A debated issue amongst some Catholics is the issue of "communion in the hand" and "communion on the tongue", that is, whether communion in the hand should be allowed or if it should be restricted only to receiving on the tongue, as it had been in the past.
The purpose of this post is not to try to offer a general argument on the subject; there is little I could say that has not been said by others. Still, if someone is curious about my position, it is that I see little reason for communion in the hand. Nevertheless, that does not mean I cannot recognize that there are some very poor arguments against it, which is where this post comes in.
There is a "list" of claims I've seen posted in various places online that purports to show condemnation of communion in the hand from even the earliest centuries of the church, apparently meant to disprove the claims of advocates of allowing communion in the hand who say that it had a long history in the earlier church prior to being changed into communion on the tongue exclusively. However, a good number of the claims in this list have their sources cited vaguely or no sources are cited at all. As I have seen various people essentially copy and paste this list, I was curious about the validity of it and attempted to look into some of these claims. I felt people might benefit from seeing the results of this.
As is often the case with such lists of quotes, it is difficult to determine what its source is, especially as there are different versions of it I have seen. While their claims are generally the same (that is, they will point to a particular person or council as their evidence), some versions will offer more clear citations or at least further information where others did not. As a result, for many of these quotes or citations I list, I will list multiple ones because there are multiple versions of the list.
St. Sixtus I (circa 115): “The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.”
or
ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]
False quote of Sixtus, and is not clear if it refers to the Eucharist anyway. Although no citation is given for this, the quotation from the Latin allowed me to find it. The problem is that this isn't an actual letter of Sixtus (also known as Xystus). Rather, this is one of the False Decretals, a series of letters supposedly written by popes of the early centuries, but actually forgeries put together in the 9th century. The author or authors of the forgeries is unknown, but they appear to have lived in France and are referred to as Pseudo-Isidore. The letter in question can be viewed here or here (also formerly here, but by the time I put this blog post up this page had gone offline). The statement in question is found early on: "Cognoscat vestra sapientia, carissimi fratres, quia in hac sancta apostolica sede a nobis et reliquis episcopis ceterisque domini sacerdotibus statutum est, ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus."
But as noted, this is not an actual letter by Sixtus, but a forgery from centuries later. Thus it is utterly irrelevant. The fact the False Decretals were false has been known and accepted for centuries, but apparently the person who included this quote on the list was unaware of that. Even worse, even if this was legitimate, it does not say Eucharist, but "Sacred Vessels" (sacra vasa). Thus even if the Eucharist was in mind, the more probable interpretation would be that the sacred vessels in question are the containers (vessels) for the Eucharist, like a cup or a bowl. But that clearly says nothing about communion in the hand or on the tongue.
Now, I should note that the Liber Pontificalis does say that Sixtus "ordained that consecrated vessels should not be touched except by the ministering clergy." (see here for an English translation) However, this runs into the same problem as above--namely it would seem to at best be reference to the Eucharist containers (vessels), not the Eucharist itself. However, while the Liber Pontificalis has use in regards to the lives of the later popes, it is seen as a dubious source for the lives of the popes of the early centuries, including Sixtus. I should note that the Latin phrase in question is "ministeria sacra" (the original Latin can be seen here) which would seem to translate more logically as "sacred ministries", referring to office or duties, not any physical vessel. If so, that makes it even more dubious as referring to touching the Eucharist. That said, I expect the people who performed the linked English translation know Latin far better than I do, so there may be a context I am missing. In any event, this fails as proof of Sixtus making any decree against communion in the hand, though at least it doesn't rely on an outright forgery.
Thus, this cannot be used for evidence of Sixtus declaring anything about communion in the hand or mouth.
Pope St. Eutychian (275-283): Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
No citation given, but seems extremely unlikely any valid source offers evidence. Unfortunately, unlike the above, this doesn't even offer us a citation or quotation.
But let's see if we can find information about Eutychian that might confirm it. The Catholic Encyclopedia bluntly tells us in their article on him that "we have no details on his pontificate". The New Catholic Encyclopedia echoes similar sentiments in their article on him, saying "Beyond the dates of his pontificate, no reliable reports on Eutychian are extant, and no documents ascribed to him are authentic." Now, they do both note the claims of the Liber Pontificalis, but say the claims concerning him are dubious. Even if we were to accept the Liber Pontificalis as accurate when describing his pontificate, it says absolutely nothing at all about him preventing anyone from "taking the Sacred Host in their hand".
