Bishop Athansius Schneider interviewed on EWTN about Holy Communion in the hand

[BernadetteM]

The problem I see is that children making their First Holy Communion are told by both priests and teachers that they must receive in the hand. It is difficult for children to stand firm under the directions given by priests and their teachers.

I know that my grandchildren, one in England and three in the US were told to receive in the hand only. Two of them were strong enough to go ahead and receive on the tongue despite being ordered to receive in the hand.

It is a shame that Catholics in some parishes are made to feel they are disobeying the Church and not told that they do have a choice.

If it is appropriate to receive either way, then it should be up to the individual to make the choice, especially young children who are intimidated by their elders.

There has been much disobedience shown these past years by priests, Bishops and laypeople. The Church like parents finally give in to practices that some continue when they have been told that they are not inline with the teachings of the Church.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I often wonder, if it’s good for the pope why can’t it be good for us all? If the Holy Father doesn’t let his folks do communion in the hand, uses incense at his Mass and has a reverent and loving liturgy, why can’t we all have that? The incense is only used ONCE a year at our parish, on Maundy Thursday, that’s it! And extraordinary ministers are passing out the Blessed Eucharist with such sloppiness and there’s always communion on the tongue.

Why not just standardize this stuff and be done with it? If Catholicism is good at anything it’s uniformity and order! Why do they allow so much variation with this and all this abuse ensues?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Why not just standardize this stuff and be done with it? If Catholicism is good at anything it’s uniformity and order! Why do they allow so much variation with this and all this abuse ensues?

The Catholic word was shaken to its core when the Mass of Paul VI was promulgated. The liturgical revolt that occurred in the aftermath of the Council was very traumatic. Most Catholics were happy with the Mass and did not respond well to the changes brought about by Bugnini and co.

Pope Benedict witnessed the reaction of the faithful with his own eyes. The Holy Father is reluctant to force any liturgical changes on the people because he saw what happened in the 1970’s. The Pope’s strategy is to encourage organic development of the liturgy; he wants to let the liturgy develop naturally. Benedict XVI is helping to reform the liturgy be example and not by force.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

The Catholic word was shaken to its core when the Mass of Paul VI was promulgated. The liturgical revolt that occurred in the aftermath of the Council was very traumatic. Most Catholics were happy with the Mass and did not respond well to the changes brought about by Bugnini and co.

Pope Benedict witnessed the reaction of the faithful with his own eyes. The Holy Father is reluctant to force any liturgical changes on the people because he saw what happened in the 1970’s. The Pope’s strategy is to encourage organic development of the liturgy; he wants to let the liturgy develop naturally. Benedict XVI is helping to reform the liturgy be example and not by force.

Liturgical abuse had already become common in places in the 1950s, even before the 1960s changes and the introduction of the New Mass in 1970.

For example, Mass facing the people, Communion-in-the-Hand, the Presentation of the Gifts and other features which have received permission or have been incorporated into the New Mass (like the Presentation of the Gifts) started as abuses prior to Vatican II and the New Mass. Of course, those things accelerated the chaos and many people were being taught that some things were now mandated that were not. Just like all these “terrorism experts” popped up after 9/11 giving their own opinions on the news channels, all these “liturgical experts” popped up after Vatican II giving their own opinions in every parish. That’s one reason there was so much confusion.

 

[Dempsey1919]

For example, Mass facing the people, Communion-in-the-Hand, the Presentation of the Gifts and other features which have received permission or have been incorporated into the New Mass (like the Presentation of the Gifts) started as abuses prior to Vatican II and the New Mass. Of course, those things accelerated the chaos and many people were being taught that some things were now mandated that were not. Just like all these “terrorism experts” popped up after 9/11 giving their own opinions on the news channels, all these “liturgical experts” popped up after Vatican II giving their own opinions in every parish. That’s one reason there was so much confusion.

I attend the Mass of Blessed John XXIII, which was promulgated in 1962. This Mass is the current Extraordinary Form. It was the Mass that was celebrated during the Second Vatican Council.

Most of the abuses you mention are impossible in the EF Mass. The presentation of the gifts never happened in the EF Mass because it is not part of the Roman Missal. The Tridentine Mass does not have those options. It is extremely difficult to introduce abuses into this Mass because the guidelines are so strict.

