I’m not sure that’s the case. It makes no sense to receive the Blessed Sacrament on a cloth that then would have been folded-up and likely stuck in one’s pocket. How would this be more reverent than receiving directly on one’s hands?I don’t recall where I heard it; it was awhile ago that I discovered this information. I can do some more digging but honestly I don’t know if I’ll be able to find it again, sadly.
To my knowledge, the cloth would have been used because lay people were not to the touch the Eucharist. Only priests.
I haven’t struggled to ‘prove’ anything. I’ve presented more than adequate evidence to prove the veracity of my points. However, I agree that those who favour communion in the hand cannot prove their chosen way was called for by Vatican II or promoted by the Vatican. It bears repeating: Rome tried to stop the reintroduction of Communion in the hand. EVIDENCE:This thread really concerns me. There are people struggling to prove that their chosen way to receive communion is somehow “better” than the other way and that’s simply impossible to do and it’s very divisive. People should just choose a way (so long as it’s approved where they live) and be content rather than trying to justify their choice.
SOURCE: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/03/truth-about-communion-in-hand-while.html#.Wb-Ph62ZOt8An Indult Born Out of Disobedience
The practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand first began to spread in Catholic circles during the early 1960s, primarily in Holland. Shortly after Vatican II, due to the escalating abuses in certain non-English speaking countries (Holland, Belgium, France and Germany), Pope Paul VI took a survey of the world’s bishops to ascertain their opinions on the subject. On May 28, 1969 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued Memoriale Domini, which concluded: "From the responses received, it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline [i.e., Holy Communion on the tongue] should not be changed at all, indeed that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibility and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful." After he had considered the observation and the counsel of the bishops, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed. The Apostolic See then strongly urged bishops, priests and the laity to zealously observe this law out of concern for the common good of the Church.
Despite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law – under certain conditions: first, an indult could not be given to a country in which Communion in the hand was not an already established practice; second, the bishops in countries where it was established must approve of the practice “by a secret vote and with a two-thirds majority.” Beyond this, the Holy See set down seven regulations concerning communion in the hand; failure to maintain these regulations could result in the loss of the indult. The first three regulations concerned: 1) respecting the laity who continue the traditional practice (of receiving kneeling and on the tongue), 2) maintaining the laity’s proper respect of the Eucharist, and 3) strengthening the laity’s faith in the real presence.
Says who? Thats a bit inflammatory a headingAn Indult Born Out of Disobedience
Why don’t you actually read the article and find out the history for yourself. It’s not inflammatory if it is true.Says who? Thats a bit inflammatory a heading
Where is the vatican document with this quote. I am not interested in external documents. We all know fake newsDespite the vote, in 1969 Pope Paul VI decided to strike a compromise with his disobedient bishops on the continent. Given “the gravity of the matter,” the pope would not authorize Communion in the hand. He was, however, open to bestowing an indult – an exception to the law –
Since you won’t read article the yourself, here is the Vatican document:Where is the vatican document with this quote. I am not interested in external documents. We all know fake news
Evidence:Where 'on the tongue ’ is the default way.
Source: Library : Holy Communion in the Hand? | Catholic CultureDespite the widespread practice of Communion in the hand, the universal discipline of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue has not changed. A bishop, for example, may forbid the practice of Communion in the hand but not the practice of Communion on the tongue. The Church strongly encourages the latter but not the former. With respect to the former, the Church speaks only in a cautionary tone because of the many abuses that often accompany this practice. These include the increased likelihood of dropping or stealing the Sacred Host. This unfortunately has happened in these days of revived Satanism. Consecrated hosts have been known to be sold for blasphemous uses.
Source: The King's Throne | Catholic AnswersClearly, the current practice for reception of Communion by the laity in the United States allows for the laity to receive Communion in the hand. It is not required though, and it is a dispensation granted from the universal norm in the Latin church that the faithful receive Communion on the tongue (cf. Redemptionis Sacramentum). In fact there are circumstances under which a priest might choose to restrict distribution of Communion to placing it on a communicant’s tongue.
I’ve provided quotations from Pius XII explaining why it is not wise to return to something simply because it was done in an earlier age. Since you prefer Vatican documents, here’s a quote proving that the default way remains communion on the tongue:I maintain the default position was the hand, and in fact in the fourth century Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem was issuing instructions on how to take Communion in the hand.
