Concerning Communion in the Hand*
Matias Augé
In
the span of two years [1989-1990], five editions of a small book by Enrico
Zoffoli regarding communion in the hand were published.[1]
The little work was intended to be an introduction to a critical understanding
of the practice of receiving communion in the hand, a practice which had begun
some years previously in Italy [December 3, 1989].[2]
The author himself states this when he affirms that his position “expresses a
critical conscience, without having the spirit or the tone of a dispute” [p.
123].
This
interests us, not only because the study has had, to all appearances, a
remarkable diffusion, but also because it is clothed with a certain scientific
gravity – he cites no less than 127 authors between ancient and modern – and,
as the subtitle says, purports to tell the “true history” of communion in the
hand.
With
our contribution we do nothing other than follow the invitation addressed by
the author to his readers at the end of the book, where he makes use of Saint
Thomas’ words: “If someone [...] should wish to counter all that we have
stated, let him not speak in dark corners or address unlearned people [...] but
let him go ahead and write, if he has the courage to do so...” [quoted on pp.
124-125].
Zoffoli
is not an unknown author: a member of the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas,
he has published numerous and voluminous works of philosophy, theology,
Passionist hagiography, and also a book on the Holy Mass.
In
the Preamble to the fifth edition, the author says that he has been induced to
edit and augment this new edition of his book “encouraged by the flattering
judgments of eminent members of the hierarchy.” And he adds: “One illustrious
theologian, for his part, deigned to define the treatise as aureus” and added:
‘It will be a milestone in the history of this last part of the century’.” The
reader is intrigued by these complimentary phrases, although he or she does not
know just who the “eminent personalities of the hierarchy” are, nor the
“illustrious theologian,” who have so generously praised this little work.
To
give a certain direction to our exposition, we will first summarize the
contents of the booklet and then move on to its critical highlights, which will
focus exclusively on the historical part which constitutes, without a doubt,
the pivotal point of the author’s arguments.
The
book displays on its cover an illustration taken from the Bible of Saint Louis
from the 13th century [Toledo], in which Christ gives communion on the tongue
to his apostles. The choice of this illustration is no doubt programmatic, as
will be seen.
After
the Preamble mentioned above, the text is divided into 17 short chapters: the
origin of the new praxis, sense of the concession, unilateral and insufficient
motivations, negative results, the thought of the Church, evolution of
Eucharistic devotion, essential terms of the dogma, the reason for its
rejection, “physical” and “anthropological” concepts of the consecrated bread,
education for Eucharistic devotion, profanations, inevitable dropping and
scattering of the fragments, demands of hygiene, from freedom-of-choice to
anarchy, praise of the hand? (sic), balance, by way of a summary: give and
take.
There
follows a conclusion, a brief mention of bibliographic resources, and the index
of persons. There is no doubt, as already mentioned, that the most important
part, given the nature of this little work, is the historical one; to it the Passionist
priest dedicates seventeen pages (35-51). It’s time to devote our attention to
it.
Father
Zoffoli’s thesis can be summed up using his own words: “thorough investigations[3]
have shown that the practice of communion in the hand did not at all remain in
force until the end of the 9th century, as J.A. Jungmann argued, followed by A.
Bugnini [...] Such a position is entirely arbitrary, historically untenable…”
[p. 38]. Later, Zoffoli offers us a series of data on the history of the
minister of communion together with some other data on the history of communion
on the tongue and in the hand – the only data relevant to the case.
After
a brief exposition of this data, the author exclaims: “What is striking,
insofar as it illuminates the historical context in which everything happened,
is that the new liturgical practice, derived from the Rome of Saints Eutychian,
Innocent I, Leo, Agapitus, and Gregory the Great, was adopted by the synod of
Rouen for reasons of greater reverence toward the Eucharist...” [p. 41]. These
words offer us the arrangement to follow in our critical reflections.
The
text of Pope Saint Eutychian (275-283) says: Nullus praesumat tradere
communionem laico vel foeminae ad deferendum infirmo.[4]
Clearly, the text in question does not prove anything about the practice of
giving communion in the hand or on the tongue; it simply forbids the laity to
take communion to the sick.
