Archbishop of Bologna bans Eucharist by hand in select Churches

[otjm]

You should be more tollerant and respectful of diverse points of view. Power to the laity.

Why should I be tolerant of ignorance?

I have no problem with people who have feelings about which way to receive Communion. But I have a lack of tolerance for ignorance, and statments broadly made that simply do not bear the truth.

At least some Eastern rites stand to receive Communion, and to the best I have been able to determine, have done so back to the time of the early Church. Yet we have people going around saying that standing is not reverent. That is bull. Revernet is not in the actions but in the doer of the actions. One can be more reverent and stand to receive than one who kneels. The reverse is just as true, because reverence when it gets tied to a specific posture is a cultural issue; it is not something that is intrinsic to the posture itself.

Receiving in the hand has a 2000 year history in the Church. The baloney that gets spewed by those who don’t like it ignores that 2000 year history, and it ignores the history of the Roman rite which had it to some degree into the 10th century. Their comments show their ignorance. I have no objection whatsoever to their desire to receive on the tongue. What I object to is their pontificating about things which show an absolute lack of any understanding of the issue. “Fondeling another man’s wife” like Cecilianus stated - to something that has been the praxis of the Church continually? that is offensive to say the least. I don’t suggest that Cecilianus should receive in the hand; I do suggest that a snotty comment like that is beyond unnecessary.

 

[d_erford]

Why don’t we just take it in our hand eat half when we get it and save the other half for later in the day or the middle of the week? Or bring a sandwich bag and have the priest drop it inside for us to put it in the fridge when we get home.

I have seen those who receive on the tongue walk right out of mass after receiving. I have seen them ignore the homily and joke around during the consecration. It is a false and arrogant assumption to believe someone who receives on the tongue is being more reverent than someone receiving in the hand because you have no idea what either person is thinking or what they believe.

I am sure it is obvious I receive in the hand (I’ve had the Body of Christ fall off my tongue onto the floor). But that being said, the instant my bishop says we are only to receive on the tongue is the very instant I would start doing so, because of the faith I have that this is the Church Christ founded and we are to look to our shepherds for guidance and instruction. If you are going to judge, please judge me on my loyalty to Christ’s Church and the sacred order He instituted instead of the fact I prefer a different (but completely allowed by the Church) practice of receiving our Lord in Holy Communion.

 

[Cohibas]

Let me begin by stating that I am a daily communicant and I always receive on the tongue. Also also thoroughly enjoy both the Tridentine Rite and the Novus Ordo (LifeTeen Masses is really pushing it for me!)

My question is more of an historical one. Staunch traditionalist with whom I have come into contact claim that the Tridentine rite is the only acceptable rite and that the Novus Ordo Mass is illicit. They also claim that receiving communion on the tongue is the only acceptable way.

However, doesn’t history prove them wrong? The first Christians did not celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Rite. In fact, St. Justin Martyr’s description of the Mass sounds very much like the Novus Ordo Mass to me!

Similarly, didn’t the first Christians literally “break bread” together? They would take the main consecrated piece into their hands and would literally break off a piece and self-communicate. I highly doubt there were communion rails and priests with ciboria distributing the consecrated bread that was broken onto their tongues. So why are the hands so bad if that’s the way the first Christians “took and ate?”

 

[una_fides]

Let me begin by stating that I am a daily communicant and I always receive on the tongue. Also also thoroughly enjoy both the Tridentine Rite and the Novus Ordo (LifeTeen Masses is really pushing it for me!)

My question is more of an historical one. Staunch traditionalist with whom I have come into contact claim that the Tridentine rite is the only acceptable rite and that the Novus Ordo Mass is illicit. They also claim that receiving communion on the tongue is the only acceptable way.

However, doesn’t history prove them wrong? The first Christians did not celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Rite. In fact, St. Justin Martyr’s description of the Mass sounds very much like the Novus Ordo Mass to me!

