Archbishop of Bologna bans Eucharist by hand in select Churches

[Cecilianus]

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?/QUOTE]

Yes.

In light of all of the other evils the Church has historically allowed - clerics living in widespread concubinage (during the Dark Ages), the Babylonian Captivity, rampant caesaropapism from the age of Constantine to the concessions made to Napoleon, the abuses antecedent to the Protestant Revolt, the state of the Jesuits today, the continuing ministry of priests like Fr. Richard McBrien and Diarmuid O’Murchu, the frequent 18th- and 19th-century practice of priests practicing Freemasonry, the purely secular and political position of the priesthood in 17th and 18th century France, Martin IV’s excommunication of the Greeks for purely political purposes in the late 13th century, etc. etc. etc. - a liturgical corruption like communion in the hand is relatively minor.

 

[una_fides]

Yes.

In light of all of the other evils the Church has historically allowed - clerics living in widespread concubinage (during the Dark Ages), the Babylonian Captivity, rampant caesaropapism from the age of Constantine to the concessions made to Napoleon, the abuses antecedent to the Protestant Revolt, the state of the Jesuits today, the continuing ministry of priests like Fr. Richard McBrien and Diarmuid O’Murchu, the frequent 18th- and 19th-century practice of priests practicing Freemasonry, the purely secular and political position of the priesthood in 17th and 18th century France, Martin IV’s excommunication of the Greeks for purely political purposes in the late 13th century, etc. etc. etc. - a liturgical corruption like communion in the hand is relatively minor.

If only more people could insult the priesthood and the Church and try to point out whatever real or imagined or exaggerated problems that the sinful individuals within the Church has committed. I mean that certainly wins arguments and converts souls to our holy Mother the Church does it not? Let’s ignore these “smaller problems” and dwell on bigger ones from the past and just say well I’m glad that there’s not as much widespread immorality like there used to have been or w/e… How would you like it if people constantly brought up all your sins and threw them in your face whenever it benefited them for the sake of an argument or even worse exaggerated them or made them up. When you realize the Church is our mother you should never say anything bad about one’s mother especially not publicly. If your mother had committed a sin in the past, let’s say adultery, and others constantly bombarded her and told her how she was an adulterer 30 years after she had done it, how would you feel? Would you join them in burning a scarlet letter into her skin or would you say to leave her alone, that she has repented. A more close analogy would be if some of your brothers and sisters engaged in serious sins and then everyone blamed their mother for it and said how bad their mother was because of the sins of her children. I hope this is making sense. Let’s not speak evil of our holy Mother the Church or disparage her priests or the priesthood. It sounds to me too much like a Jack Chick track.

 

[d_erford]

So is the Church allowing an adulterous evil to occur that it has the ability and right to stamp out?

/QUOTE]

Yes.

In light of all of the other evils the Church has historically allowed… a liturgical corruption like communion in the hand is relatively minor.

Wow. There is no point is discussing this with someone who will take their subjective opinion and pronounce it as an objective truth.

 

[Supercatholic]

It’s really amazing how so many people have a different history as to how communion is to be received, or when and why it was changed. Okay, let’s accept the fact that communion was first received in the hand at the early start of church history. But, just because something starts a certain way doesn’t mean it should stay that way. Obviously there must have been problems with receiving it in the hand, such as dropped hosts, being brought home, sold, or simply tossed away. So whenever it was mandated for the host to be placed on the tongue, it was for the good of the church, the host, and the parishioners soul. Many parishes in the U.S. permit it in the hand, but Rome as of yet has not approved of this practice. What’s the difference between the tongue and the hand? Separately none at all, but combined, this is where the problem is. You receive it in one hand (First stage of desecration) then you pick it up with the other hand (second stage of desecration) then you put it in your own mouth of your own accord when you feel like it instead of receiving it humbly with humility (third stage of desecration). People who prefer to receive it in the hand do so for two basic reasons. One, bad catechism and two, human pride. I don’t think we’ll see it in our lifetime, but I dread the day when they place paper plates with the hosts at the exits with a sign saying “Take one”.

 

[otjm]

It’s really amazing how so many people have a different history as to how communion is to be received, or when and why it was changed. Okay, let’s accept the fact that communion was first received in the hand at the early start of church history. But, just because something starts a certain way doesn’t mean it should stay that way.

