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.”
[…]
Don’t start wars and the consequences can be avoided. Obviously that reality didn’t cross the minds of Islamic terrorists and their supporters.
I think the whole purpose of October 7th was to disrupt peace attempts & power structure in the region. The well being & best interests of Gazan residents was not the terrorists or Iran’s first concern. It never has been.
Nor is the well-being & best interests of people ever the first concern of that which remains the ultimate motivator of Islamic terrorists, which is Islam, the religion of barbarity. Moreover, Islamic terrorists are not simply “radical Muslims” as dishonest apologists for Islam continue to gaslight the rest of the world about instead of telling the truth about Islam that is published in black and white in all of their authoritative documents. Islamic terrorists are faithful practitioners of Islam in their actions of brutal violence they inflict on others based on that aspect of Jihad which calls for violence to further the goals of Islam, which is the entire world under the rule and domination of Islam.
Of course, the reality of Islam and the fact that gullible people are easily misled about Islam due to some favorable encounters with individual Muslims does not justify in any way any abuse or violence visited directly upon non-combatants, and to the extent this is being done in Gaza by anyone is morally reprehensible.
Tell me how you are not reacting exactly as the Hamas terrorists calculated. Show how you are not playing directly into their hands.
Tell us, why are you supporting and defending Hamas?
Gaza residents elected Hamas. Now we are beginning to see some regret and resistance to their tyranny among Gazans.
Be careful to whom you provide support.
Hamas is the ruling party in Gaza.
Calls for the destruction of Israel can be found in Hamas’ founding documents.
There is no peace because peace is not the objective of Hamas. Never has been.
In fact Israel used to occupy Gaza. They gave it up some 30 or so years ago in hopes of securing peace.
Upon taking possession, the Palestinians immediately started to lob rockets from Gaza into Israeli cities.
The Catholic pastor cannot say what needs to be said: That there will be no peace in the Middle East until the Muslim leaders there want peace.
What was that quote? I think Golda Mier said it: There will be no peace until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate us (the Jews)?
Hear, hear!!
(meant to reply to this post first time around fyi)
That has nothing to do with the Christians or the many Muslims who have nothing to do with Hamas. The Baptist Church and Holy Family Catholic Church have had a long presence in Gaza without any problems from their neighbors.
Advise the Ishmaelites to repudiate their Fatwa against their infidels that includes Western civilization in particular with a special venom reserved for the Jews between the river and the sea.
Does anyone know a truly reliable charity that will forward aid and donations to the poor Christians in Gaza and Fr. Romanelli? Is it even possible to get aid to them?
Thanks
Over an eight-year period, I resided in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, during which time I traveled extensively throughout the Middle East and North Africa. This experience afforded me the opportunity to engage with diverse Muslim communities, observe their cultural practices, and develop a nuanced understanding of the region. While my interactions were predominantly positive, and I have undertaken studies of Islamic texts, including the Qur’an and Sahih al-Bukhari, I do not claim expertise in Islamic theology or jurisprudence.
The assertion that ‘an Islamic terrorist is nothing less than a faithful Muslim’ presents a problematic generalization. While some interpretations of Islamic texts may be used to justify violence, it is crucial to acknowledge the diversity of Islamic thought and practice. The term ‘radical’ may be imprecise, but it attempts to differentiate between those who adhere to interpretations that condone violence and those who do not. The claim that moderate Muslims exhibit ‘laxness’ in their adherence to Islamic teachings is a subjective assessment that requires careful consideration of varying theological perspectives. It is a simplification to suggest that the adoption of a ‘faithful path’ inevitably leads to the acceptance of terrorism, ignoring the complex interplay of socio-political, economic, and individual factors that contribute to radicalization.
That’s what the Salafis believe. However, there are other disciplines of Islam. I lived in Cairo in 2005 for almost 5 1/2 months on a research project working with a group of Christians and Muslims who all socialized together. The Muslims were of the Hanifi school of thought. When the Copts were at Mass it would be a Muslim couple who would drive me to English language Roman Catholic Mass.
Through the years I kept up with these people. Thanks to the internet during the reign of the Islamist Morsi the I was able to witness the “people’s uprising” against this Islamist regime. When Christians worshiped Muslims came from all over Cairo and locked arms standing outside, surrounding the church to see that none of Morsi’s cohorts could enter. I’m sure you could search for the uprising against Morsi.
Unfortunately, the Christians in central Egypt were and are still suffering under Salafi rule.
Re Hamas rule: Fatah won the election. The elected Fatah leaders were dragged up onto roof tops and hurled off by Hamas which also happened in Egypt under Morsi’s brief rule. By the way, the most powerful supporter of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood was Barak Obama who was president at the time.
Life is never black and white; it is full of intricacies and contradictions.
For some doses of reality, Catholic World Report readers can check the following from a most informative website:
https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/jesus-muhammad.aspx
https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/myths/index.aspx
https://thereligionofpeace.com/pages/games/index.aspx
>>>>>
“Fantasy Islam: A game in which an audience of non-Muslims wish with all their hearts that Islam was a ‘Religion of Peace,’ and a Muslim strives to fulfill that wish by presenting a personal version of Islam that has little foundation in Islamic Doctrine.” -Dr. Stephen M. Kirby
“terrorist group Hamas and Israel” should be reworded to “terrorist group Israel and Hamas”
May God bless Israel & God’s chosen people at Passover.
May the Church start praying for Israel’s conversion.
The Church seems to be more involved in the Gaza war. Iran is more emboldened by the delay of religious attention. The Pope’s appeals are 2 years old. That is a long time given the disaster at hand and the loss of thousands of innocent lives.
I have suggested that all religions assemble to present a united front and confront the murderous “religious” Ayatollah to help him understand his mortal sin and plead with him for sanity.
The Pope made “frequent calls” to the parish in Gaza?? Thats nice. But I wonder if he made frequent calls to the families whose children were murdered or kidnapped on October 7th? Somehow I doubt it. And I wonder if he ever pondered how it came to pass that this place is the LAST surviving Catholic/Christian parish in all of Gaza? I’m pretty sure its because almost every last Christian was driven out of the place.