Kampala, Uganda, Feb 3, 2020 / 12:01 pm (CNA).- The Archbishop of Kampala issued a decree Saturday on the proper celebration of the Eucharist, which forbade the reception of Holy Communion in the hand and reaffirmed that those “living in illicit marital co-habitation” cannot be admitted to Holy Communion.
The Feb. 1 decree of Archbishop Cyprian Lwanga included five norms “meant to streamline the celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and curb the abuses that had begun cropping up in the celebration of the Mass.”
The archbishop added that he was issuing the norms “relying on the Liturgical and canonical norms of the Church Universal and basing on the vigilance which is required of him by law to fend off abuses in the liturgical life of the Church.”
Archbishop Lwanga wrote that “Henceforth, it is forbidden to distribute or to receive Holy Communion in the hands,” adding that the Code of Canon Law enjoins that the Eucharist be held in the highest honor by the faithful.
“Due to many reported instances of dishonoring the Eucharist that have been associated with reception of the Eucharist in the hands, it is fitting to return to the more reverent method of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue,” he stated.
It is unclear whether reception of the Eucharist in the hand has been formally permitted in Uganda, or has existed as a custom.
The ordinary then recalled that the ordinary minister of Holy Communion is a cleric. “In light of this norm,” he wrote, laity who have not been designated extraordinary minister of Holy Communion by competent authority are forbidden from distributing Holy Communion. He added that extraordinary ministers must first receive Holy Communion from an ordinary minister before distributing it in turn.
Archbishop Lwanga wrote that “The celebration of the Eucharist is to be carried out in a sacred place unless grave necessity requires otherwise,” citing canon 932, which refers to necessity.
Following that canon, he said, “the Eucharist is henceforth to be celebrated in designated sacred places since there is an adequate number of such designated places in the Archdiocese for that purpose.”
“Following the clear norms of Can. 915, it must be reaffirmed that those living in illicit marital co-habitation and those who persist in any grave and manifest sin, cannot be admitted to Holy Communion,” the archbishop wrote.
Illicit marital co-habitation could refer to a variety of situations, including divorce-and-remarriage, simple cohabitation, concubinage, and polygamy.
The archbishop added that “so as to avoid scandal” Mass may not be said “in the homes of people in such a situation.”
Finally, Archbishop Lwanga noted that the Code of Canon Law says priests and deacons are to wear the vestments prescribed by the rubrics, and in light of this he said, “it is strictly forbidden to admit as a concelebrant, any priest who is not properly vested in the prescribed liturgical vestments.”
“Such a priest should neither concelebrate nor assist at the distribution of Holy Communion,” he wrote. “He should also not sit in the sanctuary but rather take his seat among the faithful in the congregation.”
In 1969, five years after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, the Congregation for Divine Worship issued an instruction which expressed that Blessed Paul VI had determined not to change the means of administering Holy Communion to the faithful – i.e., to retain distribution of the Host on the tongue to those kneeling, rather than allowing communicants to receive the Host in their hands.
The instruction, Memoriale Domini, indicated that where distribution of Communion in the hand already prevailed, episcopal conferences should weigh carefully whether special circumstances warranted reception of the Eucharist in the hand, avoiding disrespect or false opinions regarding the Eucharist and ill effects that might follow, and if a two-thirds voting majority decided in the affirmative, such a decision could be affirmed by the Holy See.
It noted that “It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.”
But “Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.”
“This method of distributing holy communion must be retained … not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist.”
The congregation also wrote that this traditional practice “ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species” and “it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended.”
They noted that “A change in a matter of such moment … 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.”
When some bishops asked for permission for Communion in the hand, Bl. Paul VI sought the opinion of all the Church’s Roman rite bishops. Of those responding, 57 percent said that attention should not be paid to the desire for the reception of Communion on the hand. Of those bishops who were open to considering the practice, just over one-third had reservations about it.
And 60 percent of bishops did not even wish that Communion in the hand be experimented with in small communities. More than half did not believe the faithful would receive such a change gladly.
So, in 1969, Bl. Paul VI “decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful,” considering the remarks and advice of his fellow bishops, the gravity of the matter, and the force of the arguments against it.
Despite this instruction, and subsequent expressions of support for the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue from St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the distribution of the Eucharist on the hand has become widely adopted, especially in the West.
The Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2004 instruction on matters regarding the Eucharist, Redemptionis sacramentum, established that: “Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice, if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.”
In the US, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal states that “The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.”
[…]
A disaster, and a disgrace for the West. The conservatives about to take control in Washington are, if anything, worse than Biden on this issue of protecting Christians and our Christian sacred sites in the Middle East. Compare Trump’s callous disregard for these our true interests with his brutal support for the ethnic cleansing and imperialist expansionism of Tel Aviv. The West has nothing to say. And Trump’s priorities for the U.S.? Deport Catholics by the million and replace them with Hindus and Sikhs. The West has nothing to say.
Rubbish.
Israel is the reason we can visit Christian Holy Land shrines in the first place. How likely might that be under a caliphate and how many would still be standing?
God bless Israel and may He protect and guide Donald Trump. 🙏
Well said, Mrscracker. You are very correct. Thank you.
Wow, the pure garbage about “ethnic cleansing and imperialist expansionism” pretty much tells us anything you have to say is worthless.
You did hear about the muslim attacks on civilians, women and babies on October 7th, didnt you? Muslim countries 20 times the size of Israel surround them so how you assert the Jews are imperialists is totally delusional.
There’s no excuse to so clueless in the year 2025.
The propaganda horror stories about October 27th have been debunked many times.