The
passage concerning Saint Agapitus, who was Pope from 535 to 536, speaks of the
healing of a paralyzed mute at the moment when the Pontiff placed the host on
his tongue: ...Cumque ei dominicum corpus in os mitteret, illa diu muta ad
loquendum lingua soluta est…[5] We
do not know which thorough investigations Zoffoli might have consulted, but
clearly he did not read, among others, F.X. Funk,[6]
because, if he had read him, he would have been aware that the German scholar
had previously observed about that episode: “The case is such a singular one
that whoever might want to deduce something from it regarding the common
practice – which is precisely Zoffoli’s case – would clearly be making a
mistake. Here we have the case of an extremely weak man, and from that point of
view it is understood that the Eucharist could not have been given to him in
the hand.”[7]
What’s more, communion had to be given in a visible way in order for it to be
perceived as the cause of the mute man’s tongue being unbound; for this reason
it was logical to place the host on his tongue.[8]
As
far as Gregory the Great is concerned, the episode that John the Deacon
narrates about Gregory in the Life is well known: the pontiff, seeing the
irreverent attitude of a matron at the moment of communion, immediately
withdrew his hand from the mouth of the woman.[9]
This episode is reported by Zoffoli in support of his thesis.
We
believe, however, that our author did not read Jungmann well, whom he cited as
an adversary to be opposed, because if he had read it, he would not have
presented the episode as a clear witness of the new rite, as if the Austrian
liturgical did not know it, but he would have tried to refute the argument of
Jungmann, who writes precisely about this: “The famous anecdote narrated by
John the Deacon must be eliminated from consideration (of single notices from
the earliest period), Vita S. Gregorii II, 41, the story about the matron who
in receiving the sacrament from the hands of the pope begins to laugh, because
she recognized the bread that she herself had offered, at which the pope
quickly withdrew his hand ab eius ore.”[10]
Jungmann
considers the episode a legend, interpolated, from the 9th century.[11] But
even if the fact were true, the explanation that John the Deacon, in his
narration, made use of rites common in his time is more than probable. In the
episode in question it would demonstrate the formula used in offering the
Eucharist: it is a formula from the 9th century.[12]
We
note, finally, that in these episodes we are always dealing with exceptional
cases, that is, always and only of the sick.
But
our author seems to be more pleased with other, more ancient witnesses. On page
40 he states: “In 404, under Innocent I (+ 417), a synod was celebrated which,
among the various canons, also imposes the rite of communion on the tongue.”
This statement has no bibliographical reference provided. We have tried to
determine the accuracy of this claim and, as a result of our investigations, it
can be said that under Innocent I two Roman synods were celebrated: the first
in 402 and the second on January 27, 417.[13]
None of the canons of these two synods speaks of communion on the tongue.
The
synod of 402 issued 16 canons concerning the ordination of bishops and clerics,
several impediments to marriage and virginity. The synod of 417 dealt with
Pelagius and Celestius, as can be deduced from various letters of Pope Innocent
I, sent to several bishops of Africa who had asked him to validate, with the
apostolic authority, the decisions taken by them at the synods of Milevum and
of Carthage in 416.
Our
scholar, again on page 40, then quotes a text of Pope Saint Leo the Great
(440-461), for which, however, he gives an inaccurate bibliographical
description. This is a passage taken from a sermon of the pontiff in which Leo,
speaking of those who do not profess a correct faith in the Eucharistic
presence, affirms: Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur, et frustra ab illis
AMEN respondetur, a quibus contra id quod accipitur, disputatur.[14]
To present this text as a witness in favor of communion on the tongue is
possible only if one makes a superficial interpretation of the Latin text. The
expression ore sumitur and similar ones are frequent in the ancient and modern
liturgical texts: already in the Veronese Sacramentary, the oldest document of
the Roman liturgy, we find the classic prayer after communion that is expressed
in these terms: Quod ore sumpsimus, domine, quaesumus, mente capiamus…[15]It
is established that ore sumere simply means “to receive [the Sacrament],”
which, naturally, is received through the mouth and therefore does not affirm
in itself any rite in particular; even receiving the host in the hand, it then
is necessarily carried to the mouth![16] Therefore,
the affirmation in question can be contemporary to the usage of communion on
the hand and, in any case, does not prove that Pope Leo the Great distributed
communion on the tongue.
