Communion in Hand at the Last Supper?

[choy]

Jesus told us the path to heaven would be narrow. Our Lady told us many people with good intentions will end up in Hell. There is good and evil, night and day, right and wrong. CITH got into the GIRM through disobedience and to this day is still merely an exception. God gives us free will. Eve ate the apple. Judge yourself accordingly.

merely an exception? so anything that is an indult is bad?

 

[choy]

How many can honestly say all these conditions of everyone receiving CITH are met in their parishes?

its a very rare occasion that the host would be dropped in the parishes i have attended

 

[Layman]

There are many legitimate spiritual, theological and historical reasons commending it, just as there are for COTT.

Can you list some of these, please?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Interesting idea. I have a forum we can use; I’d be willing to dedicate a whole section to this debate, so we can organize it however we want, and the discussion will be friendly. Another idea is to check out the groups on CA; I don’t know how they work but maybe it would be a good place for this, too.

Let me know by PM if you want me to set something up, either here or at my website. I think it would be fun to lay it all out. We may not conclude anything but I’m looking forward to some spirited discussions and great fellowship.

Alan

In case anyone is interested we did set up a forum for DebatingDebator with him as mod, so he can lay out his case in an organized fashion. Click here. Browse, or if you want to register please see the note in the “News Box.”

Alan

 

[cjforJesus]

I certainly do not know if Jesus gave Holy communion to his apostles in the hand or on the tongue. I have seen some texts referring to the early church and receiving in the hand during persecutions.

Though it was an indult and the result of disobedience to church law,the practice is here to stay.

I do not write this on authority, but i also read somewhere that those who receive the Eucharist from Pope Benedict XVI during papal masses must receive kneeling and on the tongue.

 

[otjm]

Then you must have selective eyes because coin dealers would disagree with you most vehemently. Apparently you’ve never heard of rare uncirculated coins whose value dropped when someone picked them up?. They can spot rubs very easily and can even tell you approximately how many people handled each coin you have in your pocket.

And isn’t the Body of Christ worth more than the rarest of coins?

I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said that if a speck cannot be identified as part of the Host, then the True presence no longer exists.

Furthermore, going back to 1917, while there were rules for cleaning the paten, the chalice and ciborium and the cloth covering the altar, there was no rule at all for anything to be done to the cloth at the altar rail, under which one placed one’s hands. If any particle were to drop onto that cloth, unless it were of significant enough size to be seen and noticed, nothing was done to otherwise assure that no particles were on the altar rail cloth. The Church herself does not go to the level you are indicating in this post.

 

[otjm]

It’s not me that prefers COTT - it is the Church!

If you are neither disputing or endorsing then you are ignoring.

CITH was granted after blackmail of schism.

That is a bit over the top.

It was ruled against by Pope Paul VI and every other pope who took a position on the issue.

And that is incorrect; it was specifically ruled in the opposite as the indult was granted.

If you care about your fellow Catholics you’ll work to end this scornful practice. Research it. Pass along the history. Judge yourself accordingly.

Scornful, only by those who scorn it. You might try to stand a little less in judgment of those who receive this way.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said that if a speck cannot be identified as part of the Host, then the True presence no longer exists.

And they have more advanced ways today of identifying those “specks,” even without electron microscopes. Even more reason to shorten the distance between the ciborium and the tongue, using the paten held by a trained minister as a further precaution.

I don’t even know why you brought up the cloth argument, except to further discredit all pre-Vatican II practices.

And that is incorrect; it was specifically ruled in the opposite as the indult was granted.

It was conditionally approved, even though they had managed to falsify the vote count to present as part of the petition. Is this what you’re defending?

 

[ProVobis]

And that is incorrect; it was specifically ruled in the opposite as the indult was granted.

It was conditionally approved, even though they had managed to falsify the vote count to present as part of the petition. Is this what you’re defending?

 

[otjm]

And they have more advanced ways today of identifying those “specks,” even without electron microscopes. Even more reason to shorten the distance between the ciborium and the tongue, using the paten held by a trained minister as a further precaution.

We have been down this path before. the Church’s position is that if one cannot distinguish with the naked eye that a particle is from the Host, then the True Presence no longer exists in it. In short, in looking at something the size of a dandruff flake, if one cannot distinguish whether it is a flake of dandruff, a minute particle from the host, or some other bit something else (such as starch), then one has no further duty. Some people find that hard to accept. The Church doesn’t.

I don’t even know why you brought up the cloth argument, except to further discredit all pre-Vatican II practices.

Oh, I suspect you do. The reality is that the Church itself, prior to Vatican 2, was not as absolute nor as thorough as some people now like to portray it. Rewriting history is still rewriting history. We all owe all due respect to the Eucharist and to Christ. and due respect also includes the fact that the Church itself did not take the issue as far as some wish to.

It was conditionally approved, even though they had managed to falsify the vote count to present as part of the petition. Is this what you’re defending?

