J
jpy15026
Guest
Fr Z’s Black Glove
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/poll-communion-in-the-hand/
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/poll-communion-in-the-hand/
- Status
O
otjm
Guest
That argument has been proposed before. The reality of the practice in the Church for the first several hundred years shows that is simply irrelevant. Laity received in the hand and positing that this was somehow something only pertaining to the Apostles is simply ignoring history.
The universal norm in the Roman rite is to receive on the tongue; by indult, in the hand. Lets not get into mental gymnastics as it is not only not necessary, but also intellectually dishonest at its core. I do not suggest you are dishonest; I am sure someone told you this (it has been going around for quite a while); but it has not more truth in it than any other false urban legend.
O
otjm
Guest
and the “sloppiness” i not of recent origin. As altar boys in the late 1950’s we would peridoically talk amongst ourselves about how long a string of spit the priest could draw off someone’s tongue.
O
Ockham
Guest
The reality is the early Church recognized CITH was not proper and corrected the practice with COTT. CITH is an indult in some countries that originated in direct contradiction to the Vatican. Although technically permissable the Church teaches against CITH and it’s noteworthy that many Protestants disagree.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
O
Ockham
Guest
*"It is true that, according to ancient usage, it was once permitted for the faithful to take the sacred food in their hands and themselves to place it in their mouths and even, in the earliest period, to carry the holy Sacrament with them from the place of celebration, especially in order to receive it as viaticum if they should have to suffer for the profession of the faith.
Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion
The Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969 *
catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm
From what I’ve read CITH fired up again in Holland post-V2’. Pope Paul VI issued warnings against it, but the practice spread anyway. So although it is common in most Novus Ordo Masses I’ve seen its recent history began as disobedience that at best is condoned by our Church.
There is a third or fourth century saint whose name escapes me right now who said something about making your palm a throne for a king. That’s the only thing I’ve ever seen from a saint, pope, theologian or any official Church teaching supporting CITH. Conversely, there are many statements and teaching against CITH and I encourage you to research the subject.
Example: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm
Code:
Nevertheless the precepts of the Church and the writings of the Fathers give abundant witness to the great reverence and prudence shown to the holy Eucharist. For "no one . . . eats this flesh unless first he adores," (2) and each recipient is warned: ". . . receive it and take care that none of it be lost to you" (3): "for it is the body of Christ." (4)
In the meantime the care and ministry of the Body and Blood of the Lord was entrusted in a quite special way to sacred ministers or to persons assigned to this function: "After the president has completed the prayers and all the people have made the acclamation, those among us whom we call deacons distribute a part of the bread and wine and water, in which the thanksgiving has been made, to each one present and bring them to those who are absent." (5)
The office of bringing the Eucharist to those who were absent was soon entrusted to sacred ministers alone, for the reason that greater care might be shown for the reverence due to the Body of Christ as well as for the needs of the people. In the following period, after the true meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, its effect, and the presence of Christ in it had been profoundly investigated, from a pressing sense of reverence toward this holy Sacrament and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicants.
In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord's body. (6)
This reverence is a sign of communion not in "common bread and drink" (7) but in the Body and Blood of the Lord. By it "the people of God shares in the blessings of the paschal sacrifice, renews the new covenant once made by God with man in the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope prefigures and anticipates the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father." (8)
In addition, this manner of communicating, which is now to be considered as prescribed by custom, gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which "the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way," (9) will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained: "If you have allowed anything to be lost, consider this a lessening of your own members." (10) "The Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969 *
catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm
From what I’ve read CITH fired up again in Holland post-V2’. Pope Paul VI issued warnings against it, but the practice spread anyway. So although it is common in most Novus Ordo Masses I’ve seen its recent history began as disobedience that at best is condoned by our Church.
There is a third or fourth century saint whose name escapes me right now who said something about making your palm a throne for a king. That’s the only thing I’ve ever seen from a saint, pope, theologian or any official Church teaching supporting CITH. Conversely, there are many statements and teaching against CITH and I encourage you to research the subject.
Example: ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
latin-mass-society.org/commwhy.htm
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Oh well then, you should be aware that there are more recent sources, eg Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004):
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,
Code:
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 herHardly seems to be the case that the Church teaches against CITH. :twocents:
tee
O
Ockham
Guest
Permission via an indult does not equate to teaching. Can you provide evidence of the Church or a pope teaching that CITH is the better thing to do?
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
I did not assert that it is *better *(nor that the Church does so).
I deny that *the Church teaches against *it.
tee
O
Ockham
Guest
Then you are denying Pope Paul VI’, St. Thomas Aquinas, and all the other teachings I listed. Did you open the link after the quote from Aquinas?
CITH is an indult which was necessary to prevent the Dutch dioceses and many others from breaking away. I suspect it spread to North America after Pope Paul VI issued Memoriae Domini, thus disobeying the current pontiff.
Martin Luther and his followers promoted CITH in defiance of the Church and transubstantion. Who would you rather follow, Martin Luther or Thomas Aquinas?
CITH is an indult which was necessary to prevent the Dutch dioceses and many others from breaking away. I suspect it spread to North America after Pope Paul VI issued Memoriae Domini, thus disobeying the current pontiff.
Martin Luther and his followers promoted CITH in defiance of the Church and transubstantion. Who would you rather follow, Martin Luther or Thomas Aquinas?
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
I have not denied them. *I deny that the Church teaches against CITH. *NB: *teaches *is in the present tense.
If you wish, I could assert that *you deny *John Paul II, who issued the current GIRM and the instruction *Redemptionis Sacramentum *(but it is not my wish to do so).
