A Lesson for Traditionalists on Communion in the hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaulAndrew83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PaulAndrew83

Guest
A Lesson for Traditionalists on Communion in the hand.

While choosing this name for a topic in the Traditionalist section of the forums seems like a flame it is not. It is a genuine lesson because I see many traditionalists bogged down in discussions on the topic and failing to make any headway. There are a couple of reasons for this but one of them is lacking certain tools to deal with the error.

The real problem.

Let me ask this question.

If all Churches that practice Communion in the Hand took these (listed below) precautions to safeguard the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament would we be having this problem?
  • The Priest continues all liturgical laws and customs with regard to the Blessed Sacrament including the clasping of the canonical fingers and purifications.
  • All those who receive in the hand take some time to purify their hands perhaps with water after reception of the Blessed Sacrament.
I guarantee that we would not be having this discussion. Rather we would be pointing out the statement of Pope Benedict that “kneeling is an intrinsically necessary gesture before God” and pointing out only that reception on the tongue is a superior method of making sure that no fragments of the Blessed Sacrament are lost.

Then the real problem with the modern method of reception is not the fact that Holy Communion is received in the hand but that no care is taken with regards to the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament in Churches today.

So what needs to be done. As a note many people have attested to me that these problems are not just local to where I have lived which includes Arundel and Brighton, London, and the north west of England. It is a global epidemic of ignorance.

    • All Priests when celebrating Mass need to stop ignoring the ablutions after Holy Communion like I have seen in all but one Church local to me.
    • All Churches need to start using the sacrarium again to purify vessels and altar linen, which I personally know is not done in any of my local churches.
    • All people who receive Holy Communion in the hand must be instructed how to purify their hands correctly so that no fragments are lost. Where this would be impractical Communion in the hand must be disallowed.
    How to win this war.

    Arguing on a forum or with individuals in person is only one aspect of the war. There is agreat deal to be done apart from this. However in this battle we must make efforts to make sure the truth comes out ahead. So we must

    Firstly there is a great lack of concentration. There are a great deal of useless and irrelevent discussions going on and on that need to stop. On the part of truth we must be able to disarm useless discussion efficiently.

    Concentration on the real issue is the only way to win this war. No 10% decent Catholic could ever argue that it is a good thing to ignore the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament.

    I will here present a few examples.
    1. Communion in the hand was practiced in the early Church therefore it is fine.
    I would now say yes it was and the early Church had its methods for protecting the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. As proof of this one could use the quote from St Cyril of Jerusalem that is bandied about liberal circles in an attempt to silence uninformed traditionalists. Just make sure you quote it more fully where the Saint calls the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament more valuable than Gold and Silver and to lose any would be as if you lost your own limb. (Paraphrase)

    Then very efficiently return to how the modern practice is horrible at protecting the fragments at the Blessed Sacrament.
    1. In the last supper the apostles received in the hand therefore the modern method is fine.
    Again ask the person presenting this if he thought the apostles did not make any effort to prevent any loss of the Blessed Sacrament.
    1. The Church allows the modern practice therefore it is fine.
    Actually what the Church does is allow people to receive in the hand. It has not given people the right to ignore the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. The Church has been negligent in preventing fragments of the Blessed Sacrament from being lost and educating the Faithful to do so.

    The Church has at times been negligent before. See protestant deformation etc.

    Conclusion

    No Catholic can ever argue that the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament can be safely ignored. So simply this war to protect God from being defiled (and ignored and to only God knows where the Blessed Sacrament has been ending up these days) can only be won by by concentrating on the only thing that really matters. This is that the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament are God and we have a duty as catholics to prevent their loss.

    By doing this on forums and with individuals we will very quickly enlighten true catholics what is good and right and at the same time show that all useless arguments which currently deceive the elect are ineffective.

    God Bless

    Paul

    Appendix 1

    Some people are unaware that the fragments/particles of the Blessed Sacrament is still Jesus Christ whole and entire. One would need to quote the council of Trent for this.

    Some people are also unaware of the extent the Church has gone to prevent loss of the Blessed Sacrament. Describing them and quoting current code of Canon Law of 1983, canons 2 and 5 which basically state that custom and liturgical law remain in force unless the code states that they are suppressed.

    Some people are unaware that the sacrarium is still mandated for use in the G.I.R.M to protect the fragments.

    Appendix 2

    Is ignoring the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament intrinsically evil?

    I personally would say that it can be shown that consciously ignoring the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament is a sin. Therefore ignoring the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament is evil.
 
How about a lesson for liberals.

Rule 1: Receive on the tongue, thereby eliminating any concern for losing precious particles of the Host due to needless handling of the Host.

Rule 2: Follow rule 1.
 
I think a lot of if not all of profanation could be avoided my returning to the old tradition of holding the paten under the hands and mouth of the communicant. if nthere are anyparticles dropped they would be caught on the paten, which can be purified with the ablutions.
 
Yes, but . . . it’s just so much easier to receive on the tongue, with an altar boy holding a paten to take care of this problem.
 
I_Believe said:
How about a lesson for liberals.

Rule 1: Receive on the tongue, thereby eliminating any concern for losing precious particles of the Host due to needless handling of the Host.

Rule 2: Follow rule 1.
Click to expand...
Too Simple 😉

Next thing you know your going to question the use of EMHC’s!:eek:
 
I think we could a whole new aspect to the Mass. In homage to the ancient practice of baptism by immersion we could require all parishioners to walk through the cleansing waters of a pool before receiving communion in their hands. Perhaps we could just have them pass through a shower room. We could pass out hand sanitizer before Holy Communion. We could even add a requirement that all Communicants display their hands for inspection of the priest before they are to receive Communion. Maybe we could use the ushers for this responsibility, or create a special office called the Hand Inspector. If your hands aren’t clean enough, the Hand Inspector gives you a wipe to use.