So what, precisely, is the evidence that Eutychian forbade anyone from taking the Sacred Host in their hand? We know nothing definite about his pontificate and even the Liber Pontificalis, our best source (even if it is dubious in regards to accuracy for the early popes) makes no statements on it.
Thus no evidence is offered by this list, and the evidence seems rather strong against there being any source that provides confirmation of it.
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379) "The
right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times
of persecution.” St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive
Communion by one’s own hand is ONLY PERMITTED IN TIMES OF PERSECUTION
or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest
was available to give it. “It is not necessary to show that it does not
constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand
in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon.” (Letter 93)
The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances,
outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.
or
St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379): "The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution." St. Basil the Great considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
Actually appears to provide evidence of communion in the hand. The second gives us no information as to where it is from, but thankfully, the first version offers us a source and in fact provides a little more context. The problem is, when viewed in context, it seems something rather different than "communion in the hand" is in view here. The letter is short so I will quote the entire thing, with the portion quoted above underlined:
"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy body and blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord's day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offense, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves. All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver. And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time."
When viewed in context, however, Basil is not discussing the question of communion on the hand versus the tongue. Rather, he is discussing taking communion from the priest and keeping it at home, then taking it yourself without them being present. The distinction he is drawing is therefore whether it is taken in the presence of a priest or not. This really has nothing to do with the issue of communion in the hand because when one takes it in the hand in church, they are doing so in the presence of a priest or minister.
Indeed, Basil's full statement includes "even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient
takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with
his own hand" which appears to describe communion in the hand! Because of that statement, this letter is often used by those who defend communion in the hand. The list makes no mention of this, nor does it offer any alternate explanation for his words.
Thus the list's citation of Basil is not only inaccurate, it seems downright dishonest.
The Council of Saragossa (380) Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.
or
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.
These seem to be misrepresentations. The canons of the Council of Saragossa can be found here on page 13 of "Canones apostolorum et conciliorum veterum selecti".
You'll notice this says "Concilium Caesaraugustanium Primum" but that is because it is the Latin name of the council. This can be verified by the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica's article "Councils of Saragossa" which mentions their Latin name was "Concilia Caesaraugustania Prima" (they end in -a instead of -um because this reference is in the plural). Now, the only one that seems to mention the Eucharist is canon 3, which says:
"Ut qui eucharistiam in ecclesia accipit et ibi non eam sumit anathematizetur*
Item legit: Eucharistiae gratiam si quis probatur acceptam in ecclesia non sumpsisse**, anathema sit in perpetuum. Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Placet.
* accipunt . . sumunt anathema sint M.
** consumpsisse in m. M."
The footnotes presumably refer to alternate manuscripts, so I included them.
My Latin is far from perfect, but from what I can tell it is saying that those who take the Eucharist from the church without eating it are anathema. This is confirmed in "A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church" on page 121 which describes the applicable canon as "Condemns to perpetual anathema those who are convicted of not having eaten the sacrament of the Lord's Body given to them in church."
This has nothing to do with communion in the hand. Rather, the condemnation is for those who take it out of the church without consuming it. In fact, when I was searching on this, I found a German site that cited this as proof that communion in the hand was being practiced. They write "Die Differenzierung zwischen Empfang der Eucharistie und ihrem Verzehr legt nahe, dass die spanischen Bischöfe die Handkommunion voraussetzen" which according to Google Translate says "The differentiation between receiving the Eucharist and consuming it suggests that the Spanish bishops presuppose communion in hand."
The Council of Toledo's citation is no better. There is only one mention of the Eucharist that I see, Canon 14. This canon (and the others) are available in English on page 420 of volume 2 of Hefele's "History of the Council of the Church" which can be seen here. It says "Those who do not really consume the Holy Eucharist which they have received from the priest, shall be treated as "sacrilegious."" That is the only reference to the Eucharist I see. This is confirmed in the aforementioned "A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church" on page 152 at where it describes canon 14 as "Orders that any one who shall have received the Holy Eucharist, without eating it, shall be driven from the Church as guilty of sacrilege."
