Communion in the hand...END IT!

[tweetymom]

Since when does something have to be “in the Bible” before it is worthy of belief? As Catholics, we don’t just “strictly use” the Bible…Tweety, you should know this after all this time

Well I do!

 

[malphono]

Well, I don’t know how to properly reference a lecture I attended…but I know that during the last supper Christ said, “take and eat” and not just “eat.” I don’t think he put the bread directly into the apostles’ mouth.

There have been quite a few threads about this topic. One such was [thread=317487]this one[/thread] a while back, where the following was noted:

The fact is that in those times, in small family and communal groups, the Presider, who would have been Jesus in this case, typically placed a small morsel of each of the prescribed foods in the mouth of each of the Passover meal attendees before they consumed the meal. This was done to demonstrate the receivers total dependence upon God for sustinence and for life itself. It is quite likely, that Jesus did this exact same thing. Not saying that He did, but it is quite possible that He did so.

As I said at the time, that tradition is really true. It still exists in the Eastern Mediterranean today, and not only among Jews at a Seder. So, yes, it is quite possible that’s what took place.

 

[Cristiano]

Regarding what I said about “in the hand” being the way it started, the way Christ instituted it…someone said:

Well, I don’t know how to properly reference a lecture I attended…but I know that during the last supper Christ said, “take and eat” and not just “eat.” I don’t think he put the bread directly into the apostles’ mouth. None of our artworks or traditions imply this. They took it in the hand, possibly even passing it around to each other. The early christians did the same thing until it was outlawed by the vatican in the dark ages due to people taking the host home and using it inappropriately. Now its back to the way it was!

I don’t see anything wrong with returning to our roots, and to the way Christ started it. As Catholics, we are fond of tradition and hold great respect for it. This makes perfect sense to me.

You keep presenting a statement as true without giving proof of it. The same way I can tell you that at the time of Jesus (and now in some cultures) among the Jews it was a sign of love to offer a nibble of food and to put it in someone’s mouth. I heard that in a lecture too and I take for what it is. I also avoid to look at those behaviors to infer what Jesus did at the last supper. I just do not know how He did it.

 

[Binary]

“Communion in the hand has not been, and will not be accepted by Heaven. This is a sacrilege in the eyes of the Eternal Father, and must not be continued, for you only add to your punishment when you continue on in the ways that have been found to be unpleasing to the Eternal Father.” - Our Lady of the Roses, June 30, 1984

On November 1st, 1997, at the Call to Holiness Conference in Detroit, Michigan, there was a panel discussion in which Fr. John Hardon was one of the speakers who fielded various questions from the audience. One of the questions was about Communion in the hand. The following is the response of Fr. Hardon:

"We were at concelebrated Mass with the Holy Father, [saying Mass WITH / at the same time] and we were absolutely forbidden to give Communion in the hands. Communion in the hand, Communion in the hand began, in the hand, with the publication of the Dutch Catechism with nobody’s permission except the bishops—in effect, in principle separated themselves from the Holy See. One country after another began then to ask for permission, which the Dutch bishops never asked for, permission to receive Communion in the hand. I was asked by the bishops’ conference to write a defense of Communion on the tongue, and I can again talk for hours.

“In the very, very early Church, Communion was given in the hands. However, as the faith of the Christians weakened in the Real Presence, by the 5th, 6th centuries Communion on the tongue became mandatory—remained mandatory until the present century. Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”

www.apologeticsguidebook.com

Love and prayers that this practice be abolished.

More than any orther single reason; this practice is the cause of mass defections from the CC based essentially on the lack of belief and understanding of Christ Real Presense. I am also of the opinion that this is a primary cause for fewer vocations to the priesthood and fewer people going to Confession. [If anyone can give commuion, priest are not necessary for Confession. I’ll just go directly to God.]

**PEW Report 2008 **

1970 about 75% of self professed Catholics went to weekly Sunday an Holyday Mass
2008 this number had dropped to less than 25%

1970 same group on Confession about 65% went at least once per year
2008 This number has dropped to about 10%!

In CIH the only reason? Certainly NOT. Is it a primary reason? Absolutely!