N.B. The Vatican says that Communion on the tongue cannot be denied but communion in the hand can and should be denied in some circumstances. Furthermore, the Vatican wants to retain the paten. This should answer those who said in the thread that they do more harm than good.[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]
** [93.] The Communion-plate for the Communion of the faithful should be retained, so as to avoid the danger of the sacred host or some fragment of it falling.[180]**
Many scholars question the legitimacy of this ‘historical accounts.’ See what Dr. Taylor Marshall has to say:""Historical accounts make it quite clear that communion was received in the hand in the early Church. In the middle of the fourth century Bishop Cyril of Jerusalem gave this instruction to those who were about to join the church: “When you come forward for communion, do not draw near with your hands wide open or with fingers spread apart; instead, with you left hand make a throne for the right hand, which will receive the King. Receive the body of Christ in the hollow of your hand and give the response: Amen.” “”
Dr. Marshall then discusses the disputed passage used to support Communion in the hand:5 Follow-Up Lectures for these Newly Baptized Christians
Now the five follow-up lectures are highly debated and may not be authentic. In other words, they may have may been added by someone other than Saint Cyril. In fact, there exist manuscripts that do not attribute these five lectures to Saint Cyril. Hence, it is not entirely responsible to quote these last five lectures as a valid authority. The five later lectures are questionable.
Source: http://taylormarshall.com/2011/01/did-church-fathers-practice-communion.htmlThis is the passage on which the Patristic argument for Communion in the Hand stands or falls. Whereas there is this ONE alleged quote from St Cyril (the one just above from the disputed Catechesis mystagogica), there are many undoubted quotes by other Fathers that affirm Communion on the tongue (both “great” Popes Saint Leo the Great and Saint Gregory the Great) explicitly witness to Communion on the tongue. So why take the dubious quote when there are others to go by?
""revised Roman Missal - The “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” # 161 makes it quite clear that the choice of how to receive communion is the communicant’s. No minister may dictate whether communicants receive in the hand or on the tongue.N.B. The Vatican says that Communion on the tongue cannot be denied but communion in the hand can and should be denied in some circumstances.
I’d question if you’ve read the entire document. Pius XII specifically banned the restoration of liturgical practices.And Pope Pius XII acknowledges it was done this way in the early church.
No. I read the GIRM and interpret it with the help of other Vatican documents - some of which I have provided.You are not going to tell me #161 GIRM is incorrect?
What you describe is no more solemn or respectful than using one’s bare hands. In any event, it would be interesting to known when these cloths were used and by whom?No, the cloth would have been flattened out onto the hands. Then the Blessed Sacrament would have been placed on the cloth. Next the person would bring the cloth up to their mouth and receive the Eucharist. This isn’t the type of cloth that is stuck in someone’s pocket. This is the type that is meant solely for the mass.
No you have not.I haven’t struggled to ‘prove’ anything. I’ve presented more than adequate evidence to prove the veracity of my points…
I agree with the above. Unfortunately now with so few priests, I see a day when you only have EMHCs - so sad. Another observation of mine of the “new way of doing things” since the 80’s - the EMHC will go to the altar and grab handfuls of the hosts from the main vessel to put in all the little plates for communion. This rustling of the hosts just seems so weird (you can actually hear it on the microphone. I was looking down praying and heard this sound the first time and thought “what is that?” I looked up and saw the host grabfest at the altar).Mind, I’d like to see the use of EMHC limited to those Masses when it is actually needed.
Firstly, I have not referred to communion in the hand as an inferior way to receive.Just look at this thread. Individuals actually believe that the Church knowingly allows an “inferior” way in which to receive Holy Communion. That’s both insulting and terribly ignorant. Chose the method in which you want to receive and stop trying to control that which is not yours to control! It’s this divisive “debate” that does the harm – not the method in which we choose to receive Holy Communion!
It’s more than weird: in my opinion it is irreverent. These types of things don’t happen in every Church. I’ve witnessed some truly disturbing liturgical abuses and vote with my feet. I only attend Mass in parishes with reverent liturgies.I’m sure it’s normal and valid, but it is just so weird to me.