And the reverse is also true: just because something was done one way, and then another does not mean that the latter is the absolute norm.

Obviously there must have been problems with receiving it in the hand, such as dropped hosts, being brought home, sold, or simply tossed away.

Actually, early on the Host was brought home. Tabernacles did not really start to appear until about the 9th/10th century.

Many parishes in the U.S. permit it in the hand, but Rome as of yet has not approved of this practice.

That is incorrect; Rome has granted an indult, which is approval. the approval does not replace the norm, receiving on the tongue, but is in addition to it.

What’s the difference between the tongue and the hand? Separately none at all, but combined, this is where the problem is. You receive it in one hand (First stage of desecration) then you pick it up with the other hand (second stage of desecration) then you put it in your own mouth of your own accord when you feel like it instead of receiving it humbly with humility (third stage of desecration).

Please cite your source of information that this is an act of desecration. Given that Rome has specifically allowed that, I would suggest that you can’t.

People who prefer to receive it in the hand do so for two basic reasons. One, bad catechism and two, human pride.

I will await the posting of your polling. Given the fact that it has all the appearance of personal opinion and no factual base, I won’t hold my breath.

I don’t think we’ll see it in our lifetime, but I dread the day when they place paper plates with the hosts at the exits with a sign saying “Take one”.

Given that there is nothing anywhere in reality to make such a suggestion, that is a red herring.
You are extemely judgemental of people who recieve in the hand. My parish has the large majority receiving in the hand. We also have 24 hour perpetual adoration - something that, if your premise were in any way valid, would be an oxymoron. However, you are simply making a flight of fantasy in ascribing desecration, pride, and poor catechesis to why people receive in the hand. Our parish worships our Lord and Savior; and we do it not only by attending Mass and receiving in the hand, but also by spending an hour in adoration - some of us in the hours of the night and early morning.

 

[Supercatholic]

And the reverse is also true: just because something was done one way, and then another does not mean that the latter is the absolute norm. Actually, early on the Host was brought home. Tabernacles did not really start to appear until about the 9th/10th century. That is incorrect; Rome has granted an indult, which is approval. the approval does not replace the norm, receiving on the tongue, but is in addition to it.Please cite your source of information that this is an act of desecration. Given that Rome has specifically allowed that, I would suggest that you can’t.I will await the posting of your polling. Given the fact that it has all the appearance of personal opinion and no factual base, I won’t hold my breath. Given that there is nothing anywhere in reality to make such a suggestion, that is a red herring.
You are extemely judgemental of people who recieve in the hand. My parish has the large majority receiving in the hand. We also have 24 hour perpetual adoration - something that, if your premise were in any way valid, would be an oxymoron. However, you are simply making a flight of fantasy in ascribing desecration, pride, and poor catechesis to why people receive in the hand. Our parish worships our Lord and Savior; and we do it not only by attending Mass and receiving in the hand, but also by spending an hour in adoration - some of us in the hours of the night and early morning.

Regardless of your rebuttal, I stand firm on my position. The priests hands are consecrated via ceremonial washing. The parishioner’s hands are not. You can spend 24 hours in a row in adoration and your hands are still not consecrated. Now I throw the ball back to you. Please provide when Rome gave this indult, that we can touch the host with our hands for any reason we see fit. The indult granted if any was due to extreme circumstances, not personal preference. And prove to me that touching the host with our hands does not desecrate it. I await the posting of your polling. I’m not judgemental of the people that receive in the hand. I’m judgemental of the practice of receiving it the hand. A valid oxymoron? Is that like a truth that that isn’t true, or a lie that isn’t false?

 

[otjm]

Regardless of your rebuttal, I stand firm on my position. The priests hands are consecrated via ceremonial washing. The parishioner’s hands are not. You can spend 24 hours in a row in adoration and your hands are still not consecrated.

And please show where it says that hands have to be consecrated to touch the host - besides trotting out St Thomas. I believe it was Pius the 12th who cleared up that the ordination of the piest was not in the consecrating of the hands.

Now I throw the ball back to you. Please provide when Rome gave this indult, that we can touch the host with our hands for any reason we see fit. The indult granted if any was due to extreme circumstances, not personal preference.