“*I’ll see your *Ad, *and raise you a *Hominem”,
tee
O
Ockham
Guest
I’ve seen this debate many times on this forum. All the CITH supporters ever offer is “it’s in the GIRM” and the ‘make your palm a throne’ quote. I have provided examples of popes, saints, and Church teaching making a clear distinction between the two ways of receiving Holy Communion. If you can provide teaching on CITH then please do so, otherwise all you’ve got is an indult and your personal prefererence/opinion.
The Church allows CITH but doesn’t have anything good to say about it. Instead, along with the indult comes further instruction such as making a sign of reverence, consuming in the presence of the Minister. Why do no such requirements exist with COTT?
The answer my friend in Christ is that COTT is a more reverent way to receive the Blessed Sacrament and the only way from Pope Benedict XVI. CITH is an act of disobedience that has been granted an indult but no where I’ve seen promoted by the Church.
The Church allows CITH but doesn’t have anything good to say about it. Instead, along with the indult comes further instruction such as making a sign of reverence, consuming in the presence of the Minister. Why do no such requirements exist with COTT?
The answer my friend in Christ is that COTT is a more reverent way to receive the Blessed Sacrament and the only way from Pope Benedict XVI. CITH is an act of disobedience that has been granted an indult but no where I’ve seen promoted by the Church.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
I pointed to *Redemptionis Sacramentum *(but it is only to be expected to find it there, since that document refers to the GIRM).
If you choose to dismiss the current and authoritative teaching of the Church, that is your business.
But I will have none of it, thanks. I prefer to remain Catholic.
tee
O
Ockham
Guest
It’s not taught, it is permitted. Please show me one quote from a pope or saint other than the palm/throne where the virtues of CITH are espoused, where its righteousness is proclaimed. I have provided many sources teaching that CITH is wrong. I prefer to be as Catholic as possible which is why I follow Church teaching and receive COTT. You are more closely following the example Martin Luther than the Catholic Church.
Our interaction is not progressing; CITH debates never do. Back up your preference of CITH with something other than the indult to prove your point of Church teaching or have the courtesy of dropping your contention.
Our interaction is not progressing; CITH debates never do. Back up your preference of CITH with something other than the indult to prove your point of Church teaching or have the courtesy of dropping your contention.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
If adherence to to the authoritative documents of the Church is following the example Martin Luther*, then nail a thesis to my door and call me a Lutheran!
(* But I fail to see how that is the case?)
If you are the only one who gets to decide what sources are acceptable, I am not surprised.
What makes you think I have expressed a preference for CITH?
tee
O
Ockham
Guest
ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated to the Lord.]
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.
POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)
POPE JOHN PAUL II (197
. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)
“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)
POPE ST. EUTYCHIAN (275-283). Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.
ST. BASIL THE GREAT, DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH (330-379). “The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.
COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.
POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.
SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.
SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.
ST. THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274). “Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” (Summa Theologica, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)
COUNCIL OF TRENT (1545-1565). “The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”
POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)
POPE JOHN PAUL II (197
. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 11)“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)
O
Ockham
Guest
The above is teaching. An indult is permission. Judge yourself accordingly.
P
ProVobis
Guest
If you check the history, the Vatican didn’t start CITH. It started as a local abuse, then tolerated, and then permitted subject to the direction of the local bishop. No further justification, such as what early Christians did, is really needed. As I have previously posted, three weeks of explicit instructions were given on how to receive in this way so to minimize abuse but today I’ll wager 95% are not following in the prescribed manner.
I understand the norm is still COTT and I hope it stays so. As the path between the priest’s hands and your internal body (for lack of a better term) is minimized, there is less chance of abuse. I do wish they use a paten, though.
I understand the norm is still COTT and I hope it stays so. As the path between the priest’s hands and your internal body (for lack of a better term) is minimized, there is less chance of abuse. I do wish they use a paten, though.
O
otjm
Guest
The determination that COTT would be used at a point in our prior history does not automatically carry with it that CITH was not “proper”, as if that were a universal determination. As a matter of fact, CITH continued for some time in the West and for the last 2000 years in the East. It was then a prudential judgement and it remains so to this day. Many Protestants disagree on a number of things, some of which are disciplinary and some of which are doctrinal.
A goodly amount of the discussion concerning CITH by those who do not like it really reduces to an emotional reaction. Emotions are not bad in and of themselves, but they do tend to cloud discussions.
As to the Church teaching against CITH, that is not correct; for the Roman rite it encourages COTT and permits CITH, which is hardly “teaching against it”.
O
Ockham
Guest
*The history of Communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up-to-date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.
A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the faithful to “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion].” This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one’s hands, since just as one wouldn’t let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.
According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an overemphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of his sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is.
In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the “elevation”-so the mainstream treatment of this period continues-and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of).
It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and -sad to say- was imposed.
The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the faithful to “take and eat,” and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the apostles: Communion in the hand.
It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.
The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1
A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.
Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.
A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.
These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?
We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert where they would not have the services of a priest, and would not want to give up the practice of daily Communion.
To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one’s hand. *
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the faithful to “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion].” This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one’s hands, since just as one wouldn’t let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.
According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an overemphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of his sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is.
In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the “elevation”-so the mainstream treatment of this period continues-and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of).
It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and -sad to say- was imposed.
The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the faithful to “take and eat,” and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the apostles: Communion in the hand.
It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.
The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1
A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.
Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: "One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith."2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.
A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.
These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?
We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert where they would not have the services of a priest, and would not want to give up the practice of daily Communion.
To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one’s hand. *
catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
- Status