If by “conditionally” you mean that it is an indult, most people know that. It is a decision by the the Church, and specifically by the Pope, and subsequently continued by the next three. Your comment about scornful reveals more about yourself than about the subject matter. Brother JR has had comments about your attitude toward the rule elsewhere, and I concur in his opinion. I don’t have to defend anything; and in fact I am not defending it. Should Benedict, or the next pope decide the indult needs to end. I will glady follow their direction. The fact is that in at least one of the Eastern churches, if not two, CITH has a 2000 year history, and CITH has a history in the Western Church of at least 1800 years. Any scorn concerning the practice is yours, not the practice itself.

 

[Roy5]

I watched the Papal Mass on EWTN very early this morning (10-10-10} at the beginning of the Synod of Middle East churches. The Pope seemed to give communion only on the tongue. But others received it from priests or deacons in the hand.

Speaking for myself, I always had qualms about receiving it on the tongue. It always appeared so unhygienic to me. It seems likely that a priest would inevitably end up touching various parts of various mouths when administering communion to a large group. I even have questions about taking it in the hand after a priest has placed the host in different mouths. It strikes me as as innocent way to spread germs and thereby (name removed by moderator)eril the health of some. 

 Is that why they made the change after Vatican II? In the interest of health? It makes sense to me. 

 I notice that most Protestants actually have little glass or plastic cups for the grapejuice (or wine) that is distributed to all who commune in their churches. And usually the people take their own host (piece of bread) from the communion plate. Episcopalians and Lutherans use wine, but many of the other churches use grapejuice in any effort to make communion available and comfortable for those alcoholics who might have their disease triggered by even a little alcohol.

 

[cjforJesus]

I watched the Papal Mass on EWTN very early this morning (10-10-10} at the beginning of the Synod of Middle East churches. The Pope seemed to give communion only on the tongue. But others received it from priests or deacons in the hand.

Speaking for myself, I always had qualms about receiving it on the tongue. It always appeared so unhygienic to me. It seems likely that a priest would inevitably end up touching various parts of various mouths when administering communion to a large group. I even have questions about taking it in the hand after a priest has placed the host in different mouths. It strikes me as as innocent way to spread germs and thereby (name removed by moderator)eril the health of some. 

 Is that why they made the change after Vatican II? In the interest of health? It makes sense to me. 

 I notice that most Protestants actually have little glass or plastic cups for the grapejuice (or wine) that is distributed to all who commune in their churches. And usually the people take their own host (piece of bread) from the communion plate. Episcopalians and Lutherans use wine, but many of the other churches use grapejuice in any effort to make communion available and comfortable for those alcoholics who might have their disease triggered by even a little alcohol.

Communion on the tongue administered properly is no more likely to spread germs than shaking hands with everyone next to you before receiving the host in the hand.

Both methods are licit and it should not make a difference one way or the other. God sees the heart.

But you are right that Pope Benedict seems to administer only on the tongue now.

 

[ProVobis]

Both methods are licit and it should not make a difference one way or the other.

It does in this respect. One wouldn’t receive on the tongue and kneeling if he thought It to be an ordinary piece of bread.

 

[otjm]

It does in this respect. One wouldn’t receive on the tongue and kneeling if he thought It to be an ordinary piece of bread.

And that is a snide “left unsaid” commentary on Communion in the Hand.

Anyone who has not been well catechized, no matter what form they receive in, is still not well catechized.

And for those who are well-catechized, reception in the hand is a means of giving glory to God. I see it every time I go to Mass at the local Trappist Abbey, where almost every one of the monks receives in the hand.

 

[otjm]

But you are right that Pope Benedict seems to administer only on the tongue now.

I fail to see why anyone would expect differently, given that he is a) Pope of the universal Church, and as such, he is b) Pope of the universal Roman Church and thereby head of the same rite, and c) the universal norm in the Roman Church and rite is COTT. One would thus expect the norm to be followed rather than an indult.

In the US, we do not follow the universal norm on posture, as the US stays kneeling longer than the universal norm during the Consecration (by indult). One would expect that he would follow the universal norm in this also.

Some of those who oppose the indult of CITH point to his distribution of Communion as if it were a negative slant against the indult; It is, rather, simply following the universal norm. What would be expected, were one to actually think through the issue.

 

[Canto]

In the US, we do not follow the universal norm on posture, as the US stays kneeling longer than the universal norm during the Consecration (by indult). One would expect that he would follow the universal norm in this also.

I wasn’t aware this was an indult. Very interesting.

The GIRM says where the practice is to kneel for the whole Eucharistic Prayer it is laudably retained.

My 1962 Missal has kneeling for the whole EP

 

[otjm]

I wasn’t aware this was an indult. Very interesting.

The GIRM says where the practice is to kneel for the whole Eucharistic Prayer it is laudably retained.

My 1962 Missal has kneeling for the whole EP

That is all correct. The universal Roman Church (with the exceptions noted of prior practice) is to stand sooner than the US does. In short, our much older practice - kneeling through the whole Prayer - is an indult granted within the GIRM. So if you are in a country which did not have that practice, and stood sooner, then following the rule of the GIRM would ahve you standing sooner than you are used to. And just because in the US we kneel longer would not be a reason to do so in a country which does not follow that practice. But odds are, if you are used to kneeling longer, it would feel a bit strange.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Posters, please try not to duplicate threads with the same topic or resurrect old threads. It’s good to offer new posters a little variety.

Thanks

Thomas Casey
Moderator