant
offers himself in an unbloody sacrifice and as the only acceptable
sacrifice to His Father every time Mass is offered. (Here also lies
a big difference between us and our separated brethren since we not
only pray to our God but to Him and only Him we offer sacrifice.)
This principle of our faith is visited in 1 Chronicles 16: 1, where
we read:
"Then they offered up holocausts and peace offerings to God."
We recall that during the last supper when our Lord instituted the
Eucharist,
"He took the bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them" (Luke 22:
19).
As David
"blessed the people in the name of the Lord, and distributed to
every Israelite, to every man and to every woman, a loaf of
bread ..." (1 Chronicles 16: 2-3).
The Last Supper was celebrated during the Passover, not by accident
but by design. (This is clear in Luke 22:15, "I have eagerly desired
to eat this Passover with you before I suffer".) For our Lord wanted
to establish the connection, without a doubt, between His sacrifice
and the lamb offered during Passover (the lamb with the unbroken
bones which the Israelites were commanded to eat for the "salvation"
of their firstborn).
A great blessing comes during Communion when we take the Host which
is the body and blood of Christ as commanded by our Lord in John 6,
and specifically in John 6: 41:
"I AM the bread that came down from heaven."
This is anticipated in the "loaf of bread" in the passage from 1
Chronicles 16:2-3. He also said in John 6: 53:
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you".
The "flesh" correlates with the sacrificial "piece of meat" and the
blood with the "raisin cake" (as raisins are dried grapes and wine is
also made from grapes, and we know that Christ stated in Luke 22:
17-18 "Then He took a cup, gave thanks, and said, 'Take this and
share it among yourselves; for I tell you that from this time on I
shall not drink from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God
comes'"). Another pertinent point is that David understood the Will
of the Father regarding the holiness of the ark and thus "He now
appointed certain Levites to minister before the ark of the Lord, to
celebrate, thank, and praise the Lord, the God of Israel." Our
Catholic Church has a special sacrament reserved for those that will
perform the priestly responsibilities, known as Holy Orders. Via
this sacrament, the priest is given, by the hierarchy of the Church,
a unique position among the believers and he is able to perform
certain functions within the Church that no one else can, such as the
consecration of the host. For this reason, only the priest should be
allowed to touch the consecrated bread.
The Son of David and the Catholic Church
In 1st Chronicles, chapter 17, which is critical in this study, we
see that David becomes anxious to build a suitable permanent house
for the ark of the covenant and is given permission by Nathan to
proceed (1 Chronicles 17: 2):
"Do therefore, whatever you desire, for God is with you."
.
However, the Lord had other plans and communicates them via Nathan to
David telling him (1 Chronicles 17: 4):
"It is not you who will build a house for me to dwell in."
The Lord establishes at that very moment a covenant with David, stating:
"I will make your name great like that of the greatest of the
earth" (1 Chronicles 17: 8),
and, He explains how He planned to accomplish that task in 1
Chronicles 17: 11-15:
"So that when your days have been completed and you must join
your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you who will
be one of your own sons, and I will establish his kingdom. HE
IS IT WHO SHALL BUILD ME A HOUSE, AND I WILL ESTABLISH HIS
THRONE FOREVER. I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM, AND HE SHALL BE A
SON TO ME, AND I WILL NOT WITHDRAW MY FAVOR FROM HIM AS I
WITHDREW IT FROM HIM WHO PRECEDED YOU. BUT I WILL MAINTAIN HIM
IN MY HOUSE AND IN MY KINGDOM FOREVER, AND HIS THRONE SHALL BE
FIRMLY ESTABLISHED FOREVER. All these words and this whole
vision Nathan related exactly to David."
The common and obvious meaning of the passage is humanly partially
fulfilled by Solomon, David's son, in the actual building of the
temple. The divine house that the Lord spoke about is confirmed by
Him in Matthew 16: 18 when the Father reveals to Simon Peter the
identity of His Son, and Jesus then utters:
"Therefore I say to you, you are the Rock (Peter) and upon this
Rock I will build my Church" (House).
David understood well the depth of that promise for he says:
"O God! For You have made a promise regarding your servant's
family reaching into the DISTANT FUTURE, and you have looked on
me as henceforth the most notable of men, O Lord God. What more
can David say to you? You know your servant. O Lord, for your
servant's sake and in keeping with your purpose, you have done
this great thing" (1 Chronicles 17: 17-19).
David continues his exaltation of the Lord all through the remaining
verses of this chapter. This promised covenant becomes flesh in the
New Covenant that Christ establishes upon Himself. He is the New
Covenant, the Son of David, that we eat during the Eucharist and as
such is the living tabernacle, who, like the Ark, should not be
touched by human hands.