Similarly, didn’t the first Christians literally “break bread” together? They would take the main consecrated piece into their hands and would literally break off a piece and self-communicate. I highly doubt there were communion rails and priests with ciboria distributing the consecrated bread that was broken onto their tongues. So why are the hands so bad if that’s the way the first Christians “took and ate?”

Let me start by saying, I don’t believe that the Novus Ordo is illicit or any of that other silliness; though I definitely prefer the TLM and would only go to those if more were available.

Please read this: catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

I believe that your understanding of the early Church and her practices may have been a bit influenced by some liberal thought along the way. I hope that link helps. I also just got a book that I’m dying to read called “How Christ Said the First Mass” by Fr. James L. Meagher, D.D. That book may also help to shed some light.

God bless you!

 

[una_fides]

Receiving in the hand has a 2000 year history in the Church.

Yes it does have a history which consists of it being banned for many centuries. Would you speak in the same tone in your post to St. Thomas Aquinas who clearly stated that the only hands that should ever touch the Body of our Lord are those that have been consecrated to the priesthood?

 

[otjm]

Yes it does have a history which consists of it being banned for many centuries. Would you speak in the same tone in your post to St. Thomas Aquinas who clearly stated that the only hands that should ever touch the Body of our Lord are those that have been consecrated to the priesthood?

Yes. He was not pope, and he did not have the charism of infallibility, although every time he agrees with someone’s position, his statement agreeing with it gets trotted out.

He was a brilliant theologian. One needs also to understand that praxis is subject to change by the authority of the Church. The fact that he was a brilliant theologian does not make him the final answer of all issues, and most certainly not the final answer on issues of praxis.

and actually, it has only a history of being banned for many centuries in the Roman rite. I tire of people presuming that is the sum and substance of the Church.

 

[Cecilianus]

And your history is incorrect; the reception in the hand was not banned in the Church, but only in the Roman rite. There are other rites in which it has continued down from the apostles.

Which rites?

The three Eastern rites available in places where I’ve been able to attend (the Maronite, Byzantine, and Ukrainian) and which I do in fact attend on a regular basis all receive the Eucharist in the mouth. In these rites the Host is administered either by intinction (for the Maronites) or is administered by a spoon since it had been soaked in the Precious Blood (for the identical Byzantine and the Ukrainian rites). Nobody receives in the hand.

And while today they do stand for Communion (a Byzantine posture of reverence whose significance is mainly lost in the West but clung to tenaciously by the schismatic “Orthodox”), the Catechism of the Sacrifice of the Divine Liturgy published about fifty years ago by the Eparchy of Parma shows the communicant kneeling for Communion. There is no “altar rail” because what in the West became the altar rail became the iconastasis - a much larger and even more obvious separation between the nave and the sanctuary. (Originally, the nave and the sanctuary were separated by a curtain both in the East and the West, as is still the current practice among the Armenians. Among the Latins the curtain became a wooden altar screen going from the floor to the ceiling, which eventually shrunk into the altar rail.)

 

[Cecilianus]

Yes. He was not pope, and he did not have the charism of infallibility, although every time he agrees with someone’s position, his statement agreeing with it gets trotted out.

He was a brilliant theologian. One needs also to understand that praxis is subject to change by the authority of the Church. The fact that he was a brilliant theologian does not make him the final answer of all issues, and most certainly not the final answer on issues of praxis.

and actually, it has only a history of being banned for many centuries in the Roman rite. I tire of people presuming that is the sum and substance of the Church.

But the Church never changed communion in the mouth! It only granted communion in the hand as a special indult - an extraordinary privilege. Communion in the mouth is still the norm, and in some places - like Rome! as well as Sri Lanka, most of South America, etc. - it is the only acceptable praxis.

 

[una_fides]

Yes. He was not pope, and he did not have the charism of infallibility, although every time he agrees with someone’s position, his statement agreeing with it gets trotted out.

He was not infallible but as far as theologians go he has more Magisterial approval than all others combined.

