March 2009 Print

The following interview deals with an urgent problem that has appeared due to the return of the old Liturgy to churches which have been transformed by the Novus Ordo: the reception of Holy Communion. The Catholic Church in the West for centuries upheld the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue while kneeling for dogmatic reasons, especially against the Protestant reformers and the “enlightenment” philosophers. The new theology has brought forth not only a corresponding new Mass, but also a new practice regarding the reception of Holy Communion. This happened, however, with disastrous consequences for faith in the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.

Many prelates insist–if they do not place themselves in open disobedience to the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum–on the reception of Holy Communion in the hand also at Masses celebrated according to the traditional Missal.

Fr. Maehlmann is an SSPX priest in Germany (ordained in 2001). Since 2006 he has been involved in various campaigns of the German district of the SSPX, providing information nationwide to Catholic priests about the celebration of the Traditional Latin Mass, etc. The interview is aimed at those who are involved in the Novus Ordo and are struggling with the question of how to receive Holy Communion.

Fr. Maehlmann, the question how to receive Communion is an important question today. The Pope himself, through his Master of Ceremonies, Guido Marini, has let it be known that in public papal Masses he wishes to distribute Communion only on the tongue and no longer in the hand.

Yes. Through his example the Pope raises the discussion of the correct method of receiving the Body of Christ. We need this because the crisis of the past 40 years of the “reformed” liturgy is a crisis of disrespect for the most holy Sacrament of the altar. This is the only chance for the survival of the belief in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist: a return to reverence.

The fact that, from now on, in papal masses Communion will be distributed only on the tongue raises the question whether a priest, in general, has the right to refuseto give Communion to someone who insists on receiving Communion in the hand.

In the past, in those countries where Communion in the hand was introduced and “permitted” by the hierarchy, a priest could in praxis not call upon his conscience in order to avoid giving out Communion in the hand. This put many priests in a difficult situation, and there were not a few who broke because of this. Modernist general vicars all of a sudden did not want to hear about tolerance, which they normally conceded generously to seriously sinful behavior, for example, in the matter of artificial birth control. Extreme measures were taken against these priests who maintained the traditional Mass and the custom of receiving Communion on the tongue kneeling; suddenly repressive and harsh methods, which could be described as “zero tolerance,” seemed to be much more appealing to a certain type of prelate. And this was applied to liturgical customs that were the standard throughout many centuries in the Church. Why, all of a sudden, were there extreme measures against one’s own tradition?

Could you give examples where priests suffered because of Communion in the hand?

I myself was a witness to a shocking accusation of an old veteran priest, who touched his head and said despairingly: “What can I do now? I give out Communion in the hand! The entire world can call on their consciences but not we priests!” Another priest informed me regretfully that with fear he watches each time Communion is distributed. He returns from Communion with shaking hands; I can understand why. He has upheld the Faith of his ordination and is now forced to act against his convictions. This is inhumane. Unfortunately the above-mentioned kinds of general vicars, pastoral ministers, and bishops have not died out. God leaves them some time to think about what they can make good again. It is a true concern to pray that they change their minds and that they don’t use their time to “make full the measure of their evil.” We are speaking, after all, about what the Church calls the “most Holy Sacrament.”

This problem turns up lately in a different way. The Pope, with his motu proprio of July 7, 2007, has allowed all priests to celebrate Mass in the traditional rite. Is then permission given automatically (to the priest) to refuse giving Communion in the hand? There are public cases in which provocateurs have demanded Communion in the hand during the old Mass. Is the priest required to give in to this?

This is in fact a new problematic situation due to the increasing availability of the traditional Mass, which in France is fittingly called the Messe de toujours (i.e., the Mass of all time).

As an example, in the diocese of Freiburg (Germany), it happened that a celebrating priest provocatively stood before the communion rail and in a loud voice explained that Communion in the hand and Communion on the tongue are of equal value, and for that reason both are permissible. The people present were rightly shocked at the fact that there at the old Mass they were forced to kneel on the stone floor if they wanted to receive Communion on the tongue kneeling.

The essence of the problem is, according to my view, whether it is truly correct, as this priest says, that Communion in the hand and on the tongue are of equal value. If this were the case, then the priest would have no real reason, even in the old rite, to refuse Communion in the hand, and the faithful then would, in reality, have the possibility of choosing. But this is not so.