So Toledo's canon does repeat what was said in Saragossa. But like Saragossa, it said nothing about prohibiting communion in the hand, and could imply the opposite. Thus the list's claim that this forbade people to take communion in the hand is a massive misrepresentation of what was actually said.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461) Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful. “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith”
or
POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
or
Pope St. Leo the Great is less well known for something very important to liturgical studies. He is one of the most ancient witnesses to the practice of Communion on the tongue. Notably, Saint Leo the Great read the sixth chapter of Saint John’s Gospel as referring to the Eucharist (as all the Church Fathers did). In a preserved sermon on John 6 (Sermon 9), Saint Leo says: “Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur” (Serm. 91.3). This is translated strictly as:
This indeed is received by means of the mouth which we believe by means of faith.
“Ore” is here in the ablative and in the context, it denotes instrumentation. So then, the mouth is the means by which the Holy Eucharist is received.
Vague statement. This is the only one I've seen that has four different versions. Now, the final version listed (unlike the others) tells us that it's in Sermon 91, available here. This translation renders it as "For that is taken in the mouth which is believed in Faith, and it is vain for them to respond Amen who dispute that which is taken" but it is clearly the same passage.
However, this quote really says nothing concerning communion on the tongue versus in the hand, as all it says is that the communion goes into the mouth, which occurs even for communion in the hand because you then put it into your mouth. Now, if Leo did in fact explicitly say people should receive it on the tongue as list claims, that would be a point, but ultimately no source is given for that. The only source we get is for the quote which is a vague statement that does not provide evidence one way or the other.
Pope St. Gregory The Great (590-604) In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito had a miracle occur during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.
Vague. The story about the miracle occurs here (it continues onto page 117), and it does mention he put communion into the man's mouth, though whether this was typical for him or was something he did for the specific circumstances is unclear. Still, it's the first one we've seen that unambiguously refers to the priest putting the communion into someone's mouth, so I suppose that is something.
The John the Deacon citation could clarify the matter if it does indeed say this was his manner of giving it, but the citation is too vague to verify. It is not even clear which John the Deacon it refers to, though it would probably be Johannes Hymonides as he did write a biography of Gregory the Great. It can be found in volume 75 of Migne's Patrologia Latina and runs from column 59 to 242 (it begins here). As no information is given as to where in the work this is found, I do not plan to look through all of it. Given the various misrepresentations and errors noted above, there is a reasonable chance that they are representing it accurately. Nevertheless, should anyone want to look for it, it can be viewed at the link I offered.
The Synod of Rouen (650) Condemned Communion in the hand to halt the widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Synod of Rouen says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but ONLY in their mouths.”
or
SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
This may qualify, but may be a mistranslation. We can find the decrees of this council in the same place we found those of Saragossa, namely the work "Canones apostolorum et conciliorum veterum selecti" (page 268). Rotomagense is Latin for Rouen, so this should be the Synod of Rouen.
Now, my Latin's not all that good. But I don't see anything like this other than maybe the second canon, which reads (and I apologize for any errors in transcription):
II. Ut missam celebrans communicare non omittat
Dictum est nobis quod quidam presbyteri celebrata missa detrectantes ipsi sumere divina mysteria quae consecrarunt, calicem domini mulierculis quae ad missas offerunt tradant vel quibusdam laicis qui dijudicare corpus domini nesciunt, id est discernere inter cibum spiritualem atque carnalem, quod quantum sit omni ecclesiasticae religioni contrarium pietas fidelium novit: unde omnibus presbyteris interdicimus utnullus in posterum hoc facere praesumat, sed ipse cum reverentia sumat et diacono aut subdiacono qui ministri sunt altaris colligenda tradat, illud etiam attendat ut eos propria manu communicet, nulli autem laico aut foeminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in os ejus cum his verbis ponat: Corpus domini et sanguis prosit tibi ad remissionem peccatorum et ad vitam aeternam: Si quis haec transgressus fuerit, quia deum omnipotentam, contemnit et quantum in ipso est inhonorat, ab altari removeatur.
