Communion in the hand: how did it start? Is it licit? Is it the preferred method?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That is half the problem when it comes to questionable practices like these, people seem to think that those of us who have legitimate concerns over the issue are schismatics. No rational person who does not think that Communion in the hand should be done thinks that it is heretical or any other sedevacantist-type nonsense like that.

Why can’t we look into this matter? Is it a de fide dogma of the Church that Communion is to be received in the hand? It’s a mere discipline-and a discipline with a very questionable basis in antiquity and has only been recently approved. It seems that those who think that questioning this practice is schismatical or shows a spirit of disobedience are more in line with that frame of thought that those of us who want an open discussion on a matter that is anything but doctrine or dogma.
 
lepanto said:
I am writing a paper for a class presentation on communion in the hand, but unfortunately I can’t find the answers to the following. Your help would be appreciated!

Communion in the hand: how did it start? Is there any historical documentation?

Is it licit in the United States? If so, what are the OFFICIAL Vatican and USCCB documents that say so?

Does the Church OFFICIALLY prefer the new method (in the hand) vs. the traditional method (in the mouth)? Again, I would like to see official documents.

Also, I would like to understand if one method is better than the other from reverential, practical, or theological standpoints.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I read an interesting article on this topic: Some Consideration on Communion on the Hand, Historical Considerations on Communion by Fr. Paul J. McDonald post on: unavoce.org/cith.htm God Bless
 
kleary said:
Communion in the hand STARTED AS AN ABUSE by dissobedient clergy in Europe who were so happy with the new “protestant like” Novus Ordo Liturgy they thought we should do things more like the Protestants and have communion in the hand.
Click to expand...
Pax tecum!

Protestant like Novus Ordo? Well, two Protestant friends of mine who have been to Mass with me (one of whom is from a liturgical Church–Lutheran) had not seen anything like the Mass in their Protestant churches.

In Christ,
Rand
 
I read an interesting article on this topic: Some Consideration on Communion on the Hand, Historical Considerations on Communion by Fr. Paul J. McDonald post on: unavoce.org/cith.htm God Bless
Click to expand...
Brennan_Doherty said:
Here is a good article, mentioned above, called, “Rethinking Communion in the Hand” by Jude Huntz from the March 1997 issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp
Click to expand...
As I posted earlier, both articles half quote some of the Fathers, fail to quote some, and also quote canons against self communicating against communion in the hand. Self communicating is still not allowed except to the celebrating and concelebrating priests. Even EMHC’s have to receive communion from someone else. I wish they would not because that needlessly decreases what is otherwise a very good point they are trying to make. I had written a long post on it, but I think it was lost in the crash. But I would suggest you read the sources they refer to, they are all on the Internet.
 
I didn’t read the entire thread, so excuse me if this has already been stated and documented.

To answer the question of the OP, communion in the hand began as an act of disobedience: That is a fact. Paul VI taught against communion in the hand, and even John Paul II said that communion in the hand was “a privilege of the ordained”.

The practice began as an act of disobedience to the teaching of the Church. This disobedient act persisted so long that the Bishops finally told the Pope that it was now a custom and should be permitted (this is the typical modus operandi of the liberals to accomplish their designs). Unfortunately, John Paul II did not defend this Church practice, but allowed the liberals to persist and eventually gave in.

That is how communion in the hand came about in modern times and why it is officially allowed today.
 
ComradeAndrei said:
That is half the problem when it comes to questionable practices like these, people seem to think that those of us who have legitimate concerns over the issue are schismatics. No rational person who does not think that Communion in the hand should be done thinks that it is heretical or any other sedevacantist-type nonsense like that.

Why can’t we look into this matter? Is it a de fide dogma of the Church that Communion is to be received in the hand? It’s a mere discipline-and a discipline with a very questionable basis in antiquity and has only been recently approved. It seems that those who think that questioning this practice is schismatical or shows a spirit of disobedience are more in line with that frame of thought that those of us who want an open discussion on a matter that is anything but doctrine or dogma.
Click to expand...
By all means discuss it, and I really don’t care if you question the practice or feel that it is wrong. Personally, I would prefer it if the practice was outlawed, even though I receive in the hand at the moment. I was simply objecting to the tone of the post that I quoted.
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax tecum!

Protestant like Novus Ordo? Well, two Protestant friends of mine who have been to Mass with me (one of whom is from a liturgical Church–Lutheran) had not seen anything like the Mass in their Protestant churches.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
While not saying your Lutheran friend is misleading you, I will tell you Luthern Services by and large are extremely close to the Pauline Rite in appearance. You don’t even have to attend one, just pick up one of their bulletins. The similarities are absolutely amazing.

And yes, I have been to several of their servicesas a guest of our departments Chaplain, who is a Lutheran Minister.
 
Not to sidetrack the thread but I would largely disagree. For one thing, the Lutherans historically had quite a somewhat different liturgy which has only been altered since the late 70’s and 80’s. For example there was no Lutheran Eucharistic Prayer in most Lutheran denominations only the Words of Institution. The strong hymnody tradition carried over in their alternative hymns for certain parts like the Gloria and Sanctus that is still allowed. Luther himself wrote one, quite a nice one actually, about the vision of the prophet Isaiah. At one point (I don’t think any longer, but I don’t know because there s often large divergence among the Lutherans) the Sanctus/Sanctus hymn would follow the Words of Institution. Then too, there were only two readings, an Epistle and Gospel with no Alleluia. And of course no Offertory though a hymn was sung at that point. Their ‘propers’ also were limited largely to introductory psalms and a collect.