As Catholics we are called to understand the sacrament of Communion
as a gift so holy that our liturgy compels us to utter, prior to
receiving the Eucharist, the words "Lord, I am not worthy to receive
you, but only say the word and I shall be healed", and as Catholics
we are to signify what we say. This point becomes a source of
contradiction when we receive the Eucharist in the hand. Either we
skip those words and take Communion in the hand or keep them and take
Communion in the mouth, for either we are worthy or we are not.
Indeed, we are to be like newborns receiving our spiritual food in
the mouth, and should avoid being like Napoleon taking the crown from
the bishop's hands and crowning ourselves Emperors of all France.
Christ promised us everlasting life when He introduced the mystery of
transubstantiation in John 6: 51 and 53-57 respectively:
"I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats
this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is
my flesh for the life of the world."
"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son
of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and
I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food,
and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my
blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father
sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one
who feeds on me will have life because of me."
Christ, the consecrated host, is that bread of life that we as
Catholics so much desire, for we believe in Him and what He said.
This life is reflected also in His Church as a whole, and, when we
pay no heed to the advice of Paul VI, "that any danger is avoided of
insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist
arising in the mind of the faithful", we run the risk of Holland.
A Case in Point
Father Ken Roberts informs us that Holland used to be a very Catholic
country and was a vital source of missionary priests, but now its
vitality has been robbed when we see that after they adopted the
procedure of taking Communion in the hand, other things followed
(removal of crucifixes and other images, as well as removal of
kneelers, the tabernacle, etc.). This became very patent when he saw
that on one occasion at Holland's cathedral when Mass was celebrated
by their cardinal, only eight (8) faithful were present. We in
America have not yet reached this pathetic stage and are not too late
to halt the advances of the evil one who will stop at nothing in his
drive to destroy our Church. "Liberal theology" and politically
correct agendas will continue to undermine our faith if we do not
take a stand armed with the truths given to our Church by Christ. We
must oppose anything that seeks to erode our faithful following of
the Vicar of Christ so that we as good children of Mary whom the
devil "wages war against" (Apocalypses 12: 17) can prevail and claim
the sublime promise of eternal life with our Creator and Father in
the company of our heavenly family.
An Attempt to Justify the Abuse
In an attempt to justify taking Communion in the hand, it could be
argued that the hand is not more sinful than the tongue and that all
that is being done is taking Communion as it was done during the Last
Supper... Someone else may even say that holding the host in their
hands (and some kiss it before eating it) gives them a more intimate
relationship with Jesus and it is as if they were holding baby Jesus
in their arms. Let us dispose of the last argument first. The
consecrated host is not baby Jesus but the resurrected and glorified
Lord; as such, His sacramental presence is not equivalent to the
privilege given to Jesus' contemporaries. A more fitting
relationship to the Real Presence is the reaction of St. Thomas who
kneels and exclaims: "My Lord, and my God" (John 20:28), or the
encounter that the apostle John had with Jesus in heaven as related
in the book of Revelations Chapter 2, verse 17: "When I saw him, I
fell at his feet as though dead"; this is the very apostle who once
"was lying close to the breast of Jesus" (John 13:25), the "beloved
disciple." The apostles show us, as if in anticipation of the present
irreverence, the proper attitude vis-a-vis the resurrected Lord.
We see the motivation for the change by reading "Memoriale Domini"
where it states "in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill
their pastoral office in today's often difficult situation". Some
bishops, in an attempt to bridge that gap, encroached against "the
long received manner of ministering Holy Communion", for the dangers
that it warned against have not been avoided. Namely, of
"insufficient reverence and false opinions of the Holy Eucharist." It
is not the purpose of this paper to establish that the hand is any
less or any more sinful than the mouth, but to indicate that
receiving Communion in the hand introduces a de facto watering down
of our faith, as well as possible desecration.
Historically speaking, we have already established that Saint Thomas
Aquinas, all the way back in the 13th century, spoke authoritatively
and sternly about not touching the consecrated bread. We can thus
conclude that the practice of Communion in the hand was well
established by then. When we search further back in history, we see
that Communion in the hand was viewed as an abuse at the Synod of
Rouen in the year 650. Communion on the tongue is then, as the Holy
Father Paul VI says, "a very ancient and venerable tradition."
In order to dispose of the more insidious argument for taking
communion in the hand, namely that the apostles received in the hand
during the Last Supper, thus entitling anyone to receive the
Eucharist in this manner, we need to do a quick tour in biblical
exegesis that will indicate that the apostles were already priests
when they received the Eucharist.