Of course, perhaps we could just all receive on the tongue.
 
shuzo1189 said:
Too Simple 😉

Next thing you know your going to question the use of EMHC’s!:eek:
Click to expand...
yes simple and yet so TRUE when you truly believe that you are in fact receiving the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. its called ummmm RESPECT!!! standing there like an equal to God Himself and taking instead of receiving in my opinion is bear minimal respect and adoration.
 
I_Believe said:
How about a lesson for liberals.

Rule 1: Receive on the tongue, thereby eliminating any concern for losing precious particles of the Host due to needless handling of the Host.

Rule 2: Follow rule 1.
Click to expand...
What is wrong with PaulAndrew’s post?
 
Spirithound said:
What is wrong with PaulAndrew’s post?
Click to expand...
That its rather complex, and by just simply receiving on the tongue you resolve almost all the issues the OP presented.

Now I suppose if one really want’s too they could dry their tongue receive the host and then walk out with it, but there comes a point where no amount of security will protect our Blessed Lord from those who truly wish to do malicious harm.

On a Side Note: My current Parish, Which has an Altar Rail where reception on the tongue is the de facto norm, Has two members of the Laity that stand on the very far end of each rail and watch the communicants to kind of make sure no one is purposefully removing the host. Desecration has been a problem in the past.
 
shuzo1189 said:
That its rather complex, and by just simply receiving on the tongue you resolve almost all the issues the OP presented.
Click to expand...
But the only thing that he suggested was the priest educate the people to inspect/purify their hands after receiving Holy Communion. It’s a one-step process for the laity, and a call to the priests to just do what they’re supposed to be doing anyways.
 
Spirithound said:
What is wrong with PaulAndrew’s post?
Click to expand...
The Church deemed it proper to receive on the tongue. This stood for a very long time, and it’s still the norm.

The argument that it used to be done so it’s OK , holds about as much weight as if I were to say selling indulgences is OK because Leo X did it.

The Church did not reintroduce the practice of receiving in the hand. Rome decided to tolerate it after certain clergy took it upon themselves to rewrite the rubrics. It’s permitted via an indult. It’s not the norm, and it enables problems.
 
I_Believe said:
The Church deemed it proper to receive on the tongue. This stood for a very long time, and it’s still the norm.

The argument that it used to be done so it’s OK , holds about as much weight as if I were to say selling indulgences is OK because Leo X did it.

The Church did not reintroduce the practice of receiving in the hand. Rome decided to tolerate it after certain clergy took it upon themselves to rewrite the rubrics. It’s permitted via an indult. It’s not the norm, and it enables problems.
Click to expand...
Shouldn’t the argument for receiving in the hand carry more weight than selling indulgences because Jesus Himself gave His apostles His Blessed Sacrament into their hands? Jesus never sold indulgences…
 
Spirithound said:
But the only thing that he suggested was the priest educate the people to inspect/purify their hands after receiving Holy Communion. It’s a one-step process for the laity, and a call to the priests to just do what they’re supposed to be doing anyways.
Click to expand...
Those are some of the conditions of the indult. And they have been ignored in the majority of parishes. This is disobedience.
 
Spirithound said:
Shouldn’t the argument for receiving in the hand carry more weight than selling indulgences because Jesus Himself gave His apostles His Blessed Sacrament into their hands? Jesus never sold indulgences…
Click to expand...
Yes, Bishops (which the Apostles were) have always been allowed to hold the Host.

And since Christ is only recorded as having allowed those in Holy Orders to hold the Host, we really SHOULD follow Christ’s example. :rolleyes:
 
I think at least two people have missed the Point completely.

All Traditionalists know that the modern practice is wrong. And we all should know that there is one main reason that it is wrong above all others. This main reason is not the fact that Holy Communion is received in the hand. It is the fact that the modern method has no inkling of the necessity of preventing loss to the Blessed Sacrament.

It is blatantly obvious to a Trad that spending time purifying hands afterwards is a waste of time, of course just receive on the Tongue.

However we are now in a situation where the majority of Catholics have ZERO idea that the modern practice is wrong and they have no idea that they need to respect the particles of the Blessed Sacrament.

So how do we as catholics prevent as much loss to the Sacrament as we can. We educate them on the only things that really matter. That is that the fragments are still Jesus and that the Church teaches that they need to be prevented from loss.

Logic will easily(or should do) lead them to see that a mass purification is stupid and so returning the traditional practice makes sense.

The true substance of these posts is to stop trads harping on about things that have not had any effect on many catholics. But telling a Catholic that they must care for the fragments is a way forward. BECAUSE no 10% decent Catholic will argue in favor of defiling the Blessed Sacrament.

Paul
 
Brendan said:
Yes, Bishops (which the Apostles were) have always been allowed to hold the Host.

And since Christ is only recorded as having allowed those in Holy Orders to hold the Host, we really SHOULD follow Christ’s example. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
(cymbal crash) 😉
 
Brendan said:
Yes, Bishops (which the Apostles were) have always been allowed to hold the Host.

And since Christ is only recorded as having allowed those in Holy Orders to hold the Host, we really SHOULD follow Christ’s example. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Even if they’re not concelebrating?
 
Spirithound said:
Shouldn’t the argument for receiving in the hand carry more weight than selling indulgences because Jesus Himself gave His apostles His Blessed Sacrament into their hands? Jesus never sold indulgences…
Click to expand...
There is no historical evidence to show that the apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last Supper.
 
DixitDominus said:
There is no historical evidence to show that the apostles received Communion in the hand at the Last Supper.
Click to expand...
I’ve always considered it to be the plainest reading of the Last Supper narratives. Something so unusual as them being fed surely would have been included?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top