This does not mean that liturgical abuses did not happen. They did. It was not uncommon for a priest to say the prayers as quickly as possible so that the Mass was over as quick as possible.

I respectfully disbelieve you. However, I will change my opinion if you present evidence and proof of your claims.

 

[MarkThompson]

Liturgical abuse had already become common in places in the 1950s, even before the 1960s changes and the introduction of the New Mass in 1970.

For example, Mass facing the people, Communion-in-the-Hand, the Presentation of the Gifts and other features which have received permission or have been incorporated into the New Mass (like the Presentation of the Gifts) started as abuses prior to Vatican II and the New Mass. Of course, those things accelerated the chaos and many people were being taught that some things were now mandated that were not. Just like all these “terrorism experts” popped up after 9/11 giving their own opinions on the news channels, all these “liturgical experts” popped up after Vatican II giving their own opinions in every parish. That’s one reason there was so much confusion.

Yes, exactly. Let’s travel back in time to 1942, shall we? –



Uh oh! It’s Mass versus populum, using a table-altar set up for this purpose in front of the high altar!

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I attend the Mass of Blessed John XXIII, which was promulgated in 1962. This Mass is the current Extraordinary Form. It was the Mass that was celebrated during the Second Vatican Council.

Most of the abuses you mention are impossible in the EF Mass. The presentation of the gifts never happened in the EF Mass because it is not part of the Roman Missal. The Tridentine Mass does not have those options. It is extremely difficult to introduce abuses into this Mass because the guidelines are so strict.

And if people only did things by the book, we wouldn’t be having this conversation because there would be no such thing as liturgical abuse. As Fr. Z says, “Say the Black, Do the Red”.

I respectfully disbelieve you. However, I will change my opinion if you present evidence and proof of your claims.

Mass facing the people was first introduced by Martin Luther and in modern times, it was experimented with by Romano Guardini and others in the more progressive wing of the Liturgical Movement in the 1920s, as it was allegedly the most ancient practice (although this has been shown to be false).

Here is one example:
http://www.ordorecitandi.org.uk/userimages/Ellard.jpg

This is in 1940.

Here is an example of Presentation of the Gifts and Communion in the Hand, these are from the 1950s:
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/5247/abuseu.jpg

These things started as abuses and then were allowed.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Pilgrim,

Wow. I am surprised. I was born after Vatican II and I thought major liturgical abuse originated with the reforms of Bugnini. I was totally unaware of the reality. I mistakenly thought the liturgical movement after Vatican II was the brainchild of one man and his committee. The photographs you have shared show how wrong I was. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Dempsey1919]

Mark and pilgrim, where can I find more information about the changes made before Vatican II? I am extremely surprised by the photographs on this thread. I incorrectly assumed that the liturgical changes contained in the Mass of Paul VI were the invention of Anibale Bugnini. It appears I was mistaken…

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Mark and pilgrim, where can I find more information about the changes made before Vatican II? I am extremely surprised by the photographs on this thread. I incorrectly assumed that the liturgical changes contained in the Mass of Paul VI were the invention of Anibale Bugnini. It appears I was mistaken…

If you go to Mass tonight (Holy Saturday/Easter vigil), whether you go to a Traditional Mass (FSSP, SSPX, etc.) or a New Mass, you will see a Mass written by Msgr. Bugnini. The only places you can go where you will not see one is to certain independent chapels which use the pre-Bugnini Holy Week or you go to a non-Roman Rite Mass (Eastern Rites, religious order Rites, etc.). The Easter Vigil was “reformed” by Msgr. Bugnini in 1951 and then incorporated into the reformed (allegedly “restored”) Holy Week from 1955. So Bugnini didn’t just pop out of nowhere with the New Mass written up, it was a process of transformation of the liturgy.

These innovations started (in modern times, although they go back to Martin Luther) in the 1920s among some parts of the “Liturgical Movement”. Dom Prosper Guéranger (+1875), the first abbot of the restored Benedictine monastery of Solesmes in France, started this movement to encourage people to love and appreciate the Mass more, as it had fallen into destitution in many places. The Solesmes congregation of monasteries was also responsible for the restoration of Gregorian chant and polyphony. This Liturgical Movement also spread to Protestants – this is the era of Bl. John Henry Newman and the first wave of the Anglo-Catholic/Tractarian/Ritualist movement and also some Lutheran churches also got in on the action and tried to make their services more “catholic”.