Continuing,
the author offers us [cf. p. 41] a witness that, according to him, confirms
that the Roman usage [!] of receiving communion on the tongue was passed to the
regions of Gaul in the 7th century. In support of this, he quotes the bishop of
Rouen Audoenus (610-684), who, after seeing the aforementioned practice in
Rome, is supposed to have imposed it in his diocese at the Synod of Rouen,
celebrated – it is our author speaking – between 649 and 653. In this regard he
quotes MANSI X, 1199-1200, where the canon in question is reported, at number
2: ... nulli autem laico aut foeminae Eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum
in os eius cum his verbis...[17]
We
observe, though, that the same Mansi, in a note, states that the practice of
communion in the hand vix ante saeculum nonum prohibitum fuisse and that
therefore, as many scholars affirm, the aforementioned canon of the synod of
Rouen canonibus antiquis adversari notum est. Palazzini takes up the same
observation stating about this synod: “... Some historians think of King Louis
the Stammerer, who died in 879, and therefore put this council in the second
half of the 9th century, but above all for the contents of the canons, which they
hold to belong to the period after the seventh century,” and adds: “There is no
doubt [...] that some canons are of a Carolingian inspiration.”[18]
Of
the aforementioned synod, other authors have recently studied it. Odette
Pontal, speaking of the council of Rouen of 688/9 writes: “This council has
nothing to do with another council of Rouen, dated to 650 or 878/80, to which
some canons in the collections come to be attributed. Even today it has not
been clarified if and when this supposed council took place.”[19]
In
an even more recent work, Wilfried Hartmann, in the course of studying “some
synods of the Frankish kingdom of the West, before and around 900, that were up
for discussion,” writes on that of Rouen: “In the synodal manual of Reginald di
Prum, bearing the title ‘ex concilio Rotomagensi’ are eight canons for which it
is not possible to indicate a source.”[20]
Other
witnesses could be quoted that confirm the date of this synod. At any rate, the
research, even though halted, as noted by Pontal regarding the results of E.
Seckel, is inclined – “historian” Zoffoli permitting – toward the mid-ninth
century.
And
it is precisely because of this conviction that neither J. Gaudemet in Sources
Chrétiennes 353 nor C. De Clercq in Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 148 and
148A mention the canons of the synod of Rouen. On the contrary, the latter in
his edition states: “In the province of Rouen in this period (that is, between
511 and 695) no mention is made of any council.”[21]
Things being thus, we think that our author should have evaluated the critical
difficulties before making solemn and definitive statements.
Our
conclusion then sounds quite different: it is not possible to prove, with the
texts used by Zoffoli, that in 5th – 6th century Rome communion was distributed
in the mouth nor that in the 7th century this practice passed into the regions
of Gaul.
What
is most striking in this “true history” is the omission of extremely clear
witnesses from the ancient tradition that speak without a shadow of a doubt
about communion given in the hand. We’re talking about documents known to
historians of the liturgy, which Jungmann collected in his classical work
Missarum sollemnia.[22]
In
order not to repeat things already noted before regarding “thorough
investigations,” we limit ourselves here to recalling some of the most
important texts of the 6th-7th centuries, which bear witness to the usage of
communion given on the hand both in the East and in the West.
In
the year 692 the important synod called in “Trullo” was celebrated in
Constantinople, at which more than 200 eastern bishops took part. In Canon 101,
receiving communion in hands arranged in the form of a cross is obligatorily
prescribed; criticized were those who believed they were doing better by
receiving it in small containers and vessels of gold, silver, or other precious
materials, as if inert matter were more worthy to welcome the body of Christ
than the image of God, that is, than the human body.[23]
This canon proves in an irrefutable way that at the end of the 7th century it
was common usage in the East to distribute communion in the hand. The irony of
this case is that Zoffoli also quoted from this council, which he called
“ecumenical,”[24] as a
way of recalling that “…it is forbidden, in the presence of a bishop, a priest
or a deacon, for the laity to communicate themselves; in that case, they would
be excommunicated” [p. 37]. The reference is to canon 58. I spoke of the irony
of this case, because in it the zealous author sees his attempts come to
nothing to prove that the faithful should not receive communion in the hand,
because it was forbidden to them per se.