Nothing in this post establishes a causative relationship between CIH and decreased mass/confession attendance.

 

[Garyjohn2]

You keep presenting a statement as true without giving proof of it. The same way I can tell you that at the time of Jesus (and now in some cultures) among the Jews it was a sign of love to offer a nibble of food and to put it in someone’s mouth. I heard that in a lecture too and I take for what it is. I also avoid to look at those behaviors to infer what Jesus did at the last supper. I just do not know how He did it.

You don’t have to prove every statement is true to have a proper discussion. Not everything can have an url pasted to point to the source. I’m not trying to convince anyone, really…I’m just saying it will take a lot to convince me that COTH is not how it was originally done, and not how it ought to be done now!

 

[Layman]

Sorry if this bores old hands …

• What benefit is there in changing a Roman Catholic diocese over from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?

I think Cardinal Arinze said something like: "If you believe your Lord Jesus Christ is present in the host, never mind kneeling, why don’t you crawl?

Usual arguments for CITH:

• St. Cyril said it was OK. (1500 years+ ago. No one else has promoted it since that time, afaik. Was St. Cyril even a Roman Catholic?)
• We have permission to do it. (We do it because … we’re allowed to do it. A tautology).
• Inner reverence trumps outer posture. (Except it’s a public, formal, communal, rite. No one can see your inner reverence. You might as well, by that reasoning, stay home and send out for an EMHC.)
• My opinion: This is a time when personal pride is promoted as a great social and psychological good. Nice to have the opportunity to practice humility in the temple of the Lord.
• For 5 points, name the Eastern rite(s) which allow Communion in the hand.
• For 10 points, detail the rubrics under which this occurs.
• For 100 points, give reasons why a Roman Catholic diocese should drop a 1000+ year practice and copy them.

 

[Malleus_01]

First of all - the Quote attributed to St Cyril of Jerusalem is an interpolation and has already been debunked as inauthentic. Secondly - if one wants to investigate - the same document likewise says thus : “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Chrisi was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”
Considered in context, it becomes suspect. For it speaks of a strange custom entirely alien to the highest veneration which the faithful have always had for the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist. In fact, the Catechesis says that one must touch one’s eyes to the Sacred Host:“Sanctify thine eyes with contact by the Holy Body,” and afterwards with the fingers wet in the Most Holy Blood, pass them over one’s eyes, on one’s forehead, and on one’s other senses to sanctify them: “When thy lips are still wet (after receiving the Sacred Blood), touch them with thy hand, and pass them over thine eyes, thy forehead, and thine other senses, to sanctify them.” In view of this unheard of liberty which is incompatible with the total veneration due to the Sacred Species, those who are learned in these matters think of an interpolation, at least in the text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Some (Scherman, Esans, Richard, Teifer) attribute the text to St. Cyril’s successor; others (Cross) think of a primitive text of St. Cyril which was retouched by his successor. And there are codices which attribute it to St. Cyril and to his successor. Accordingly, one may think of an accommodation made by the Patriarch John, the successor of St. Cyril in Jerusalem.Now, according to the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine, that Patriarch. John, is of suspect orthodoxy, Mysterium Fidei calls him a crypto Arian.

So be careful what you assume is TRADITION. Take for example the Quotation of Pope Leo the GREAT:

Saint Leo I, Pope (440-46 1), for in commenting on the words of Our Lord, related in Chapter 6 of St. John’s gospel, 5:54, St. Leo the Great speaks of receiving Communion in the mouth as that which is in current use-: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith” —“Hoc enim ore sumiter quod fide creditur” (Serm. 91.3). Note that Saint Leo the Great does not express himself in the manner of one introducing a novelty, but rather as one recording a common fact ordinary in the habitual use of the Church.
A similar usage is confirmed by the testimony and example of St. Gregory the Great, Pope (590-604). He tells us in his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass after having introduced the Body of Our Lord into the mouth of a person. And John, the Deacon, in the life of the same holy Pope assures us that he distributed Communion to the faithful in this manner.
These are testimonies of the fifth and sixth centuries. How can one affirm that Communion in the hand was the official manner for the faithful to receive Communion until the tenth century?