Now, in regards to the specific quote offered of "Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but ONLY in their mouths," the Latin text that appears to correspond with it is "nulli autem laico aut foeminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in os ejus cum his verbis ponat." This reads roughly "however, [the priest] puts the eucharist in the hands of no lay person or woman, but puts [it] only into his/her/its mouth with these words" (the words follow). However, although the translation in the list claims it says you put it "in their mouths" (plural), the Latin actually uses "ejus" (alternatively spelled eius), which means his/her/its (literally, "of him/her/its"). Notably, its form is is singular, whereas the word in plural ("of them" or "their") would be eorum or earum, depending on gender.
This, therefore, brings up a question: Who is the "his/her/its" here? Is it referring to a layperson or the priest himself? I'm far from an expert in Latin, so I can't say which is the more natural construction. However, if we look again into the "A Manual of Councils of the Holy Catholic Church", this time on page 109, it appears to take the interpretation it refers to the priest putting it into his own mouth. This work simply says Canon 2 says "Orders that the priest that celebrates mass shall communicate himself." In this work's view, then, the purpose of the canon is to confirm that the priest should give it to himself. In other words, it is forbidding a layperson from giving it to the priest, and saying the priest must put it into his own mouth. Therefore, the issue according to that work is not communion in the hand, but self-communication.
In some fairness, the canon does seem to not be solely concerned with self communication of the priest, as at the beginning it complains about priests giving the chalice to women or laymen who "qui dijudicare corpus domini nesciunt" ("do not know how to judge the body of the lord") and says the priests should give it to the deacons. So it does seem to be critical of having lay people hand it out, but that is a different issue entirely from communion in the hand. The only portion that seems to relate to the issue of communion in the hand is the aforementioned "nulli autem laico aut foeminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in os ejus cum his verbis ponat" which as noted may not be referring to communion in the hand at all. Still, unlike various examples above, it isn't an implausible interpretation, so this one ultimately ends up ambiguous in my view. Perhaps someone more familiar with Latin would be able to better figure it out, though again the Manual of Councils work cited above appears to view the "ejus" as referring to the priest himself.
The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. The Council of Constantinople which was known as “in trullo,” (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.
or
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
I cannot find it in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and the Council in Trullo (also known as the Quinsext Council, which is what I will use) appears to allow communion in the hand. Now, we'll take this one at a time. First, the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Where did the Sixth Ecumenical Council it do this? What canon was it? I see no mention of the eucharist, communion, or excommunication here. Is there more to the council elsewhere that is not at the link I cited? I tried looking elsewhere but could not find it. Again the citation is too vague to verify it.
The lengthier citation does also refer to the separate "In Trullo" council, also known as the Quinsext Council, which was held in Constantinople about a decade after the Sixth Ecumenical Council. You see, as the Sixth Ecumenical Council (and for that matter the Fifth) did not issue any disciplinary canons, the Quinsext Council did so. Perhaps all that is being cited is the Quinsext Council. However, it very clearly (even in the expanded version) writes "Sixth Ecumenical Council" and gives the dates for said council at the top, so it is misleading to put that in the heading if only the Quinsext Council was in mind. And if the Sixth Ecumenical Council was meant separately, nothing is cited from it.
With apparently nothing in the Sixth Ecumenical Council, we turn to the Quinsext Council. Its canons can be found here. What seems to be appealed to is canon 58, which reads:
"None of those who are in the order of laymen may distribute the Divine Mysteries to himself if a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be present. But whoever shall dare to do such a thing, as acting contrary to what has been determined shall be cut off for a week and thenceforth let him learn not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think."
This must be the one in question, as only two canons give the punishment as being of a week, and the other (Canon 27) is concerning clothes. So at least this one seems to actually be there. However, obviously nothing is explicitly said about communion in the hand, only the issue of giving it to yourself. Now, the list claims that giving Communion to yourself "is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant." But is it what happens? It could be interpreted instead as stressing the importance of receiving it from the priest, whether the priest place it in the hand or the mouth; if the priest puts it in your hand and you put it in your mouth, you still have received it from the priest. The canon itself, therefore, seems ambiguous on this specific matter.