The
Trullan council of 692 is clear proof that communion in the hand is spoken of,
and thus it is acknowledged, and that at the same time the laity are forbidden
to communicate themselves. Even if this council was not approved by Rome, it
still reflects the usage of the eastern church at the time.
In
the West, we have the testimonies of Saint Cesarius of Arles (+ 542), and of
the synods of the regions of Gaul from the 6th-7th centuries, that confirm the
same practice. Men received communion on the bare hand, but women on the hand
covered with a veil. The text of Saint Cesarius of Arles is clear: Omnes viri, quando
communicare desiderant, lavant manus suas; et omnes mulieres nitida exhibeant
linteamina, ubi corpus Christi accipiant.[25]
The synod of Auxerre of 561-605 also mentions this custom, forbidding women to
receive communion on their bare hands: Non licet mulieri nudam manum
eucharistiam accipere[26]
It should be noted that Saint Cesarius of Arles was always attentive to Roman
usages in liturgical matters. We have an example from the synod of Vaison of
529, chaired precisely by the Bishop of Arles, in which the chant of the Kyrie
was introduced in the Mass and in the morning and evening prayers to follow the
usage of the apostolic see.[27]
In
the 8th century we have very clear testimonies according to which communion in
the hand was always in force both in the East and in the West. Saint Bede the
Venerable [+735], speaks of a monk who at the moment of receiving Viaticum,
“holding the Eucharist in his hands, asked pardon of the confreres of the
community.”[28] Saint
John Damascene (+ 749), in describing the rite of communion, exhorts the
faithful in these terms: “Let us draw closer to him with ardent desire and let
us receive the Body of the crucified Lord with our hands open one upon the
other in the form of a cross.”[29]
Zoffoli
several times in his work identifies communion on the tongue as a respectful
way of receiving communion, and communion in the hand as a disrespectful way of
receiving communion.[30]
On page 49 he comes to affirm: “The custom of placing the Eucharist in the
hand, experienced for centuries and recognized realistically as dangerous,
because it exposed the Blessed Sacrament to all profanations of negligence and
of disbelief, represents in the history of eucharistic devotion a past that the
Church has had the right-duty to move beyond, approving and favoring the
contrary one.”
Even
the limited data that we have presented here demonstrate instead that the
faithful of the first eight centuries, receiving communion in the hand, were
invited to do so with great respect: washing of hands for men, a veil on the
hand for women, their hands arranged in the form of a cross as directed by the
synod “in Trullo” and by Saint John Damascene... The danger of desecration was
always taken into account. The ancient council I of Zaragoza, in the year 380,
says in canon 3: Eucaristiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam in ecclesiam non
sumsisse, anathema sit in perpetuum.[31]
This canon is taken up later by the council I of Toledo, years of 397-400, and
a few centuries later, by the council XI of Toledo, in the year 675.[32]
On the subject of these dangers, Browe writes: “In many Penitenziali of the
VII-X centuries we find this penance imposed: Quicumque sacrificium perdiderit
et nescit ubi sit, annum peniteat. Originally such a prescription was related
to the custom of giving the host in the hand; later the paragraph is directed
against priests.”[33]
But
more than the danger of desecration, it was the growing veneration for the
Eucharistic sacrament that led to the new rite of communion in the mouth. One
must be aware of another piece of information, judged to be decisive by some
authors: the passage from communion in the hand to communion in the mouth
coincides with the passage from leavened bread to unleavened bread. The fine
particles of unleavened bread, which already in the 9th century takes on a
roundish shape and becomes ever thinner, adhere much better to the mouth than
do the solid pieces of leavened bread.[34]
We
are in agreement with the author that growth is one of the essential properties
of the church. In its history, the church of God has undoubtedly progressed in
its comprehension of the Eucharistic mystery and therefore a return to ancient
usages is not always and necessarily an enrichment. We note, however, that the
progress in this case, as in others, was not always linear, but it was, in
fact, frequently at the mercy of doctrinal polemics.
