1) By ordination the priest is the custodian of the Eucharist and for him to unnecessarily put It into hands of others who are not so ordained is wrong.
2) I cannot legitimately consent to the non-ordained giving communion to himself. That is the mysterium tremendum, the grand exception in the entire sacramental dispensation where a man administers a sacrament to himself: the priest, in persona christi, at his communion at Mass.
3) Given the widespread sloppiness with which people receive the sacred host, it is at least irresponsible of a priest to give it in the hand knowing that probably sacrilege will ensue (e.g. trampled particles).
This is a right related to the sacramental duties of the priest. He has a God given right to refuse because he has a duty to safeguard the sacred species. I am very conscious of the fact that in most circumstances today a priest who fulfills his duty in this regard will probably be without a job! So, we sell out to keep our jobs, and neglect our solemn duty to defend our Blessed Lord.
There is much talk about respecting the legitimate sensibilities of the ones receiving. However, we need to start talking also about respecting the legitimate religious sensibilities of the priest distributing communion. He cannot be required to do something so incompatible with his priestly dignity and the longstanding Catholic norm. It would be a violation of his priestly conscience to require it! Just as the lay faithful may not rightly be obliged to receive on the hand (notwithstanding the common practice in many parish first communion programs), so the priest himself cannot rightly be obliged to give communion in this way. Can the Church require what was forbidden from of old? The Church permits communion in the hand, does not require it, just as in the case of altar girls and face to face confessions, the priest has a choice too. No one, not even the Pope, can require a priest to do what he (consistent with Church Tradition) deems harmful to the faith (his own and that of others) and the formation of his faithful. You cannot oblige priests to sin against their properly formed consciences in this.
The claim by many that one cannot refuse communion in the hand permanently I find quite troubling for several reasons. It seems to me that the choice of the communicant is completely contingent upon the choice of the minister, as shown in the practice of the last three popes. I am not questioning the fact that the faithful have been granted permission to receive in the hand. My problem is with the further requiring of all priests to do it. If people have a choice not to receive in the hand, according to their religious sensibilities, on the same token the priest also has a choice to agree with his religious sensibilities. It very much bothers my priestly sense because it does in fact cause countless visible sacrileges which I have seen and in which I should refuse to participate if I were being consistent. I judge it is always wrong to unnecessarily put the Most Sacred Host into the hand of a laymen.
N.B.
The claim by many that one cannot refuse communion in the hand permanently I find quite troubling for several reasons. It seems to me that the choice of the communicant is completely contingent upon the choice of the minister, as shown in the practice of the last three popes. I am not questioning the fact that the faithful have been granted permission to receive in the hand. My problem is with the further requiring of all priests to do it. If people have a choice not to receive in the hand, according to their religious sensibilities, on the same token the priest also has a choice to agree with his religious sensibilities. It very much bothers my priestly sense because it does in fact cause countless visible sacrileges which I have seen and in which I should refuse to participate if I were being consistent. I judge it is always wrong to unnecessarily put the Most Sacred Host into the hand of a laymen.
What is more, much of the present parish eucharistic distribution practice in effect desensitizes priests to this basic duty of defender of the honor due to the Most Sacred Species. I am particularly sensitive to this having spent a year ministering solely under the extraordinary form.
I'm not trying to start any trouble (or maybe I am, in the spirit of Pope Francis who is asking everyone to be true to what Christ is personally asking of him, even if it causes trouble: where things are wrong good men "cause trouble"), just trying to be true to the Lord! Any particle that carelessly falls to the ground on my watch is my responsibility, according to the logic of my ordination! And no one has a right to give a sacrament to himself which is what happens when a person takes the host (or the "cup", one more reason for no common "cup") in one's own hands.
Full text Scneider May 2014 Interview
Canizares interview.
Further commentary.
Arinze 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Cipriani Diocesan 2008 Directive.
Ranjith Diocesan 2011 Directive.
Father Calmel's Eucharistic Confession of Faith.
P.S. While we are considering the matter of choice (for priest as well as people) I recall that in not a few seminaries all of the seminarians (laymen!) are expected and practically required to receive on the hand! So much for options of the people. It seems to me that freedom would be much better expressed requiring everyone to receive on the tongue until they have to say Mass themselves (the only place self-communication is required, and, in my mind, legitimate).
Canizares interview.
Further commentary.
Arinze 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum.
Cipriani Diocesan 2008 Directive.
Ranjith Diocesan 2011 Directive.
Father Calmel's Eucharistic Confession of Faith.
P.S. While we are considering the matter of choice (for priest as well as people) I recall that in not a few seminaries all of the seminarians (laymen!) are expected and practically required to receive on the hand! So much for options of the people. It seems to me that freedom would be much better expressed requiring everyone to receive on the tongue until they have to say Mass themselves (the only place self-communication is required, and, in my mind, legitimate).
