Cardinal Sarah: Widespread Communion in the hand is part of Satan’s attack on

  • Thread starter Thread starter NuclearReceptor
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have yet to find a source that says receiving the Eucharist in the hand is somehow intrinsically irreverent or disrespectful compared to receiving directly on the tongue.

If it’s a matter of one’s heart and faith (and being in a state of grace), does it truly matter to the soul or to God, or is it a disciplinary matter that shows unity of practice?

Whatever Sacred Tradition or Magisterium says is true, I will believe. Except I don’t know what to read or believe anymore because of who said what when…
 
While communion in hand is not itself evil in any way, and it was cetainly practiced in the early Church, and a devout indivual could certainly receive reverently either way, but there is a reason the Church eventually did away with this practice.

The Council of Trent said the Church can make changes to these practices concerning the sacraments “for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments.”

My question is, how did reverting back to communion in hand increase the profit for those who receive or increase their veneration of the sacrament? What was the reasoning in this regard put forth by those who promoted it?
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry, but whoever ‘told you’ that was full of bunk. Really.
 
Actually, no it is not bunk, as I learned the same thing I one of my classes in Sacramental theology.

There were many things happening in the middle ages that we borderline superstitious, so the Church had to do something to address the issues at the time.
 
Last edited:
Do you mind explaining to us how, in an era in which THE EUCHARIST WAS CONSUMED ON THE TONGUE by people kneeling at the communion rail for minutes at a time before returning to their pews and then kneeling and waiting for the remainder of the Mass, which included usually benediction afterward, that people MANAGED TO BRING THE CONSECRATED HOST HOME and 'build little thrones for it?" The host of the time was an extremely thin WAFER, much smaller and thinner than today’s host.

When the average lay person, with the exception of altar BOYS and installed male acolytes (this was before extraordinary ministers of holy communion and women lay readers etc) was not able to TOUCH the sacred species or have access to it?

Sorry, this does not pass the sniff test.
 
Last edited:
stpurl said:
Sorry, this does not pass the sniff test.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does if you actually read the post, which says that this was why the change was made TO communion on the tongue, FROM communion in the hand.
 
you mean back when people were living in the 5th century and most didn’t even have furniture or more than one room in their hovel? I still think that’s an old “fairy tale”
 
stpurl said:
you mean back when people were living in the 5th century and most didn’t even have furniture or more than one room in their hovel? I still think that’s an old “fairy tale”
Click to expand...
The poster just said that’s what he was told. He didn’t claim it as gospel. Take a breath.
 
Last edited:
Take a breath? Only one?
I’m not out to make a fuss. Just gave my opinion. So, um, have a good night.
 
Communion in the hand hadn’t been practiced in the West for centuries. Despite the sage caution against archaeologism by Pius XII, some “experts” pushed the practice in the 1960s and 1970s.

Despite the clear statements of Paul VI regarding the conditions that would be required for allowing the option, within a very short time the traditional practice of reception kneeling on the tongue had virtually vanished.

It vanished, incidentally, because it was condemned as being “pre-Vatican II” by those in authority, who insisted that everyone should receive standing and in the hand.

Cardinal Sarah is merely providing an accurate account and legitimate analysis of the whole matter.
 
I could answer the good Cardinal’s question for me alone. I do not wish to receive without my head bowed before the Eucharist. With my head bowed, my tongue sticks down. I could just as easy wonder how people are able to receive in a manner that causes them to raise their countenance up.

This is why the Church practices subsidiarity, whereby each bishop makes some adjustments as he deems best for his parish. The cultural difference between my diocese and Africa are significant.
 
Last edited:
From an article in the Catholic Digest, “The story behind a communion host”, January 26, 2010. .

and I quote, . . .The Church establishes a standard for making Communion bread but will allow exceptions. After Vatican II in the mid-1960s, for example, the Church allowed use of a darker, thicker host with a more familiar bread-like taste and texture. Prior to Vatican II hosts were pure white and thinner.
 
Just a couple observations after reading some comments here. First, I think we have to realize that even though reception of Communion in the hand was the norm in some places in the early Church, it was done much more differently than it is today. Have we as Roman Catholics really benefited from this permission to receive Communion in the hand?

I would say, no, we have not benefited, as can be seen in how many people disregard the Real Presence when polled. Couldn’t we say that the way the tradition in the Latin Church developed, to receiving on the tongue and kneeling, was a good thing, fostering a deeper appreciation for the Holy Mystery? The same is true in the Byzantine, East and West Syrian, Armenian, and Coptic Rites of the Church. All of the particular Churches of these rites distribute Communion via intinction.

