Communion in Hand at the Last Supper?

[Ockham]

Well that would be wonderful, because when the indult was removed, the EF was made permanent. If the indult is removed from CITH, it would also become a permanent norm of choice beside the COTT.

So after forty years of it being the de facto norm why hasn’t the indult been lifted?

 

[choy]

One is the norm, one is an indult brought into the GIRM by disobedience. Check the facts. Judge yourself accordingly.

doesn’t make one invalid or inferior

 

[Ockham]

doesn’t make one invalid or inferior

Actually it does. To receive CITH you have to make a sign of reverence (bow). You also have to make an acknowledgement (Amen). The priest may suspend this method of distribution if he feels warranted. No such requirements or restrictions apply to COTT while kneeling in the tradtional manner.

 

[DebatingDebator]

Dear fellow catholics,

Lots of people on both sides of this discussion miss the point.

Those against the modern practice cannot question the following.

• The Church practiced Communion in the Hand in the past.
• The Church is therefore allowed “to allow” it once again.

Therefore one cannot conclude that there is anything wrong with Communion in the hand, considered only from the fact that the Blessed Sacrament is placed in the hand of the communicant. That is one cannot say "it is illicit and/or wrong and/or sacrilegious to place the Blessed Sacrament in the hand of the communicant.

Those for the modern practice also cannot question the following.

• The Blessed Sacrament when divided up is still the Blessed Sacrament whole and undivided.
• The Blessed Sacrament resides in the consecrated Host’s as long as the accidents of the bread remain.

The question then becomes how do we know whether the accidents of the bread remain or not?

This is a scientific question. Ask a scientist the question, when does bread cease to be bread, and the answer is when it is broken up in to its constituent molecules of starch etc. Certainly bread will cease to be bread somewhere above the molecular level and a long way below the level of visibility.

Can we gain any support from the church’s practices that shows that the Church has an implicit understanding of this truth?

When one examines the practices of the church in the liturgy one can say that the church has behaved in a way that understands this.

For example the following practices.

• The clasping of the thumb and forefinger from the consecration until the ablutions.
• The ablutions themselves
• The presence of the paten
• The thrice repeated purifications of all altar vessels and altar linens with the resultant water being disposed in a sacrarium
• The purifications of any place where the Blessed Sacrament is dropped or spilled on
• The way any linen that could possibly come into contact with the Blessed Sacrament is folded

All of these things are more or less present in all of the rites of the church.

Therefore the church implicitly understands that the Blessed Sacrament remains in small unseen particles of consecrated bread.

The Early Church practice vs The practice today

The rubrics for Communion in the hand in the early church are different to what we have today. Women had a domenical which was folded in the same way our altar linens are today. Men had to purify their hands.

The claim that CITH was the widespread practice cannot be substantiated. There is evidence that the opposite was the case. That however is not really that important to the discussion.

The last supper is a red herring, but remember the Sedar meal tradition so it is probable that the Apostles received in the mouth.

I think there are one or two ancient rites which lack a full purification rubric for men but this would not be important even if there were. The reason being is that some rites in the early church mentioned by Saint Thomas did not add the water to the wine, their ignorance could be forgiven but they were lacking something that they were supposed to do even if it did not affect their validity.

The conclusions

Therefore the problem is nothing to do with the reception of CITH. Rather the problem is with the behavior of the Communicants towards the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament once they have received in the hand.

God Bless and I truly hope that this enlightens many

DebatingDebator

 

[AlanFromWichita]

DebatingDebator,

Welcome to CAF! You stepped right into a hot spot, so you’ll get a chance to earn your handle.

The last supper is a red herring, but remember the Sedar meal tradition so it is probable that the Apostles received in the mouth.

Why is it a red herring? If it isn’t a factor in the Church’s reasoning, then why not?

If Holy Communion is supposed to be done in remembrance of the Last Supper, then shouldn’t we be able to get a clue – for example when Christ gave the bread to others and they dunked/drank it?

Alan

 

[Ockham]

Good grief.

Yes, there was CITH practice in the early Church, buth then guess what…the Church ruled against it. CITH raised its ugly head again in rebeliious Holland during the Age of Acquarius and the Church rules against it. Do you see a trend here?

The norm of the Church is COTT. CITH is an indult forced upon the Church by disobedience. It’s just that simple.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by peary
The bible tells us exactly how it was distributed… Whether one receives it in the hands or on the tongue is irrelevant.

A few FACTs; but hey; don’t let them get in YOUR way

The Apostles received in there hands. DUH! They are Priest! God’s annointed! That is what tey are too do!

It does not matter how you receive?

OF COURE IT DOES!

In ones hands “is taking Christ”

On ones tongue is RECEIVING Christ!

Both are good; But receiving on the tongue is the Universal Norm for the Catholic Church because it is the MORE REVERANT MANNER.

God’s continued Blessings,
Pat

 

[MarkThompson]

In ones hands “is taking Christ”

On ones tongue is RECEIVING Christ!

No, not really. They’re both receiving (a freely given gift in the Sacrament) and both taking (the deliberate choice to accept what is offered), and also “taking” in the sense of “to receive into one’s body (as by swallowing, drinking, or inhaling) .” You are helping confirm the theory I laid out in this post, though, and for that I thank you.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It does not matter how you receive?