The indult is to receive Communion in the hands. Your statement about touching it for any reason is a red herring; I said no such thing and neither does the indult.

And prove to me that touching the host with our hands does not desecrate it. I await the posting of your polling. I’m not judgemental of the people that receive in the hand. I’m judgemental of the practice of receiving it the hand. A valid oxymoron? Is that like a truth that that isn’t true, or a lie that isn’t false?

It is not up to me to show you that it is not a desecration. It is you to apply basic logic 101 that the Church would not pass a rule that caused the Host to be desecrated. If you can’t figure that out for yourself, I am not going to be able to help you. the Eucharist is the sum and summit of our worship. To say that the Church would pass a rule that would cause the desecration of the Host is to go where no valid theology would go. And to say taht you are not judgemental is a laugh. Desecration is not a physical act; it is an intent. Oxymoron comes from the Greek; it roughly translates out as “smart-stupid”, so no, it is not an issue of a lie; it is an issue of logic. The indult is available on line; you can look it up. It was not related to any exteme circumstances and it most definitely is a matter of personal choice. I was taught in high school that if I was going to discuss a document, I first had to read it. I guess you missed that class. Before you spout off from what you heard from someone else, you might try actually doing that.

 

[Cecilianus]

The rule does not cause the Host to be desecrated, but allows it.

And in response to the argument that the Church could never allow something so evil, see my earlier post (which you guys found so offensive, even though it was simply logic) as to examples of evils allowed (not caused) by the Church in the past. The Church, even though it is the Body of Christ, is still composed of humans who may tactical blunders and commit sins.

 

[otjm]

The rule does not cause the Host to be desecrated, but allows it.

No, the law does not allow it. The existence of the Host itself is what allows desecration. It was not at all unkown prior to Vatican 2, that someone with evil intent could receive on the tongue, and remove the Host for personal purposes. Neither law “allows” the desecration of the Host. If you mean to say that the law allowing reception in the hand does not require anyone to obeserve the Host being consumed, that is correct, but neither did the previous (and continuing) law of reception on the tongue.

 

[Supercatholic]

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.

Moderism is not what happens in a chronological timeline of history. Just look at a tiny portion music history. The great composers like Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, and Mozart just to name a few, composed their beautiful reverent respectable music centuries ago. To this day many symphony orchestras still play what these composers wrote and played hundreds of years earlier. Can anyone honestly say that modern music written within the last 100 years comes anywhere near to the sophistication of the great masters. Now mind you, I’m only referring to modern popular music, not new symphonies and classical style composing. Communion on the tongue should be equated to the classical masters. Communion in the hand can only be equated to today’s top 40.

 

[pipper]

Moderism is not what happens in a chronological timeline of history. Just look at a tiny portion music history. The great composers like Bach, Chopin, Beethoven, and Mozart just to name a few, composed their beautiful reverent respectable music centuries ago. To this day many symphony orchestras still play what these composers wrote and played hundreds of years earlier. Can anyone honestly say that modern music written within the last 100 years comes anywhere near to the sophistication of the great masters. Now mind you, I’m only referring to modern popular music, not new symphonies and classical style composing. Communion on the tongue should be equated to the classical masters. Communion in the hand can only be equated to today’s top 40.

I don’t quite understand how Holy Communion in the hand can be compared to the top 40, but let’s just let that pass.

About music, I never listen to commercial radio. I listen to exclusively NPR and I am very familiar with classical, I was also a music major and have actually performed classical music for audiences.

Anyway you are completely incorrect about music. There have been many classical composers in the last 100 years whose music will live forever. Just to mention three- Shostocovich (sp) Prokofiev (sp) and Aaron Copeland those are just off the top of my head and their are others as well.

 

[holy_moly]

For me at least its the fact that by receiving on the tongue I dont get to hold or touch the Eucharist, it Further reaffirms to me at least that this is not simply unleavened bread but the body of our blessed Lord (Also the fact that my hands are not consecrated like a Priest), There is something to be said for being on your knees and receiving the Body of Christ. Now I know there are members on this forum who will attest that the externals do not matter and its the internals that are key and i agree…to an extent. But im a firm believer in Lex Orandi, Lex Creandi.