Some priests who wish to return to the practice of Communion on the tongue help themselves by explaining that the old rite does not acknowledge Communion in the hand and a mixing of the Novus Ordo of Pope Paul VI with the traditional Roman rite; further, in the traditional Mass one may receive Communion only on the tongue.

This is an argument that can be used in order to speak about an actual pastoral situation. This is, however, by itself quite insufficient, since it changes the question of the correct manner of receiving Communion into a question about rites in the following way: in the Novus Ordo, Communion in the hand is the correct manner of receiving and in the old Mass, it is receiving on the tongue–and you have to follow the law…

I do not think it was the intention of the Holy Father to bring this line of thinking about since he has expressed his desire to insist on the distribution of Communion only on the tonguewithout exception in the New Mass also. With this he gave a clear signal: “Thus is it actually right, and I wish that in general people return to this.” In this direction one must think it over, and one will come to the truth: Communion in the hand and on the tongue are not of “equal value.”

But what are the reasons for this? Can you say that Communion in the hand is an unworthy way of receiving the Body of Christ and dangerous to the Faith? If you answer this question with yes, then every priest, calling on his conscience, has the right to refuse to give an individual member of the faithful who demands it Communion in the hand regardless of whether this is in the old rite or the new rite.

That is correct! Although it is true that Canon Law does not mention disrespect among the reasons for refusing to give Holy Communion, let us be honest: Do we really need a special law for such a thing? Isn’t it self-evident that the most holy Sacrament that we have must be handled in a holy and honorable fashion? If you have to make up regulations for such things that are common sense, where would we end? The law of the Church cannot possibly regulate everything.

It is a certain Catholic teaching that, in regard to an ecclesiastical law in a concrete situation, a priest is not bound to obey when the action could harm his own soul or the common good of the Church, for the sanctification of the soul is the highest law of the Church.

And is this the case with Communion in the hand?

It is obvious to me, looking at the pastoral reality, that Communion in the hand is really an unworthy way to distribute or to receive the Body of the Lord and that Communion in the hand is also responsible for the destruction of belief in the Real Presence. For this reason there exists neither for the priest nor a member of the faithful the possibility of choosing between Communion in the hand or on the tongue since we may choose only between permissible things.

Can you briefly outline what the main arguments for this position are?

In the first place we must note that permission for Communion in the hand was obtained by defying Church authorities; it was exercised without permission; practices were initiated which couldn’t easily be taken back, since the evil quickly spread. At that point the expression of the “power of the facts” was coined. This happened first in Holland at the instigation of priests who had already lost their belief in the Real Presence, that is, the substantial presence of the Lord under the form of bread. The attitude of adoration and the “untouchability” of the most holy Sacrament that is expressed in the kneeling reception of Communion on the tongue was, to them, a thorn in their side. The old belief seemed to them to be out-dated. They were of the spirit of “modern enlightenment,” which in reality means “no longer in possession of the Catholic Faith.” Thus, Communion in the hand was in its beginnings directed against the Faith (of the Church). In fact, I would say it was against the central tenet of the life of faith, against the mystery of transubstantiation, in which the entire substance of the bread is changed into the substance of the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

How could they hope that something positive would come from an extorted permission?

Certainly not with a glance back to the early Church! As new publications point out, never has Communion in the hand in the modern form been practiced in all of Church history. Never has a simple member of the faithful with unconsecrated hands and without a gesture of adoration been allowed to reach for a host. In the early Church, in order to show their adoration, the faithful took off their shoes in order to approach in a worshipful manner, and with their tongue took up the host from a cloth placed over their hands.

Are there also dogmatic objections to Communion in the hand?

Communion in the hand is without a doubt a practice which conflicts with dogmatic beliefs. Infallibly has the Council of Trent defined that “The entire and undivided Christ is there under the species of bread and in every part of it.”

On the other hand, with Communion in the hand one must take into account that a particle (of the host) could remain on the hand or fall onto the floor and be trampled on by the faithful. That is an act against the Faith. If it is the belief of the Church that even a particle of the consecrated host is the Body of Christ, then Communion in the hand is absolutely unacceptable. One must neither put his own faith nor the faith of others in danger; above all, one must not run the risk that the Body of our Lord should suffer such ungratefulness or such a disgrace as to fall under the feet of the people.