However, there is another canon that appears to clarify the issue and in fact strongly indicate communion in the hand was being practiced. Namely, canon 101:
"The great and divine Apostle Paul with loud voice calls man created in the image of God, the body and temple of Christ. Excelling, therefore, every sensible creature, he who by the saving Passion has attained to the celestial dignity, eating and drinking Christ, is fitted in all respects for eternal life, sanctifying his soul and body by the participation of divine grace. Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them."
The reference to "arranging his hands in the form of a cross" indicates that they are taking it in their hand. Indeed, it then criticizes those who "instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift". Thus, if we are to accept the Quinsext Council as a source, it appears to endorse communion in the hand. Indeed, its apparent simultaneous endorsement of communion in the hand while prohibiting laymen to distribute communion to themselves while a priest is present would seem to also go against the list's claim that communion in the hand counts as the faithful giving communion to themselves.
Now, it should be noted that the Catholic Church does not accept the council as authoritative (as the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "the West never recognized the 102 disciplinary canons of this council"), so it doesn't really mean anything dogmatic. Nevertheless, the very source appealed to by the list strongly indicates the usage and acceptance of communion in the hand. Even more importantly, because this is the same council that gave the prohibition on self-communicating, that would also mean that the list's claim that self-communicating "is of course what happens" with communion in the hand is rejected by this council.
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
Mostly accurate. One may view it here, which uses the same translation. For the most part this is an accurate representation--certainly, the quotation itself is accurate--but two things should be noted. First, what Aquinas is discussing is not communion in the hand vs communion on the tongue, but the question of who should dispense it, with him asserting that only the priest should do so. If a priest gives communion to someone in their hand and they take it, the priest is still dispensing it. Thus while Aquinas is coming down against a lay person being the one to distribute communion (aside from "necessity, for instance, if it were to fall upon the ground, or else in some other case of urgency"), he is not directly saying anything about communion on the tongue or in the hand. That said, his reasoning could easily be used against communion in the hand, so I would not say it is wrong to cite it for evidence.
Second, the citation is in slight error. The part, question, and article are correct, but the quote comes not from a Reply to Objection 8 (there are only three objections), but the section beginning with "I answer that..."
The Council of Trent (1545-1565) “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
Does not seem to be about communion in the hand or communion on the tongue. First, even the quote given above would seem to not relate to giving communion in hand or on the tongue, but rather whether only the priest should be the one to give it to people. It does not seem to be about the issue in question about the tongue and hand at all.
But let us look it up. Now, the Council of Trent was a very long council with a lot of documents, would it be too much to at least tell me which of its over 20 sessions this is from? My guess is that it would be Session 13 (the session about about the Eucharist), and I can find something sort of similar there. From Session 13, Chapter 8:
"Now as to the reception of the sacrament, it was always the custom in the Church of God, that laymen should receive the communion from the priests; but that the priests when celebrating should communicate themselves; which custom, as coming down from an apostolical tradition, ought with justice and reason to be retained."
If this is in view, the quote offered is a considerable paraphrase. And the actual version is still not very applicable to the claim being advanced, as it says nothing at all about hands or tongues. Perhaps the intended claim is what was mentioned in the list's claims about the the Quinsext Council, that the statement of the laymen receiving communion from the priests is to be understood as on the tongue, because otherwise they would be communicating themselves. But is this what is in mind? The target of the quote seems to be less about the laity and more a verification that it is correct for the priest to take communion themselves rather than having to take it from another priest. I say this because of the anathemas issued by Session 13, the only one to say anything about the above subject is Canon 10, which reads:
"If any one shall say, that it is not lawful for the priest celebrating to communicate himself; let him be anathema."
As we can see, the focus here is on the ability of the priest to take communion directly himself, not anything about the laity; there is no canon or anathema on that subject.
So what is the conclusion? Well, nothing about tongues or hands seems to be said in Session 13 of Trent, only a statement about people receiving it from the priests and a solemn declaration that priests can take their own communion.
Pope St. Pius X When Pope St. Pius X was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.
No citation given. Unfortunately, no sources are cited and I have not been able to confirm this. Now, if anyone does know of a source I would be interested, but note that any source should not only provide evidence he took it on the tongue, but also that he "was not allowed" to receive it in the hand.
Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) “[Communion on the tongue] rests upon a tradition of many centuries” and “is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body. . . . “In addition, this manner of communicating . . . gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way, will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained. . . .“[Communion in the hand carries with it certain dangers.] They are a lessening of reverence toward the noble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine.” Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion, issued by the Vatican, the Congregation for Divine Worship Pope Paul VI, May 29, 1969
“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)
or
POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)
Taken out of context. Now, "Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion" is the same document as Memoriale Domini. It can be read here. Not quoted above, however, is the statement "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." Additionally, from context it is clear that the statement that communion on the tongue "must be retained" refers to how, in areas where communion in the hand is permitted (this is not the case for all countries), communion on the tongue must also be permitted. It is a declaration that communion on the tongue must be allowed if the recipient wants it, but not that it must be given to every recipient.
Pope John Paul II To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained.(Dominicae Cenae, 11)
“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaest. Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)
or
POPE JOHN PAUL II (1978-). "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)
“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)
Taken out of context. There are two documents here, which we'll do one at a time. First, Dominicae Cenae. However, this quote is taken completely out of context. Here is its full paragraph:
"To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation."
As you can see, immediately after the quote, it goes on to say that the Church can give this ability to people who are not priests or deacons. So this has been taken blatantly out of context.
Now for the other one, Inaestimabile Donum. However, this cites it incorrectly. It says it's in sectioon 9; the quote is actually in section 10:
"Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another." However, this must be understood in the context of what comes in the section immediately following: "The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long. Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave this task to the laity."
Thus it does allow for lay people to distribute it; section 10 is therefore either criticizing when a priest leaves it completely to the laity, or is saying that it should not be done under the circumstances allowing for extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. I am aware, of course, that some have (not without reason) snarkily referred to extraordinary ministers as "ordinary ministers" due to their constant use--but that is a separate issue. Also notice that the above is concerning not communion in the hand at all, but the issue of the laity distributing it.
The only ones to communicate always standing and with their hands outstretched were, from the beginning, the Arians, who obstinately denied the Divinity of Christ and who could not see in the Eucharist any more than a simple symbol of “union,” which can be taken and handled at will.
No citation for the Arian claim, and seems to contain an error concerning their beliefs. First, postings of this list will sometimes give what it
claims are proofs from scripture for communion in the mouth towards the
end, but anyone can of course look up scripture themselves, so there's
no need for me to analyze that portion. However, the lists will also sometimes include the above claim, which warrants looking at.
No citation whatsoever is given for this claim that the Arians took communion always standing and with their hands outstretched. Given the issues we have seen in this list, in which things are taken out of context, mistranslated, or possibly even made up, I am therefore dubious of this claim. This is especially true when one considers it appears to misrepresent Arian beliefs, at least as far as I understand Arianism. It says that the Arians denied the divinity of Christ. But as far as I understand Arian beliefs, Arians did not deny the divinity of Christ. What Arians denied was that Christ (or the Son) was eternal like the Father; they claimed that Christ was created by the Father and therefore lesser, but they did not deny the divinity or even deity of Christ. For example, in a creed passed by by the Third Council of Sirmian (an Arian council), it is stated "and that the Son of God himself our Lord and God, as it is said, assumed flesh or body, that is man from the womb of the Virgin Mary, as the angel foretold." Thus, Christ is identified as "our Lord and God". This can be seen here (and I know, it's Wikipedia, but I have checked its source for the translation and it matches).
Thus, it seems its claim about Arian beliefs is wrong; why should I trust its claims that they were always standing with their hands outstretched? But even if Arians actually did deny the Divinity of Christ, what evidence is there that they took the Eucharist always standing and with their hands outstretched? None is given, and various inaccuracies previously seen in the list give me reason to doubt the accuracy of this claim.
CONCLUSION
As we have seen, most of these quotes are misrepresented, simply false, or are so vaguely cited it is impossible to determine their accuracy. A few are fine, to be fair, but the majority are not. This is exactly why people should not simply copy and paste quotes they see online without trying to verify or check on them. It just leads to issues like this where people make arguments based on inaccurate information. People who argue in favor of only giving communion on the tongue do their side no good by just copying and pasting lists of inaccurate quotes.
Hopefully, this has been of use to someone.