 

[Malkin71]

If you can show me in the Bible where it says not in the Hand it would be most appreciated.

This statement is the same one that a “Born Again” or “Protestant” uses. How many times when I get into a discussion about my “Catholic Faith” with a “Born Again” or a “Protestant” They say that! Our Catholic Faith come from 2000 years of Tradition. Both Written, eg The Bible and Oral. Meaning not in the Bible.

Also, the Church has Different Rites and Holy Communion is Recieved via spoon in almost all the Eastern Rites including the Orothodox. In the Latin Rite, during the OF, recieving on the tounge is the norm. Recieving in the hand is optional if granted. Some countries on the tongue is the only option. In the EF, kneeling and on the tounge is the only way to recieve it. Also, I do believe when recieving Holy Communion from the Pope, you must kneel and recieve it on the tongue.

 

[Bob4BVM]

Come on people , get real already !
Find something meaningful to discuss, like faith in the Real Presence.

Anyone read the accounts of the Last Supper lately ?
Did Christ place the bread on their tongues ?
It is ALL about the Real Presence, not how you receive it.

I love to receive Him, either way.
I especially love the hand, where I may cradle Him in my palm for a brief moment of personal adoration, before becoming one with my Lord .

 

[Malleus_01]

Come on people , get real already !
Find something meaningful to discuss, like faith in the Real Presence.

Mal : That is precisely WHY we are discussing it. Dr Dietrich Von Hildebrand believed that Communion in the Hand would lead to a Diminished Belief in the Real Presence. It has come to pass. J Akin who is an an Apologist in this veryt forum wrote : What would you say if I told you that only 30% of modern Catholics believe in the Real Presence? Well, it’s true. A mere 30% of Catholics today believe that the sacrament of Holy Communion is actually Jesus, the Son of God. Many think, “Oh, sure, it’s a symbol of God”. But, no, it’s the real thing.

<<< Anyone read the accounts of the Last Supper lately ?
Did Christ place the bread on their tongues ? >>>>

Mal: And how many LAYPEOPLE Were at the Last Supper? Those were the APOSTLES. The Apostles were CLERICS.

It is ALL about the Real Presence, not how you receive it.

Mal : Because it is the REAL Presence - it IS about how you recieve it. Have you ever been to an Ordination under the Latin Rites? The Priests hands are Blessed by the SACRAMENT of HOLY ORDERS. Are yours?

I love to receive Him, either way.

Mal: But what about HIM? Does he share that love by the sacriledge?

I especially love the hand, where I may cradle Him in my palm for a brief moment of personal adoration, before becoming one with my Lord

Mal: Funny - Our Lord said in John. 6:54. Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

Nowhere did he say to fondle

 

[ProVobis]

I especially love the hand, where I may cradle Him in my palm for a brief moment of personal adoration, before becoming one with my Lord .

Or why not keep the Host longer in your mouth and “cradle” Him there? Must your hands really need to get involved for you to becoming one with “your” Lord? Surely you wouldn’t trust your hands with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, would you?

 

[whatischarity]

I totally agree! Bayside has been condemned by the bishop. period.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. At times it is tricky for a Catholic like me to read these forums. I don’t mind when posters just state their opinions because they are entitiled to them, but it is misleading when someone posts a quote which would convict a large percentage of the Catholic Church as doing a sacriligeous act and displeasing God in the very act in which they hope to worship Him most intimately!

 

[whatischarity]

Nothing in this post establishes a causative relationship between CIH and decreased mass/confession attendance.

Welcome to the Traditionalist thread where are large segment of posters apparently believe if one thing occurs after some event then it is probably the cause of the event. Strangely, this only appears to be the case when the thing is perceived as being negative! Perhaps this is the “Eyeore Syndrome”?

 

[whatischarity]

Surely you wouldn’t trust your hands with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, would you?

It seems to me that it is Jesus who is trusting Himself to us. No one would have considered this sacrament to be acceptable to God unless the Son of God Himself instituted it! I figure the hands and tongues of humans are equally unworthy but God cares about their hearts which none but Him can correctly see.