The
positive reassessment of the dimension of the real presence in the mid-ninth
century, and the consequent increase in the manifestations of respect and of
adoration toward the eucharist, proceed apace with a conspicuous distancing
from actual eucharistic communion. Respect becomes distancing!
The
current recovery of a respectful “familiarity” with the Eucharist is positive;
without denying the progress of history, it purifies it at the same time of
polemical excesses.
We
have done some critical highlighting in Zoffoli’s little work. We could do so
further. That said, though, we believe that it is enough to make the readers
understand the development of the discourse in the volume in question. In
conclusion, one more emphasis on the theological method that guides the author
in his reflections.
In
the chapter on the “essential dogmatic terms,” in which he proposes to sketch
briefly the essential lines of eucharistic doctrine that make his case, he
begins with these words: “To the quotation of the biblical texts known to all,
and to that of the witness of the Fathers [which would oblige us to exceed the
pre-set limits] we prefer to recall the definitions of the magisterium” [p.
52].
We
are amazed at this way of doing theology. Scripture, fathers, and magisterium
are connected and conjoined, and so they cannot subsist independently in a true
theological discourse. Starting immediately and only with the magisterium, one
risks interpreting it inadequately with Scripture and the fathers. The
magisterium then does not make the other factors of doctrinal progress
superfluous.
After
what has been said, the reader will judge if Zoffoli’s book deserves to be
called aureus, and if the illustrious theologian who defined it as such is
right when he adds: “it will be a milestone in the history of this last part of
the century.”
To
us it seems, though, that this little volume is simply a classic example of
that literature that betrays the lack of full acceptance of the liturgical
reforms by some sectors of the Church; a literature that sometimes emphasizes
minor novelty rituals, making dogmatic problems out of them, because it does
not know the “true” history and the traditional meaning.
That
this is the author’s position is evidenced by the insistence with which he
speaks in the book’s conclusion of “purity of faith,” “heretical theological
currents,” “defense of dogma,” etc. [p. 124].
In the Preamble of this little
volume that we dealt with, the author writes: “I know that I make myself
unpopular with some; but I also feel that the cause to which I have pledged
myself is worthy of the sacrifice of life” [p. 6].
With
all due respect for the good intentions of the Passionist priest, I believe
that it is not worth sacrificing oneself for a cause based on reasoning that is
so unsolid – indeed, from a historical point of view, so difficult to sustain.
* Translated from Italian by Franciso Schulte, OSB.
Original: “A proposito della communione sulla mano,” Ecclesia Orans 8 (1991), 293-304.
[1] E.
ZOFFOLI, Comunione sulla mano? Il vero
pensiero della chiesa secondo la vera storia del nuovo rito, fifth revised
and expanded edition, Roma 1990, p. 131.
[2] The decree
of the Italian Episcopal Conference is from 19 July 1989. See the text in
Rivista Liturgica 76, (1989) 555.
[3] It is a
cause of objection that the author, when he should do so, never does quote the
sources that are supposed to be the foundation of his assertions, but he
settles for generic affirmations such as thorough investigations and the like.
Investigations by whom? By the authors quoted in the brief mention of
bibliographic resources? It only takes a quick glance to realize that those
authors mostly form part of those nostalgic little groups which, in liturgical
matters, diminish – often and gladly – the historical data.
[5] GREGORY
THE GREAT, Dialog. III, 3: edited by A. DE VOGUÉ - P. ANTIN, in Sources
Chrétiennes 260, Paris 1979, 268-271; PL 77, 224. The episode is read even now
in the Greek Orthodox morning office on the feast of Saint Agapitus, April 17
(cf. J. HOFMANN, Der hl. Papst Agapit I. und die Kirche von Byzanz, in
Ostkirchliche Studien 40, 1991, 128-129). Hofmann holds that the source of the
text is the Dialogues of Gregory the Great, translated quite early into Greek
(cf. HOFMANN, l.c., 130-131).
[6] F.X. FUNK,
Der Kommunionritus, in Id., Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und
Untersuchungen 1, Paderborn 1897, 293-308.
[9] “... Ille
continuo dexteram ab ejus ore convertens...” (John the Deacon, S. Gregorii Vita
II, 41: PL 75, 103).