But let’s look back to the practices of some in the early Church who received the Eucharist in the hand. How did they do so? They did so in a very, very different than we do today. Before they received the Eucharist, the faithful had to wash and purify their hands. The palm was also purified or washed immediately after reception, as the palm of the hand acted as a kind of paten. But what about the other hand then? Because in the Latin Rite today, we have the Host placed in the palm of one hand (say, the right hand) and then pick up the Host with their left to consume it. Well, it turns out that the practice of the Church during this time when reception in the hand was the norm was much different, as I’ll explain in a moment.

As far as I know, out of the 6 distinct rites of the Catholic Church, only those particular Churches of the East Syrian Rite periodically permit reception of Communion in the hand. However, I have attended the Holy Qurbono in the Syro-Malabar and Chaldean Catholic Churches. Each time I’ve attended, Communion was always given directly into the mouth via intinction. I have also received Holy Communion in each of the other Eastern Rites of the Church, save the Armenian Rite. The practice of the Armenian Catholic Church is also to give the Eucharist to the faithful on the tongue via intinction. When attending the Holy Qurbono in the West Syrian Rite, at a Maronite Catholic parish, I was given Communion on the tongue via intinction. When I received Communion in the Alexandrian Rite at an Eritrean Catholic parish, it was one the tongue via intinction. When I receive Communion at a Byzantine Rite parish (Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Melkite, etc.) it is always on the tongue via intinction.

A note regarding the Byzantine Rite though. When concelebrating priests and deacons receive Communion during the Divine Liturgy, they receive it on their right palm and cover the Eucharist with their other hand (not touching it) as they walk to the other side of the altar. When they receive it, they bring their face down directly to their hand to consume (just as the early Church did). You’ll often see the priests licking, or gently sucking, their hand to ensure all particles of the Eucharist are consumed, especially since leavened bread is used in the Byzantine Rite. Their hands are then purified, just as the sacred vessels are.
 
Last edited:
Again, let’s honestly ask ourselves a couple questions, since we are supposedly “going back” to the original way we received Communion: Do we see our hands as a throne for Christ the King? Are we actually hollowing our palms before we receive the Body of Christ? Are we also “carefully hallowing our eyes”? We have to be honest with ourselves and realize that this push several decades ago to receive on the hand (while licit) is truly antiquarian. We’ve taken this way of receiving Communion on the hand out of context. Pope Pius XII put it well in Mediator Dei:
“The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.” (MD 61)
Click to expand...
Writing before the Second Vatican Council, the “more recent liturgical rites” he mentions include the Tridentine Rite that developed immediately before and after the Council of Trent. Like it or not, we have to admit after reading Pius XII’s words that, yes, receiving Communion on the tongue while kneeling is inspired by the Holy Spirit. That’s why I scratch my head at this comment:
Luke6_37 said:
I was told that the switch was made to receiving communion on the tongue back in the day (not sure when), because people were becoming too extreme in their reverence for the host, and were taking it home and building little adoration chapels for it, rather than consuming it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this did indeed happen in some places during the medieval era. It definitely sounds plausible. But was this the only reason to receive Communion on the tongue? Certainly not! First and foremost, this development in the Sacred Liturgy “owes its inspiration to the Holy Spirit”. To simply say that this happened because people were taking the Eucharist home is ridiculous, especially in light of how the other five principle rites of the Church developed across the world. Second, many Biblical parallels can be seen as an inspiration for this practice in all the Church’s rites, such as when Ezekiel symbolically receives the Word of God directly into his mouth as a scroll (Ez 2:8-9; 3:2-3), or Psalm 81:10, which reads “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt. Open your mouth wide, and I will fill it.”

Please note I’m not saying it is sinful to receive in the hand, or we are incapable of doing so reverently. This is a practice that is licit in the Church today. But Cardinal Sarah knows that many who consume the Host in this way do not do so reverently, and it is to these people that he is speaking.
 
Last edited:
Of course it is not sinful receiving in the hand. As for reverence, people should be more serious about the Holy Eucharist rather than taking it as something routine for Catholics. If only we really realise and believe that we are recieving real Body of Jesus.
 
billy15 said:
But Cardinal Sarah knows that many who consume the Host in this way do not do so reverently, and it is to these people that he is speaking.
Click to expand...
If that were all he said, I don’t think many people would have an issue with it (although I’m sure people have also received on the tongue irreverently).

But according to this article, he specifically said that a “diabolical attack” is “fostering an unsuitable way of receiving it” (the Eucharist).

Think about that. He is saying that something the Church has participated in a “diabolical attack.” If that’s the case, then how can he trust anything the Church allows and/or teaches? It makes me very concerned about his attitude toward the Church, which I never would have questioned before this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top