I still only receive communion on my tongue because that is what I have always done. I don’t denigrate those who choose to receive it in their hands because I know the diocese allows it and it is definitely not intrinsically evil.

I wonder if we all asked our priest after mass if he thinks only 30% of his parishioners believe in the Real Presence what he would say. Seems to me that he would need to share some responsibility for this. Seems like that would be a good first step. Start in your parish to renew the proper understanding of the Eucharist. Truly, the intrinsically evil concept in all this discussion is the heretical concept that the host is only symbolic. Go after that root instead of whacking at the leaves.

 

[adstrinity]

Nonsense. If you’ve got anything contagious, please stay home.

No, it’s true. The priest really did say it. He may have been joking.

BUT, the flu takes 24 hours before one knows one has it, right? One could pass it on before one realizes one is contagious. Also, what if you’re not contagious, but, otherwise germy, and the priest’s immune system isn’t yours?

 

[archangel04]

Well, my pastor did a presentation on the history of the church. He used to teach in a catholic university, so I trust his information. He said “in the hand” was abolished during the dark ages, not because of a disbelief in the real presence…but because people believed it so much that they becamse superstitious. They would take the host home and nail it to their doors to ward off vampires, put it in their helmets when they went off to battle, and the like. It was due to abuses of the host because they believed so strongly that it was holy and contained magical powers!

Recently, they’ve allowed it in the hand again. It’s the way it was started, its the way Christ instituted it. A lot of practices of the church changed during the dark ages that were not right, and were fixed to what they “used to be” in Vatican II. The dark ages were a tough time. Things aren’t so tough anymore.

I think we should just educate people how to take communion properly.

I suppose my info could be off, but I’ve heard it straight from a professor-priest that I have a lot of respect for…so it will take a lot of convincing for me to change my mind!

I agree here. I’ve heard alot about this and I am looking for some history books on this. I know there is a church father in 2nd or 3rd century who gave instructions on how to reaceived communion by hand. I would rather receive it by tung.

My priest preffers to give communion on the hand, because he told me that some people lick his fingers or even bite them lol.

 

[Sir_Knight]

“Communion in the hand has not been, and will not be accepted by Heaven. This is a sacrilege in the eyes of the Eternal Father, and must not be continued, for you only add to your punishment when you continue on in the ways that have been found to be unpleasing to the Eternal Father.” - Our Lady of the Roses, June 30, 1984

Uh, didn’t Jesus tell us that WHATEVER the Church binds on earth WILL BE bound in heaven? Since the Church DOES approve of Communion in the hand in certain locations and under certain conditions, how can that be “a sacrilege in the eyes of the Eternal Father”?

The bible clearly tells us that even if a message APPEARED to have come from heaven, if it contradicts the teachings given to us by the Apostles, we are to consider it to be false. Based on this alone, it appears that the messages from “Our Lady of the Roses” falls under that classification.

 

[ProVobis]

It seems to me that it is Jesus who is trusting Himself to us.

That wasn’t the point. The point is whether you trust your own hands to handle the Real Presence, or the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I’m sorry but mine are not THAT worthy. I know they’re not because I just said the prayer that I wasn’t worthy of receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Three times at that. Domine non sum dignus.

 

[Sir_Knight]

1970 about 75% of self professed Catholics went to weekly Sunday an Holyday Mass
2008 this number had dropped to less than 25%

1970 same group on Confession about 65% went at least once per year
2008 This number has dropped to about 10%!

In CIH the only reason? Certainly NOT. Is it a primary reason? Absolutely!

Let me see if I have this straight. Receiving a Church SACRAMENT in a manner that is APPROVED by the Church, leads to a falling away from the faith? Doesn’t the Church teach that receiving a Church SACRAMENT in a manner that is APPROVED by the Church bring graces to the receiver?

 

[Sir_Knight]

That wasn’t the point. The point is whether you trust your own hands to handle the Real Presence, or the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. I’m sorry but mine are not THAT worthy. I know they’re not because I just said the prayer that I wasn’t worthy of receiving the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. Three times at that. Domine non sum dignus.

I got a newsflash for ya … NONE of us are worthy INCLUDING the priests and deacons – my parish priest told me so.