But by the 1920s, this idea had morphed. Instead of looking at the High Middle Ages as the liturgical ideal, they began to look to the early Church, or rather what they constructed to be the early Church, as it was about as similar as the so-called “Historical Jesus” to the actual Jesus – just a product of modern imagination and pseudo-scholarship. Romano Guardini was one of these individuals (although I love his little book on the Rosary and he has also written some other good things). He started celebrating private experimental Masses, that is ones which he “tweaked” to his own liking and then his friends would vote on what changes they liked and which ones they did not (again, see the construction of the “Historical Jesus” through the voting process of the Jesus Seminar). In this way, he hoped to construct an ideal Mass which might reflect their idea of what Mass was like in the first couple centuries.

These ideas spread, even though they were illicit practices, and joined with the New Theology (Nouvelle Théologie), which was a successor to Modernism and sought to overthrow Scholasticism (as it effectively did). The New Theology provided the theological groundwork for the experimental side of the Liturgical Movement.

I am going to stop there and let you fill in the rest, lest I cross the line regarding discussion of the “Ordinary Form”…

To learn more about the development of the Roman Rite leading up to the Second Vatican Council, check out Dom Alcuin Reid’s book, The Organic Development of the Liturgy

ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/515LeBKnh4L.SL500_AA300.jpg

 

[HolyHandGrenade]

I think communion should be on the tongue and presented by the priest with the paten underneath. I think this is the best possible way to keep particles of the Blessed Sacrament from falling on the ground. My priest said people would be surprised at the amount of particles that are left on the paten after holy communion. I keep thinking to myself if there are a lot of particles on the paten then how many fall on the ground when a paten isnt used and the faithful just receive the Blessed Sacrament in their hands

This thought alone keeps me from taking communion in the hand. And even when I take it on the tongue I’m nervous when at the NO since there isn’t a paten.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Mark and Pilgrim:

Thank you very much for your illustration of changes in the Mass before Vatican II. These should inform many who were not able to observe liturgical changes, and some abuses, in the celebration of the TLM before Vatican II was called.

As to the conversation obout Holy Communion in the hand, may I respectfully request that we stop discussing it? It is NOT an “abuse”, except in someone’s opinion. But, also, we are not going to change anyone’s mind about it…let each have his own way of receiving, as long as we all recognize what we are receiving is the true Body and Blood of Christ our Savior.

To that end, I am going to “unsubscribe” from this thread.
Peace.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

As to the conversation obout Holy Communion in the hand, may I respectfully request that we stop discussing it?

You are free not to participate and that’s probably smart because it tends to be a very circular and repetitive “debate”.

It is NOT an “abuse”, except in someone’s opinion. But, also, we are not going to change anyone’s mind about it…let each have his own way of receiving, as long as we all recognize what we are receiving is the true Body and Blood of Christ our Savior.

It was an abuse when it was being done illicitly. It is currently allowed under indult in many parts of the world. If it is done in those dioceses where it is illicit then it is an abuse.

It was introduced for negative reasons – out of disrespect for Our Eucharistic Lord – but if people don’t have negative reasons for doing it (in places where it is now legal), it is not a sin. It is not intrinsically sacrilegious to receive on the hand but there are many incidental sacrileges that go along with it. For example, every crumb that falls is equal to a whole host, size does not matter as long as it is discernible as the species of bread (we don’t worry about microscopic particles, just visible crumbs) and reception on the hand often involves the dropping of crumbs – small hosts – which is a sacrilege. It also facilitates the seizure of hosts for satanic or other intentionally sacrilegious purposes (such as the YouTube Host desecration videos – assuming those are actually consecrated Hosts) or even as “souvenirs” (one of the Holy Father’s reasons for only doing Communion-on-the-Tongue now). We share a building with an NO parish and people have found a Host on the floor and twice inside a hymnal. This would be eliminated by rescinding the Communion-in-the-Hand indult.