But is the mouth any ‘holier’ than the hands?

 

[Cecilianus]

I don’t quite understand how Holy Communion in the hand can be compared to the top 40, but let’s just let that pass.

About music, I never listen to commercial radio. I listen to exclusively NPR and I am very familiar with classical, I was also a music major and have actually performed classical music for audiences.

Anyway you are completely incorrect about music. There have been many classical composers in the last 100 years whose music will live forever. Just to mention three- Shostocovich (sp) Prokofiev (sp) and Aaron Copeland those are just off the top of my head and their are others as well.

I think the point was (regardless of the merits of modern classical music, which - as a musician myself - I am in complete agreement with you) that the music of Bach, Beethoven, and Chopin is perennially, eternally beautiful - it never goes “out of date”. By contrast, modern popular music, which does not reflect the eternal beauty of God through its intrinsic form (see Fr. Dubay’s book for philosophical aesthetics), is tied to - and only relevant to - the time in which it is written. Nobody is going to be listening to hip-hop in 200 years; nobody today listens to 1940s music.

In the same way, the practice of the Faith in the Tridentine Mass reflects the perennial, eternal teaching of the Church, not some dated custom. (The Tridentine Mass requires Communion kneeling and on the tongue.) It was promulgated by the Holy Father St. Pius V “for all time”, and it reflects the height of Catholic liturgical development - no other liturgy, even the sublime Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, has ever expressed the Faith in terms as exact and as fully as the Missal of St. Pius V (or the nearly identical Missal of Pope John XXIII of 1962). When praying at the Mass, one does not have a sense of being in a ritual dating from any particular time or another; the sense of time and history is completely lost. (This is why the Mass remained almost identical from its first form in the 500s A.D. to the 1962 Missal - there was no need to change it because it never went out of date.)

By contrast, at the NO masses one can’t help but think “this is so 1970s”. Communion in the hand, holding hands during the Dominical Prayer (even though this is still forbidden by the rubrics), and singing feel-good songs to the acoustic guitar (an already outdated instrument, since we use electric ones now) do not convey the precision, reverence, and Sacrificial awe of what is truly going on. And experiencing this form of the liturgy as a teenager only turned me off - the last thing I wanted was to be stuck in my parents’ generation.

 

[Cecilianus]

But is the mouth any ‘holier’ than the hands?

The mouth is where we chew the Sacred Host and thereby - by consuming the offering - participate in the Holy Sacrifice. The hands are not necessary for this (since it can be administered straight to the mouth) and contact with them should therefore be avoided in order not to unnecessarily profane the Body of Our Lord.

 

[Supercatholic]

I don’t quite understand how Holy Communion in the hand can be compared to the top 40, but let’s just let that pass.

About music, I never listen to commercial radio. I listen to exclusively NPR and I am very familiar with classical, I was also a music major and have actually performed classical music for audiences.

Anyway you are completely incorrect about music. There have been many classical composers in the last 100 years whose music will live forever. Just to mention three- Shostocovich (sp) Prokofiev (sp) and Aaron Copeland those are just off the top of my head and their are others as well.

I didn’t say there were no classical composers in the last 100 years. I was making a point of the sophisticated music written by the great masters centuries ago, when centuries before that, music was not so sophisticated. As compared to the “popular” current music of today. I did make it a point to say in my post “Now mind you, I’m only referring to (modern popular music), NOT new symphonies and classical style composing.” The new composers you mentioned are in the same category of the old masters I mentioned, and therefore are not relegated to top 40. So now can you see my comparison of taking communion on the tongue (classical music regarldless of when it was written) to communion in the hand ( today’s trendy music).

 

[Supercatholic]

I think the point was (regardless of the merits of modern classical music, which - as a musician myself - I am in complete agreement with you) that the music of Bach, Beethoven, and Chopin is perennially, eternally beautiful - it never goes “out of date”. By contrast, modern popular music, which does not reflect the eternal beauty of God through its intrinsic form (see Fr. Dubay’s book for philosophical aesthetics), is tied to - and only relevant to - the time in which it is written. Nobody is going to be listening to hip-hop in 200 years; nobody today listens to 1940s music.