Holy Orders and Washing of the Feet
Rituals in the Jewish tradition had both an immediate and a spiritual
significance; for instance, it was customary to wash before eating
together, starting with their feet. The feet were first, since in
those days the roads were dusty and the feet were evidently the most
affected by it. This constituted the practical and immediate
significance. From the spiritual perspective, the feet were washed
as a symbol of respect to someone of spiritual dignity; for instance
in the case of Abraham receiving the three men after he had seen God
in Mamre (Genesis 18:3): "My Lord, if I have found favor in your
sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought,
and WASH YOUR FEET." This ritual is repeated when the two angels sent
by the Lord to destroy Sodom, due to the homosexual depravity of the
city inhabitants, encounter Lot and he said: "Now behold, my lords,
please turn aside into your servant's house and spend the night, and
WASH YOUR FEET; then you may rise early and go on your way." This
concept is well in line with the passage in Isaiah 52:7 that states:
"How beautiful upon the mountains are THE FEET of him who brings good
news", referring to the Messiah. This apparent fixation on the feet
is explained by the Hebrew euphemism that referring to the feet is
equivalent to what occurs between them, namely the procreative act.
This point is clearly seen in the passage where David, after having
impregnated Uriah's wife, is intent in making her pregnancy appear
the act of her husband by forcing him to lie with her: "Go down to
your house, and WASH YOUR FEET" (2 Samuel 11:8), followed by the
response of Uriah: "Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink,
and to LIE WITH MY WIFE?" The Hebrews understood well the correlation
of procreation and fatherhood, which had both the physical
significance as well as the spiritual one; indeed, the spiritual
fatherhood is of greater importance. The washing of the feet thus
establishes the understanding that the person who is being washed has
this spiritual fatherhood, which consists in the bringing of the good
news and the establishing of the covenant with the one Father in
heaven. Obviously, this concept could be discussed in a deeper
fashion, but it is brought here up only schematically to illustrate
that what was in operation during the washing of the feet of the
apostles was indeed their reception of Holy Orders from Jesus, the
One whose feet were anointed with very expensive perfume.
Indeed, the ministry received from Jesus in this fashion is such
that, if the feet were not washed, Jesus could say to Peter: "If I do
not wash you, you have no PART with me." The Greek word used by Jesus
for the word "part" is "� " which is the same one used by the apostle
Peter (previously Simon) with another individual having the name
Simon who proposed to buy the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:21), a
presumptuous intention to which Peter responds: "You have no PART or
portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God." This
condemnation is again very similar to what the Lord said about Judas
during the washing of the feet (John 13:11): "For He knew who was to
betray him; that was why He said, You are not all clean.'"
In summary, the God who established the order in the universe
establishes the proper order at the Last Supper when He ordained His
priests prior to giving them the command:
"This is my body which is given up for you. DO THIS in remembrance
of me." The Lord does not have to subject himself to this particular
order. His mere command to do so entitles the apostles to their
ministry; however, in the same humility with which He washes their
feet, He subjects Himself to a proper order of events, in order to
fulfill all righteousness. It is in understanding this mystery that
the laymen are called to refuse a non-reality, and acknowledge that
they have not received Holy Orders, and reject any pretensions to
take the Holy body of the Lord in our hands as if we were priests.
Conclusion
All laymen should take to heart what the apostle St. Paul stated in 1
Corinthians 10:23:
"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things
are lawful, but not all things edify." Communion in the hand, though
lawful, is not profitable, because it dilutes the significance of the
center of our faith. Communion in the hand can lead to a cheapening
of what we must exalt. It can weaken our understanding of the
sacrifice on Calvary. We note with solace that our present Pope, John
Paul II, has prohibited the giving of Communion in the hand in Saint
Peter's Basilica (see the appendix.) In summation, I would like to
restate the well known assertion "Where Peter is, you will find the
Church", but would like to modify it by adding 'and where the Church
is, you will find the truth' (in a paraphrase of 1 Timothy 3:15: "the
Church is the pillar and foundation of our truth.") My desire is for
priests to align themselves with the Vicar of Christ in discouraging
Communion in the hand in their parishes. A vigorous teaching on this
matter could also be undertaken by the bishops so that all priests
have an opportunity to meditate on this matter and inform their
parishioners, accordingly, of the mind of the Church. To the laymen
reading this article, I would like to appeal to their true reverence
for the host. Aligning ourselves with the Pope, we should resolve to
take Communion, as he wishes us to take it, in the mouth.