[10] 10 J.A.
JUNGMANN, Missarum sollemnia II, Wien 1948, 463 note 51; Spanish edition (BAC
68), Madrid 1963, 949 note 52.
[13] Thus J.C.
HEFELE, Histoire des Conciles II, 1, Paris 1908, 136-137.187; Ph. JAFFÉ,
Regesta Pontificum Romanorum I, Graz 1956, 44-49; P. PALAZZINI (ed.),
Dizionario dei Concili IV, Roma 1966, 147-148.
[14] LEO THE
GREAT, De ieiunio septimi mensis, 3: CCL 138A, 566; PL 54. 452. See the same
text in the edition edited by R. DOLLE in Sources Chrétiennes 200, Paris 1973,
127.
[16] Cf. A.
BLAISE, Le vocabulaire latin des principaux thèmes liturgiques. Work revue by
A. Dumas, Turnhout 1966, 407-408, § § 261-262.
[17] According
to the edition of Wasserschleben, the canon sounds like this: “Nulli autem
laico aut feminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in ore cum his
verbis...” (REGINONE, Libri duo de synodalibus causis et disciplinis
ecclesiasticis I, 202, ed. F.W.H. Wasserschleben, Leipzig 1840, 102-103).
[19] O. PONTAL,
Die Synoden im Merowingerreich (Konziliengeschichte, Reihe A: Darstellungen),
Paderborn-München-Wien-Zürich 1986, 204. And in a note he refers to the study
by E. SECKEL, Die altesten Canones von Rouen: Historische aufsatze. Karl Zeumer
zum 60. Geburtstag dargebracht..., Weimar 1910, 611-635, sustaining that up to
now, the research has not gone beyond the results of the German scholar.
[20] W.
Hartmann, Die Synoden der Karolingerzeit im Frankenreich und in Italien
(Konziliengeschichte, Reihe A: Darstellungen), Paderborn-München-Wien-Zürich
1989, 385. On this same page, no. 34, the author indicates the canons: They
are: Reginone I, 202; II, 1.67.68.165.395.411.419... Again by the same author,
cf. Die karolingische Reform und die Bibel, in Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum
18 (1986) 72.
[22] See also
the historical synthesis of A. BUGNINI, Sulla mano come in trono, in Notitiae 9
(1973) 289-291.
[23] Cf. MANSI
XI, 985-988; J.C. HEFELE, Histoire des Conciles III, 1, Paris 1909, 575; P.
Palazzini (ed.), Dizionario dei Concili, I, Rome 1963, 339.
[24] An
elementary knowledge of church history suffices to know that this council is
not ecumenical, indeed it has never been approved by Rome. If, as Zoffoli says,
it were an ecumenical council, its canons would have universal value!
25
[26] Syn.
Autissiodorensis, can. 36: CCL 148A, 269. In this regard, cf. the study of P.
BROWE, Kommunion in der gallikanischen Kirche der Merowinger-und
Karolingerzeit, in: Theologische Quartalschrift 102 (1921) 47-48.
[28] “...
afferte mihi Eucharistiam. Accepta in manu...” (BEDE, Historia ecclesiastica
IV, 24: PL 95, 214).
[29] We present
here the Latin text of PG: “Accedamus ad eum ardenti desiderio, compositisque
in crucis formam manibus, crucifixi corpus suscipiamus...” (John Damascene, De
fide orthodoxa IV, 13: PG 94, 1150).
[30] This
attitude leads the author to offer a piteous list of profanations that,
according to him, are on the rise in our days due precisely to communion in the
hand (pp. 74-78). It amazes us that all of Zoffoli’s information on this point
should be so deficient and so one-way. A list of profanations of this type
could be made up from witnesses belonging to the period in which communion was
received only on the tongue.
[31] The text
is taken from the edition of J. VIVES, Concilios visigóticos e hispano-romanos
(España cristiana, textos 1), Barcelona-Madrid 1963, 17.
[34] Cf. J.A.
Jungmann o.c., 468; Spanish edition, 949. See also A. BUGNINI, Sulla mano come
in trono..., 292.
No comments:
Post a Comment