OF COURE IT DOES!

It is the same sacrament either way.

because it is the MORE REVERANT MANNER.

Says who? Why is a whole room full of people sticking their tongues out and showing the insides of their mouths to priests intrinsically any more respectful than quietly taking the host and consuming it? In this same argument on this forum, years ago, we used to hear from priests and Communion ministers about how gross that can get.

My guess is it’s largely personal preference, embellished by emotional clinging, that makes COTT seem more holy to many.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Good grief.

Yes, there was CITH practice in the early Church, buth then guess what…the Church ruled against it. CITH raised its ugly head again in rebeliious Holland during the Age of Acquarius and the Church rules against it. Do you see a trend here?

The norm of the Church is COTT. CITH is an indult forced upon the Church by disobedience. It’s just that simple.

Yes, I see a pattern. Apparently the Church rules don’t mean anything.

That hasn’t changed to this day. The Church gives us a choice, and some members want to take it away because they don’t respect the current teachings of the Church.

Alan

 

[choy]

Actually it does. To receive CITH you have to make a sign of reverence (bow). You also have to make an acknowledgement (Amen). The priest may suspend this method of distribution if he feels warranted. No such requirements or restrictions apply to COTT while kneeling in the tradtional manner.

nothing in what you said makes it inferior from an objective point of view

is the Precious Blood inferior to the Precious Body just because its not being offered to the laity all the time?
is immersion an inferior Baptism to pouring which is the norm in the Roman Church?

thats your line of thinking

 

[Brendan]

doesn’t make one invalid or inferior

Invalid, no; Inferior, yes.

Communion in the Hand is an indult. It is only granted in certain cirucumstances, under certain conditions, and in certain locations.

The Universal Norm is COTT.

Indults, by their nature, and even definition, are exceptions to the law which are tolerated.

Universal Norms are that which ARE the law, everywhere and under all circumstances, not simply exceptions to it.

 

[Ockham]

It Says who? Why is a whole room full of people sticking their tongues out and showing the insides of their mouths to priests intrinsically any more respectful than quietly taking the host and consuming it?
Alan

Yes it is so says the Church.

 

[Ockham]

Yes, I see a pattern. Apparently the Church rules don’t mean anything.

That hasn’t changed to this day. The Church gives us a choice, and some members want to take it away because they don’t respect the current teachings of the Church.

Alan

Clearly rules are not respected by the CITH hoard. It was ruled against by Pope Paul VI. It was only granted an indult status due to risk of schism. It was allowed with conditions the U.S. didn’t qualifty for. The Church has never taught CITH. Why do you and the other CITH soldiers ignore the facts?

Perhaps God gives us this choice for the same reason He gave Eve the choice in the Garden of Eden.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Yes it is so says the Church.

Where does “the Church” say that COTT is more respectful than CITH?

It is a subjective measure, so those who prefer it think it’s more respectful.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

COTT is the norm of the Church.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

COTT is the norm of the Church.

Says you. Tell a non-church scholar what that means. I just spent a while searching the CCC and I couldn’t even find the word “hand” or “tongue” in the sections on the Eucharist.

Alan

 

[Ockham]

Says you. Tell a non-church scholar what that means. I just spent a while searching the CCC and I couldn’t even find the word “hand” or “tongue” in the sections on the Eucharist.

Alan

You need to improve your research skills and discretion prior to posting results. Unfortunately for you and folks like choy you are wrong. That’s not my opinion, it is the ruling from the Magisterium. If you claim faithful obedience to the Church then that should suffice.

 

[ncjohn]

Invalid, no; Inferior, yes.

Communion in the Hand is an indult. It is only granted in certain cirucumstances, under certain conditions, and in certain locations.

The Universal Norm is COTT.

Indults, by their nature, and even definition, are exceptions to the law which are tolerated.

Universal Norms are that which ARE the law, everywhere and under all circumstances, not simply exceptions to it.

Then I guess we’re back to the logical argument that the EF is inferior by NOT being the norm.

Sorry but that logic just doesn’t even begin to hold up.

I just truly don’t get the degree to which some of you get twisted around the axle by someone else’s choices that the Church has sanctioned and does not hurt you in any way. That need to win at all cost and have the world revolve around your preferences, with what the Church says having no importance, must be an incredible seduction! I guess though if Jesus had to deal with such blindness I shouldn’t expect that much would change.

May peace be with you all.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You need to improve your research skills and discretion prior to posting results. Unfortunately for you and folks like choy you are wrong. That’s not my opinion, it is the ruling from the Magisterium. If you claim faithful obedience to the Church then that should suffice.

In other words, you can’t find any references to back up your claims? You tell me to do research, but I’m asking for help and you can’t provide it, and now I question whether you’ve done yours. Why should I believe you, because you threw a five-syllable word at me?

Why does my obedience to the Church have anything to do with whether you are telling me the truth about this issue – one to which you are obviously emotionally attached? You’ve basically told me the Church is in a mess and has no hope of ever getting out of it – and doesn’t even have the will to anyway. Yet it is the subject of constant, and IMO pointless, argument. What else do we need to know?

“If my bishop or pastor is leading me astray by allowing CITH, then I pray that God strikes them both down.” Is that what I am supposed to say?

Alan