Every question about the manner of receiving Communion — hand or tongue, kneeling or standing, the chalice or not — is disciplinary, has been answered differently in different centuries, and is currently answered differently in different countries.
“The faithful may communicate either kneeling or standing, as determined by the Episcopal Conference… When they communicate standing, it is recommended that they make an appropriate sign of reverence before receiving. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or, where permitted, in the hand.”
Whom it binds
- ·Reception on the tongue is the right of every member of the faithful everywhere, and may never be refused to someone who requests it.
- ·Reception in the hand is permitted only where the bishops' conference has obtained the indult; where it exists, it is an option and not an obligation.
- ·Kneeling to receive may not be made grounds for refusing Communion to anyone.
- ·The determination of posture belongs to the episcopal conference, which is why it differs by country.
How the rule has moved
Watching a law change is the fastest way to learn it was never dogma.
- c. 350
The newly baptized at Jerusalem are instructed to receive in the hand: 'Make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King.'
Mystagogical Catecheses V, 21 — attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, though some scholars assign them to his successor John · read it - c. 650–900
Reception on the tongue spreads and gradually becomes the universal Western practice, alongside the growth of communion rails and kneeling.
A gradual development, not a single decree - 13th c.
The chalice ceases to be offered to the laity in the West, for practical and reverential reasons; Trent later affirms that the whole Christ is received under either species.
Council of Trent, Session XXI (1562) · read it - 1963
Vatican II restores communion under both kinds for the laity in specified circumstances.
Sacrosanctum Concilium 55 · read it - 1969
Memoriale Domini reaffirms communion on the tongue as the norm, while permitting conferences to request an indult for reception in the hand.
Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, 29 May 1969 · read it
Both practices are ancient; one is older
The historical position is straightforward and satisfies nobody entirely. Reception in the hand is the older practice — attested plainly at Jerusalem in the fourth century, in the Mystagogical Catecheses handed down under St. Cyril's name, with instructions careful enough to show it was normal and reverent. Reception on the tongue is the practice that the Latin Church then adopted and kept for over a thousand years, and which remains the norm of the universal law today.
The shift to the tongue was driven by real concerns: the protection of fragments, worries about profanation, and a growing sense of the priest's consecrated hands as uniquely fitted to touch the Host. Those concerns were not invented, and they are the reason Memoriale Domini in 1969 reaffirmed the tongue as the norm even while permitting the hand.
What is not up for grabs
Underneath every one of these variations is a doctrine that does not vary: the whole Christ — Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity — is received entire under either species, in whatever manner. Trent defined that explicitly against the claim that the laity were being deprived by not receiving the chalice.
So the arguments here are about reverence, not about what is received. They are worth having, and Catholics hold strong views. But a person receiving devoutly in the hand and a person receiving devoutly on the tongue have received exactly the same Lord.
Where it gets mistaken for doctrine
Communion in the hand is a modern invention with no precedent.
It is the older of the two practices, described approvingly by a Doctor of the Church in the fourth century. What is modern is its restoration after a thousand years of the other custom.
You receive less of Christ if you receive only the host and not the chalice.
Trent defined the contrary in 1562: the whole Christ is received under either species. Receiving both is a fuller sign, not a larger portion.
A priest may refuse Communion to someone who kneels, or who asks to receive on the tongue.
He may not. The Holy See has stated this repeatedly. Reception on the tongue is the right of every communicant, and kneeling is not grounds for refusal.
Why it matters
- ☩It is the discipline most likely to make Catholics suspicious of one another, and the one where knowing the history should lower the temperature most.
- ☩Whichever manner you choose, the law asks for a deliberate act of reverence first — and that, not the posture, is the part that is actually required.
- ☩The doctrine underneath has not moved an inch since 1562.
Follow it further
Every citation on this page was checked against the document it names. Where a public text exists it is linked, so nothing here has to be taken on this site’s word. Where a claim could not be verified it was removed rather than left standing.