From the encyclical Aeterni Patris by Pope Leo XIII. A couple quick gems:

Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”
22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers…
We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences… Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

Granted this approval does not mean that he could not have been wrong on something, but it also doesn’t mean that you can just write off his conclusions whenever they disagree with yours.

 

[otjm]

He was not infallible but as far as theologians go he has more Magisterial approval than all others combined.

From the encyclical Aeterni Patris by Pope Leo XIII. A couple quick gems:

Innocent VI: “His [Aquinas’] teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.”
22. The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers…
We exhort you, venerable brethren, in all earnestness to restore the golden wisdom of St. Thomas, and to spread it far and wide for the defense and beauty of the Catholic faith, for the good of society, and for the advantage of all the sciences… Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13cph.htm

Granted this approval does not mean that he could not have been wrong on something, but it also doesn’t mean that you can just write off his conclusions whenever they disagree with yours.

I don’t just write him off. But when a theologian such as Benedict 16 says that Communion in the hand is not a lesser way, I don’t get real excited about someone else saying something that comes across de fide on praxis.

 

[Cecilianus]

“Fondeling another man’s wife” like Cecilianus stated - to something that has been the praxis of the Church continually? that is offensive to say the least. I don’t suggest that Cecilianus should receive in the hand; I do suggest that a snotty comment like that is beyond unnecessary.

1. Show the evidence that it has been the praxis of the Church continually. The fact is, it hasn’t. It was banned in the Roman Rite over a thousand years ago and in the Eastern Rites at least 1500 years ago.
2. The analogy I made is standard in Catholic theology. I didn’t make it up; if I had a reference to the Summa Theologica in front of me, I’d tell you. I personally first read the analogy in an article in Latin Mass magazine. If the Eucharist is truly and really the Body and Blood of the infinite Godhead, made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by the consecrated hands of the priest and by his hands alone - the priest ordained by the special graces of God to be able to perform this miracle - and you, the layman, are not standing in persona Christi, are not consecrated by the special grace of God to perform the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, then to touch the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ seems to me - and to sensibility of the Church - incredibly presumptious of us to touch His Body. We are not even necessary to be present for the Mass to take place; the Holy Sacrifice - which IS the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in the Apocalypse of St. John - is strictly a matter between the priest and God, which is why the priest whispered the canon for the first 1933 years of the Church’s history (A.D. 33-1969).

 

[eggplant911]

So - when did the apostles become priests? I’m still curious.

 

[una_fides]

So - when did the apostles become priests? I’m still curious.

At Christ’s Last Supper. It was there he instituted Holy Orders. “Do this in memory of me.” They were to offer the sacrifice that Christ was about to offer at Calvary. Christ is a priest forever under the order of Melchisidech, who was an OT priest who offered bread and wine. Christ too offered bread and wine, which he said was his body and blood, and the sacrifice that Christ offered was himself, body and blood, on the Cross for our sins. That same bloody sacrifice at Calvary is what the priests make present at Mass in an unbloody manner.

 

[d_erford]

1. Show the evidence that it has been the praxis of the Church continually. The fact is, it hasn’t. It was banned in the Roman Rite over a thousand years ago and in the Eastern Rites at least 1500 years ago.

I know this may sound trite, but so what? We are not living 1500 or 2000 years ago. Those that receive in the hand are not arbitrarily deciding that they want to do this. They are doing something the Church has allowed to be done. You may have a different preference, but no basis on which to say yours, at this present time, is superior. If the Church took away the indult, or the local bishop decided not to implement it, then there would be a very solid grounding for addressing the issue with those that would continue to receive in the hand.

1. The analogy I made is standard in Catholic theology. I didn’t make it up; if I had a reference to the Summa Theologica in front of me, I’d tell you. I personally first read the analogy in an article in Latin Mass magazine. If the Eucharist is truly and really the Body and Blood of the infinite Godhead, made present in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass by the consecrated hands of the priest and by his hands alone - the priest ordained by the special graces of God to be able to perform this miracle - and you, the layman, are not standing in persona Christi, are not consecrated by the special grace of God to perform the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, then to touch the Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ seems to me - and to sensibility of the Church - incredibly presumptious of us to touch His Body. We are not even necessary to be present for the Mass to take place; the Holy Sacrifice - which IS the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in the Apocalypse of St. John - is strictly a matter between the priest and God, which is why the priest whispered the canon for the first 1933 years of the Church’s history (A.D. 33-1969).

