Many of us take refuge in the Tridentine Mass to get away from many of the sometimes abused practices found in the Novus Order (Communion in the hand, giggling altar girls, armies of Eucharistic Ministers storming the altar, laughably bad hymns). Why on earth would anyone go to the Tridentine Mass and demand to receive Communion in the hand (an agenda perhaps)? They can go anywhere at anytime to a plethora of Novus Order Masses and boogie in the aisles with the liturgical dancers if they choose. We accept that. We may be lucky to have only one Sunday Tridentine Mass in a remote location (bad neighborhood) to attend, but hopefully free from all the aforementioned abuses. Why would anyone want to come to the Tridentine Mass and impose themselves and their pop theology on that particular community? When I attend the Novus Ordo (the other six days of the week), I expect to see and I accept the above practices. Those of us who love the Tridentine Mass do not impose the Tridentine ritual practices on the Novus Ordo communities. We don't demand Latin, altar boys only, or a ban on Eucharistic Ministers. It is my understanding that an FSSP priest is required to give Communion in the hand to those who demand it since the indult for Communion in the hand (and altar girls and Eucharistic Ministers) supercedes the indult for the Tridentine Mass. Is this true? We in the Tridentine community pray for an Apostolic Administration with our own bishop to ensure we are not forced to accept practices that have done so much damage to the Church. Thank you for letting me vent.
Answer by Colin B. Donovan, STL on 02-14-2003: As I tried to explain, I don't know what is required by this or that Indult. Going only by the law of pastoral charity, it would seem to me gravely unjust to refuse Communion to someone who simply follows a lawful practice he is used to, when on a particular occasion he chooses to attend an Indult Mass, from whatever motive.
Its not the priest's job to read the communicant's mind but to dispense the sacraments, the grave scandal of public sinners excepted. By the exact same logic Rome has prohibited in the strongest terms (the threat of ecclesiastical sanctions) the refusal of Communion to those who kneel when their country's norm is standing, as it now is in the US. If priests who celebrate the Indult Mass or priests of the FSSP do not want to give Communion in the hand, then they need to explain to the congregation beforehand that Communion on the Tongue is the norm for this rite. Certainly a newcomer or a visitor should be happy to comply ("when in Rome..." as the saying goes). However, when all is said and done, if someone puts out their hand, and a gentle word by the priest does not cause them to put out their tongue, then I see no grounds for refusing the Sacrament. On the contrary, I think it would be gravely sinful to do so.
Finally, unlike giggling altar girls, armies of EMEs and bad (I will assume theologically bad and not just musical poor) hymns, Communion in the Hand has a legitimate history in the Church in the first millennium. It cannot be condemned theologically and canonically without sitting in judgment of the Magisterium, past and present. It is always necessary, therefore, to distinguish between the practice in itself, and its execution in a particular time. Since today it has proven rife with abuse and irreverance, I would be personally happy to see the option ended. However, as long as it is allowed, we must accept that others may choose it. If they receive irreverently (e.g. not taking care whether Particles remain in the hand), then that is on their consciences, as it would be for anyone who receives Communion irreverently. I would bet that most irreverence at Communion time is interior, in the heart poorly disposed to receive our Lord because it is distracted by what others are doing. Bodily posture IS important, but it is less important than interior disposition.