The same basic features are in current Lutheran services except now they will have 3 readings, a psalm, an Alleluia, a Kiss of peace and add a short phrase before and after the Words of Institution, though it is still not a full blown Eucharistic Prayer as one would define it. Rather it is more like a prayer before, the Words of the Lord, a prayer after almost like a preface to the Our Father and someitmes linking the two. More liturgically minded Lutherans would operhaps use an prope Eucharistic Prayer but they are still in a minority even when one considers the divergent practises of the Lutheran bodies.

Like the other main Protestant denomination of a liturgical tradition, the Anglicans, they have also borrowed (and borrow) from other liturgical traditions. For exmaple, there is an option to replace the Kyrie with a Byzantine style litany- you can see an example in Divine Service 1 of the LCMS (Setting 3 in the ECLA’s ‘Evangelical Lutheran Worship’ ). "In peace let us pray to the Lord…For the peace from above and the salavtion of our souls let us pray to the Lord, etc., etc. "
 
Thanks to everyone for their comments on this thread, it is very enlightening. I especially found Fr. McDonald’s article fascinating. As a recent entrant into the Church (March 2005), I want to do “the right thing” in every way, but the more I learn about many of the practices of the Church in the USA the more I find we are doing things differently from most of the other Roman Catholics in the world. “Communion in the hand” is just another one of these differences, it seems. I had engaged in some “personal reasoning” and concluded it was OK since I presumed Jesus handed the bread to the apostles at the Lord’s Supper, but Fr. McDonald points out that may not have been the case, and in any event they were already at least priests, if not bishops, by His ordination.
I will start receiving on the tongue at daily Mass tomorrow!
 
lepanto said:
I am writing a paper for a class presentation on communion in the hand, but unfortunately I can’t find the answers to the following. Your help would be appreciated!

Communion in the hand: how did it start? Is there any historical documentation?

.
Click to expand...
Heres where it started:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Here’s that sermon of St. Cyril I mentioned up above, the Fifth teaching on the Mysteries:

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.ii.xxvii.html

the part specifically about how to receive communion is paragraphs 20 and following. I tried to cut&paste it, but the footnote kept wanting to jump in and tangle the formatting.

karen marie
 
Corki said:
Because it is allowed by indult, an individual Bishop COULD decide not to allow Communion in the Hand in his diocese. I have never heard of that happening in the US but there was a situation somewhere in South America (Brazil, I think) where one Bishop did not want to institute Communion in the Hand even though the rest of that country’s Bishops had asked for and received the indult. His option was upheld by the Vatican.

I bring this up because it it not a “right” but an option that we are currently allowed in each diocese in the US but that could be changed by any Bishop. If that was the case, you would be “forced” to receive on the tongue if you were in that diocese.

When I have attended Masses with Communion by intinction, there are still some people who prefer to receive in the hand and that is fine - they just receive under the one species.
Click to expand...
When intinction was made it must be ONLY received in TONGUE.
 
fmagill said:
the more I learn about many of the practices of the Church in the USA the more I find we are doing things differently from most of the other Roman Catholics in the world. “Communion in the hand” is just another one of these differences, it seems.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you’ve reached a decision, but I just wanted to point out something. I’ve been to mass in Australia, the USA, France, Scotland, Spain and Italy, and they’ve all received Communion in the hand. I don’t think that this practice is in any way connected to the USA uniquely.
 
The original method of reception of the Eucharist was in the hand. The instructions to the newly baptized are clear.

Perhaps we should ask why communion was restricted from receiveing in the hand? It was to prevent abuses not because receiveing in the hand was in and of itself wrong. St Cyril is not misunderstood…
In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof o; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?
Click to expand...
and
Then after thou hast partaken of the Body of Christ, draw near also to the Cup of His Blood; not stretching forth thine hands, but bending and saying with an air of worship and reverence, *Amen *hallow thyself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon thy lips, touch it with thine hands, and hallow thine eyes and brow and the other organs of sense Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who hath accounted thee worthy of so great mysteries.
Click to expand...
When the church was not afraid of people taking Our Lord home to use for superstitious rituals or taken by non believers for abuse, the restriction was lifted.

Perhaps the debate should be less on the most “holy method” of reception [subject to personal bias] and focused on how the first christians’ received the Eucharist and why that has changed over time?
 
Atreyu said:
Yes the Holy Spirit truly has deserted His Church, hasn’t he?
Click to expand...
No - because the “essentials” are still in tact-

The Church is under attack from within and God is allowing it to happen for a purpose.

Ken
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax tecum!

Protestant like Novus Ordo? Well, two Protestant friends of mine who have been to Mass with me (one of whom is from a liturgical Church–Lutheran) had not seen anything like the Mass in their Protestant churches.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
The Anglican Communion Service is Protestant so is the Episcopal liturgy… I attended an Episcopal liturgy - it is the SAME as our Novus Ordo with only minor variations.

Ken
 
YADA said:
When the church was not afraid of people taking Our Lord home to use for superstitious rituals or taken by non believers for abuse, the restriction was lifted.
Click to expand...
That IS NOT TRUE. Read for yourself to find out that it started AS AN ABUSE- and WHY those people in Europe started doing it.

The Pope tried to STOP IT but failed.

Ken
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top