In the same way, the practice of the Faith in the Tridentine Mass reflects the perennial, eternal teaching of the Church, not some dated custom. (The Tridentine Mass requires Communion kneeling and on the tongue.) It was promulgated by the Holy Father St. Pius V “for all time”, and it reflects the height of Catholic liturgical development - no other liturgy, even the sublime Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, has ever expressed the Faith in terms as exact and as fully as the Missal of St. Pius V (or the nearly identical Missal of Pope John XXIII of 1962). When praying at the Mass, one does not have a sense of being in a ritual dating from any particular time or another; the sense of time and history is completely lost. (This is why the Mass remained almost identical from its first form in the 500s A.D. to the 1962 Missal - there was no need to change it because it never went out of date.)

By contrast, at the NO masses one can’t help but think “this is so 1970s”. Communion in the hand, holding hands during the Dominical Prayer (even though this is still forbidden by the rubrics), and singing feel-good songs to the acoustic guitar (an already outdated instrument, since we use electric ones now) do not convey the precision, reverence, and Sacrificial awe of what is truly going on. And experiencing this form of the liturgy as a teenager only turned me off - the last thing I wanted was to be stuck in my parents’ generation.

Cecilianus, you expounded eloquently and beautifully the point I was trying to make. I sincerely thank you for that. And yes I am in agreement with you and the other person’s post that the music of contemporary classical composers merits the same distinction worthy of the old masters.

 

[Cecilianus]

I didn’t say there were no classical composers in the last 100 years. I was making a point of the sophisticated music written by the great masters centuries ago, when centuries before that, music was not so sophisticated. As compared to the “popular” current music of today. I did make it a point to say in my post “Now mind you, I’m only referring to (modern popular music), NOT new symphonies and classical style composing.” The new composers you mentioned are in the same category of the old masters I mentioned, and therefore are not relegated to top 40. So now can you see my comparison of taking communion on the tongue (classical music regarldless of when it was written) to communion in the hand ( today’s trendy music).

In that case I think I misunderstood you - we’re arguing the same point.

 

[pipper]

Lets just cut to the chase gentlefolk> I prefer Holy Communion on the toungue myself and always communicate in that way. However I have been disabled for several years and could not kneel at an altar rail…period or any other place.

About the TLM vs NO, since I sang a lot of Masses in choir I have just about memorised the Ordo Missae, but I would not understand the propers at all. There are plenty of Catholics who do not know a word of Latin, they should not be disinfranchised.

But I dislike the Novus Ordo English translation, it uses banal IMHO dunmbed down English. What I would like to participate in (rather than just hear) is the TLM translated into reverent english, like the Douay Bible or even the King James style of English. I thin right after VII such a Mass was in use. I am not old enough to remeber tho.

Yes the 70s ended thirty or so years ago and I can nlt be glad enough to see them go. But the 70s do bring a lot of good memories for me since I was in school at that time. But to be honest about it I don’t see the reason for this knock down drag out.

 

[holy_moly]

The mouth is where we chew the Sacred Host and thereby - by consuming the offering - participate in the Holy Sacrifice. The hands are not necessary for this (since it can be administered straight to the mouth) and contact with them should therefore be avoided in order not to unnecessarily profane the Body of Our Lord.

The norm, anywhere I have lived has been in the hand (though some take by mouth) ever since communion rails in the old Latin Mass days! Why this has been the case, I have no idea. The most practica reason I can see for directly in the mouth is less chance of landing on the ground.

Personally, I’d like to see a return to the communion rail days, but I’m just happy that we still have enough priests (barely) to go around in my rural area. To reiterate I don’t understand why some people get so worked up by this issue. It is allowed, so let it be & take it in the fashion you prefer. Bottom line: I’d like to see more Catholics going to Mass & receiving (worthily) either way.

 

[rjs1]

I have only just seen this forum so I apologise for joining it late with a comment.

Recently we had World Youth Day here in Sydney. At ALL the masses the communicants who received from the Holy Father were required to kneel and receive Holy Communion on the tongue.

What amazes me is that the whole world saw what the Pope preferred during these World Youth Day masses and yet this has had almost NO impact back in the parishes where most people receive Holy Communion on the hand.

Why haven’t the bishops and priests taken note of the example the Pope has set?