Look with what respect the Church surrounded the Sacrament of the altar in the traditional liturgy, how carefully the priest purifies the sacred vessels. That is not ritualistic folklore: we believe in what we do.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has, as recently as 1985, urged: “Attention has to be paid lest even a small piece of the host be lost.”

True, but Communion in the hand does not allow such attentiveness as the priest gives the host “out of the hand” and the faithful usually do not pay attention to small pieces. They treat the host in various and sundry ways–in the worst case, you may watch on YouTube where young people, before a running camera, take Communion in the hand and in the end make a joke of it. This cannot happen when one receives Communion on the tongue; it is put directly on the tongue. Small pieces, which often fall when the priest distributes the host, are caught by the paten. The paten must, according to the rubrics of even the Novus Ordo of 1970 (which can be read in the General Instruction, §80), be readily available for the distribution of Communion. It is therefore not true at all that Communion in the hand is the specific way of distributing Communion for the new rite. It was not intended in this rite and was introduced by way of disobedience! What this disobedience enabled, we have painfully lived through: after the death of Pope John Paul II, a host consecrated at his Mass was put up for sale on eBay! Is it not terrible to be struck dumb with horror if one observes how, even in Rome, Holy Communion is distributed in Masses with large congregations? This enables the abuse. Cardinal Meissner from Cologne recently expressed the opinion in an interview that these large Masses were not good, as he several times told Pope John Paul II; he had often seen how leftover hosts were simply put in baskets with cloth inside and overturned. No one genuflected before these containers. Such a manner of treating the most holy Sacrament, of treating our LORD, is unthinkable in the confines of the traditional Mass since the traditional rite breathes the spirit of adoration from the beginning until the end of the Mass.

You mentioned the ritual respect of the traditional Mass. How is belief in the Real Presence in the old rite diminished?

Because of the aforementioned dogma, there are many rubrics in the traditional Mass for the priest which he must observe in order to prevent the loss of small particles of the host. In my brochure “A New Desire for the Old Mass,” I have listed these fifteen rubrics, among them one where the priest, from the moment of consecration, holds his thumb and index finger together so that the small pieces of the host that may still cling to his fingers do not fall to the floor. That is an argument from tradition. Since the Church has acted thus over many centuries, one cannot say that the Church is acting here in an unreasonable fashion, and as mentioned, the Council of Trent has sanctioned this action through a special dogma.

Communion on the tongue, however, is not an invention from the Council of Trent. St. Thomas Aquinas, a reliable teacher of theology, laid out this practice in his Summa.

Yes, the Summa, Part III, Question 82, Article 3, names the theological reasons whereby the priest alone is allowed to distribute the consecrated host: the possibility that each lay person might grab the host was inconceivable to the theology of the Middle Ages. According to St. Thomas, it is, in the first place, the priest who, in the person of Christ, consecrates; for that reason he is entitled to distribute Communion and respectively–to apply this to our situation–to him belongs the permission to touch the holy Sacrament. In the second place, he has the permission to touch the Blessed Sacrament, since, as a priest, he is empowered as a mediator between God and man. Thirdly, his hands were consecrated with holy oil at his ordination in order to be allowed to touch the Body of the Lord. This is how it is! The most holy Sacrament is no longer holy if everyone can lay hands on it. That would be a profanation of the Blessed Sacrament; and if this happens with free will and knowledge, this is certainly sinful. For this reason I understand very well why so many priests who are faithful to their faith and wish to spread it have such a crisis of conscience about Communion in the hand.

What do you say to the priests in the Novus Ordo?

It is not fitting for us to attack those priests who are pressured into distributing Communion in the hand. We must fight with all our power so that this situation in the holy Church of God is ended as soon as possible. Every priest has the inalienable right to carry out his ministry according to the Catholic Faith. I repeat, it is inhumane to reproach him about this right, for example, in the refusal to distribute Communion in the hand. This situation must be ended as soon as possible!

To the priests I say: What the Holy Father does–that is, distributing Communion only on the tongue–should be an example for them. It would be a great misunderstanding if only during a papal Mass people received Communion on the tongue kneeling. Such a situation could be misinterpreted in the sense that it is a gesture of respect to the Pope (and not to the Blessed Sacrament).

An official papal prohibition on distribution of Communion in the hand at traditional Masses or, respectively, to demand such, would be a first–and I say first–necessary step towards full abolition of this unfortunate way of distributing Communion in which Christ is not given what is due Him. We have only this one chance: a return to reverence!