The reason Communion-in-the-Hand was introduced and fewer respects shown to Our Lord (standing, bowing or bowing the head instead of kneeling or genuflecting) was because of pride and a disbelief in the Real Presence. We see the bad fruits of this practice, which is enough evidence for the indult to be rescinded. Of course, even if the CDW or a pope were to do so, I’m sure many places would just do it illegally, like they did before it was legalized.

It is enough to say as individuals, if we attend the NO Mass, we will genuflect before the Blessed Sacrament and receive on the tongue. We can’t change what other people do, but we can change what we do. The US GIRM’s mention of Communion-on-the-Hand as the norm is descriptive not prescriptive and need not be followed, as the Holy See has affirmed time and time again.

 

[laszlo]

In the time of Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century) communion in hand was the usual method receiving communion. No cloth, even touching the Sacred Blood by hands.

1. In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen.So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members. For tell me, if any one gave you grains of gold, would you not hold them with all carefulness, being on your guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Will you not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from you of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?

1. Then after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth your hands, but bending , and saying with an air of worship and reverence, Amen , hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ.** And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands,** and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries.

newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

What is the earliest document for communion on tongue.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

In the time of Cyril of Jerusalem (4th Century) communion in hand was the usual method receiving communion. No cloth, even touching the Sacred Blood by hands.

newadvent.org/fathers/310123.htm

What is the earliest document for communion on tongue.

This is irrelevant, the current practice of Communion in the Hand does not follow the practice described by St. Cyril, nor is there any reason to believe that this reference was to a universal practice and not simply to a regional practice, and lastly, there is no reason to return to a more primitive practice simply for the fact that it is older (there usually was a reason things changed).

 

[At_Trent]

This is irrelevant, the current practice of Communion in the Hand does not follow the practice described by St. Cyril, nor is there any reason to believe that this reference was to a universal practice and not simply to a regional practice, and lastly, there is no reason to return to a more primitive practice simply for the fact that it is older (there usually was a reason things changed).

Agreed, the rubrics/method of CITH today is actually an about face. Like so many other things. Today, it’s right hand cradle for the left. I think St Cyril would condemn that.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This is irrelevant, the current practice of Communion in the Hand does not follow the practice described by St. Cyril, nor is there any reason to believe that this reference was to a universal practice and not simply to a regional practice, and lastly, there is no reason to return to a more primitive practice simply for the fact that it is older (there usually was a reason things changed).

This whole thread is irrelevant.

It is a fact that reception of communion in the hand is valid and lawful where the bishop allows for it within his diocese.

End of story.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Why is the thread irrelevent?

This whole thread is irrelevant.

It is a fact that reception of communion in the hand is valid and lawful where the bishop allows for it within his diocese.

End of story.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Why is the thread irrelevent?

Because this bishop’s opinion means nothing outside of his own diocese as he has no authority to make rules within other dioceses.

Also, if any historical proof of the practice of communion in the hand in the early Church is irrelevant then personal opinions of the lawful practice today are just as irrelevant.

The practice of COTT or CITH (where allowed) is a matter of personal preference. When a bishop allows for CITH then it is lawful and just as good as COTT as far as the Church is concerned.

People may have a personal preference for one over the other but that does not make either one more reverent than the other, they are both acceptable. The Church can not allow for an evil to be done.

Again I ask why people pay so much attention to what others are doing, worry about what you do yourself.

*“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite3, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” *(Matthew 7:3-5)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think for me I personally hate communion in the hand. But I realize there are precedents and I’m not the sole authority here…not my preference though…

Blessings, Byz

Because this bishop’s opinion means nothing outside of his own diocese as he has no authority to make rules within other dioceses.

Also, if any historical proof of the practice of communion in the hand in the early Church is irrelevant then personal opinions of the lawful practice today are just as irrelevant.

The practice of COTT or CITH (where allowed) is a matter of personal preference. When a bishop allows for CITH then it is lawful and just as good as COTT as far as the Church is concerned.

People may have a personal preference for one over the other but that does not make either one more reverent than the other, they are both acceptable. The Church can not allow for an evil to be done.

Again I ask why people pay so much attention to what others are doing, worry about what you do yourself.

*“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite3, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” *(Matthew 7:3-5)