But it is also part of Catholic theology that we, as the Church, are the spouse of Christ. If this is so, then receiving in the hand would be “fondling” my own spouse, something the Church does not frown upon. In fact, if we were to accept your analogy, then the Church is alright with us “fondling the spouse of another person.” So is the Church allowing an adulterous evil to occur that it has the ability and right to stamp out?

 

[Walking_Home]

I know this may sound trite, but so what? We are not living 1500 or 2000 years ago. Those that receive in the hand are not arbitrarily deciding that they want to do this. They are doing something the Church has allowed to be done. You may have a different preference, but no basis on which to say yours, at this present time, is superior. If the Church took away the indult, or the local bishop decided not to implement it, then there would be a very solid grounding for addressing the issue with those that would continue to receive in the hand.

But it is also part of Catholic theology that we, as the Church, are the spouse of Christ. If this is so, then receiving in the hand would be “fondling” my own spouse, something the Church does not frown upon. In fact, if we were to accept your analogy, then the Church is alright with us “fondling the spouse of another person.” So is the Church allowing an adulterous evil to occur that it has the ability and right to stamp out?

---

Something is not right with what you have above. Yes the Church is the Bride of Christ–but the Church says a priest is married to the Church. I don’t think I’ve ever come across that a priest is married to Christ. They way you have it --all male members of the Church would be married to Christ --“fondling” Him. This does not look to be in line with the Church.

 

[abukamoon]

Why was it ever allowed in the hand? I think that receiving in the hand is just Modernism rearing it’s ugly head.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Why was it ever allowed in the hand? I think that receiving in the hand is just Modernism rearing it’s ugly head.

I think it came from the early Church when the followers of “The Way” went to synagogue for the readings and then to the homes of the faithful for the breaking of the bread. At that time it was a meal and the sacrament was celebrated differently than today. The point being the early church faithful received Jesus, BODY, MIND, SOUL. AND DIVINITY in the same way that the modern church receives our Lord…BODY,MIND, SOUL, AND DIVINITY.

 

[pipper]

Why was it ever allowed in the hand? I think that receiving in the hand is just Modernism rearing it’s ugly head.

Just curious, how can an ancient practice, that predates Holy Communion on the tounge be called Modernism?

If anything it is Communion on the tounge only that can be considered modern, since it came a millenium afterward.

 

[d_erford]

---

Something is not right with what you have above. Yes the Church is the Bride of Christ–but the Church says a priest is married to the Church. I don’t think I’ve ever come across that a priest is married to Christ. They way you have it --all male members of the Church would be married to Christ --“fondling” Him. This does not look to be in line with the Church.

From the Catechism: “The Apostle speaks of the whole Church and each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride “betrothed” to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with him.” (CCC, 796) So even the male members of the Church, since they are part of the Church, are “betrothed” to Christ. I understand why it may make you queasy, but that is the case only if you view it in a completely sexual way. I used the word “fondling” because that was the term previously used (I personally didn’t like the term).

 

[Cecilianus]

---

Something is not right with what you have above. Yes the Church is the Bride of Christ–but the Church says a priest is married to the Church. I don’t think I’ve ever come across that a priest is married to Christ. They way you have it --all male members of the Church would be married to Christ --“fondling” Him. This does not look to be in line with the Church.

The priest is in persona Christi, married to the Church. I think that the analogy comes from the fact that it is the priest’s consecrated hands that are performing the nuptial banquet of the Mass, rather than from some sort of notion of the priest being married to Christ. Obviously in this respect it’s not a perfect analogy - but I doubt that it was originally intended to be carried that far.