Very easily. They have been colonising the lands occupied since 1967, which even the United States recognises are integral parts of other countries. This colonising involves the expulsion of those not assimilable: ethnic cleansing of Christians (as well as Muslims), just like that occurring in Europe so many times. Nineteenth-century European nationalism is the model for this stuff.
Christians have been leaving the Holy Land in droves under Tel Aviv’s rule. They had put up with centuries of Muslim rule (a quarter of the Middle East’s population was still Christian in 1918), but the last couple of generations of Tel Aviv domination has been the last straw. Bethlehem in 1947: majority Christian. Bethlehem today: 5% Christian. A disaster for our interests. Priests living in Jerusalem get spat on every day (not by Muslims), and Israeli police look the other way. What a wonderful place.
Israel is indeed a wonderful place and the great majority of Israelis are just as disgusted by the actions of an extreme splinter group as we are by the actions of the Westminister Baptists.
I have a family member who visited Israel last year and trust me, if you walk through the wrong ultra orthodox neighborhood in Jerusalem on the Sabbath you don’t have to be a member of the Catholic clergy or even a non Jew to have shoes hurled at you. Most Israelis find that extremely obnoxious behavior.
You are right Miguel, but you know is not easy.
Going back to the past no longer make sense. The october 7th seems, without doubt, induced zionist government did by desesperated mad (the 50,000 dead in gaza a truth induced by the genocide zionist government. Among them many Christians. But Muslims don’t make it easy if they don’t soften their positions).
How about a Jerusalem open to all three religions? It cannot be other thing, not belonging to any one. Remember, whoever holds the crown of Spain, holds the crown of Jerusalem. Catholic. Friend of all. Never with extremists. Two states solution now! or freedom and justice for arabs in Israel, in any case end or askenazi apartheid!
There are no conservatives in Washington, and nobody is going to risk their career to protect Christians.
True. No brave christians. I don’t know why the Western (USA and Europe) elites don’t defend the descendants of Jesus friends, Apostles, that are the Catholic Palestinians… Maybe because what you say.
My guess, Miguel is a a leftist plant who enjoys spewing ridiculous comments. Frankly it is sad, but that is the world we live in.
Regarding Christians in Syria, we in need to pray them, for both their physical protection and spiritual courage.
Rubbish guess ad rubbish if no guess.
The facts are undeniable and the “October 7” missive doesn’t straighten out anything.
Very well put LJ. Thank you.
Correction: The 2003 invasion was only a “coalition of the willing” and was not the occasion of a 15-0 U.N. vote, probably a later vote to lift sanctions. I am mistaken.
Somewhere on CWR a reader repeated that the second Iraq war was patently unjust, and opined that the new regime in Syria is simply biding its time before persecuting the Christians. Hussein was said to tolerate Christians. To which, my earlier comment somewhere, as here corrected:
Yours truly does not know enough to conclude whether or not “this new regime in Syria is biding its time to eradicate the remnants of Syrian Christianity,” nor whether we should revere Iraq’s Hussein because he tolerated/protected Christians—while also eradicating 182,000 Kurds and deporting even more, including the use of weapons of mass destruction (the 1988 Halabja attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_massacre).
Three points and a Question:
FIRST, as an amateur from the back bleachers, my focus often turns too much on apparent details that, as possible pivot points, tend to get lost in later hindsight. “For want of a nail a shoe was lost, etc.” Example: a few altered details in Muhammad’s personal life in the 7th Century, and sectarian Islam in the 21st-century Middle East, would not even exist. Nor would ISIS.
SECOND, following are a few nails and horseshoes…
My recollection from sparse news accounts at the time are that the Iraqi scientific community had destroyed the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) because they feared Western actions, but they also feared to inform Hussein whose recent history and uninformed bluster seemed to confirm the continued existence of WMD. A commitment by a “coalition of the willing” that was discounted by Hussein because of probably a dozen earlier U.N. proclamations that were followed by inaction. And, later that a key Iraqi informant, claiming the WMDs existed, was simply gaming the United States into supporting his side in local an regional intersectarian strife. And, that the overall strategy to invade Iraq was designed to conclude quickly—to prevent intersectarian eruptions and what eventually became ISIS….But, the strategy was crippled by removal of the northern half of the pincer attack, by President Erdogan who only a week before the invasion withdrew his permission to cross through Turkish airspace (internal Muslim/sectarian politics?).
THIRD, in retrospect we see an unjust “preventive war,” rather than what might have been (yes, no, maybe?) a more defensible but deceived and overly complex “first strike”. The horror of it all, especially for little people in huge numbers who are always the collateral damage to the Law of Unforeseen Consequences.
The Honore de Balzac got it just about right, “bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies.” Likewise, the compact, technocratic, tripwire, and modern geopolitical world. Missing is sound prudential judgment (a principle of the Catholic Social Teaching) which can be a bit less certain in practice than quoting the Gospel as policy.
QUESTION: As has been said, “while one does have the right to offer non-resistance to the knife, one does not have the right to offer the necks of one’s family and others to the assailant.” With imperfect information and in an imperfect world, how are overly-weaponized nations to navigate better between moral absolutes, and the calculus of consequences for their actions and for their inactions, both?
ISIS/ISIL/Al Sham -promise to conquer Rome. By some arrangement they went and got a sort of national legitimization in Syria. Who did that?
‘ Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)
We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. … There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.
And …..
And …..
And ….. ‘
See the CWR report by Carl Olson.
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/02/17/the-atlantic-magazine-isis-is-very-islamic-apocalyptic-and-avowedly-genocidal/
https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/15/isis-beheads-21-christians-promises-to-conquer-rome-by-allahs-permission/