If you will go to Amazon’s website and do a search for Bishop Schneider’s recent book Dominus Est, read the first review of the book which gives a brief description of why communion in the hand came to be the dominant way of receiving Holy Communion. Amazon is selling Bishops Schneider’s book for an exorbitant price, even as a used book. EWTN’s online catalog is down right now, but I believe you can find it there for less than $10.00 - it’s worth the read!If i understood correctly, before the 2e vatican counsel, they only allowed communion in the mouth, but sinds the 2e vatican counsel they also allowed communion it to be given in the hand. Can anyone explain why in some cases (and which cases /) they allowed it to be given in the hand ?
"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.
And the American hierarchy took most—three times, those wanting Communion in the hand kept pushing and pushing. Finally, meantime, I was asked by the vice-president of the Catholic Conference of Bishops to defend Communion on the tongue, which I did. To get enough votes to give Communion in the hand, bishops who were retired, bishops who were dying, were solicited to vote to make sure that the vote would be affirmative in favor of Communion in the hand. Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”What has this to do with the reverence in church? And what kind of familiarity you mean?We can see the results of Communion in the hand by the lack of reverence in church before, during, and after Mass. Familiarity breeds contempt.
The ‘on-the-tongue’ method is pointing towards the reception of Jesus, humanity and divinity into our bodies. It’s not trying to receive the Eucharist in a natural way of receiving food (surely one could argue that if this was the case we could receive Christ on a plate and place Him in our mouths with a fork as eating with utensils is natural for us now).What has this to do with the reverence in church? And what kind of familiarity you mean?
I think communion on the hand is more natural. After all it is a kind of sharing of this special food among the priest and his fellow believers. On the other hand communion given straight in the mouth looks to me more like a feeding act and is, therefore, less natural.
Did Jesus feed His disciples by putting pieces of bread in their mouths during the Last Supper? I do not think so.
We are NOT sharing in a common meal. WE are NOT the apostles. We are at the foot of the cross on Calvary - and the Church has been bullied into allowing the indult by Bishops who refused to follow the Church’s demands. This has nothing to do with Vatican II - this disobedience started well before the 1960’s.What has this to do with the reverence in church? And what kind of familiarity you mean?
I think communion on the hand is more natural. After all it is a kind of sharing of this special food among the priest and his fellow believers. On the other hand communion given straight in the mouth looks to me more like a feeding act and is, therefore, less natural.
Did Jesus feed His disciples by putting pieces of bread in their mouths during the Last Supper? I do not think so.
Receiving communion on the hand has been approved by Vatican and there are obviously sufficient arguments for it, so there is no point to question it. Everybody has the right of choice how he or she wants to receive communion. In Germany for example communion is received with almost no exceptions on the hand. In Poland, vice versa, everyone receives on the tongue.We are NOT sharing in a common meal. WE are NOT the apostles. We are at the foot of the cross on Calvary - and the Church has been bullied into allowing the indult by Bishops who refused to follow the Church’s demands. This has nothing to do with Vatican II - this disobedience started well before the 1960’s.
More natural??? What is “natural” about receiving the Creator of the Universe into our bodies!!! It is a supernatural and miraculous and mysterious event - not dinner out with friends.
~Liza
Yes it has - very sadly so. But it certainly wasn’t the Church’s first choice - she was bullied into it. I hope I live to see a day where that is finally righted.Receiving communion on the hand has been approved by Vatican…
Perhaps because Jesus said , “Take this and eat it.” We take it in our hands.Can anyone explain why in some cases (and which cases /) they allowed it to be given in the hand ?
i have trouble believing the Church can be bullied into anythingYes it has - very sadly so. But it certainly wasn’t the Church’s first choice - she was bullied into it. I hope I live to see a day where that is finally righted.
~Liza
That is very strange when we take into consideration that at the Last Super Jesus most probablible broke the bread and gave it to His apostles not in the mouth but in the hand. Was it wrong too?We can see the results of Communion in the hand by the lack of reverence in church before, during, and after Mass. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Unfortunately, this is not true in my diocese. We are told not to ask for it in the mouth. It makes me sad.Receiving communion on the hand has been approved by Vatican and there are obviously sufficient arguments for it, so there is no point to question it. Everybody has the right of choice how he or she wants to receive communion. In Germany for example communion is received with almost no exceptions on the hand. In Poland, vice versa, everyone receives on the tongue.
Yes, well before Vatican II in the Traditional tridentine Mass, Catholics thought that fragments of the wafer were actually the Body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ, and thus needed a paten or plate under the recipient to catch these fragments where they would be collected and consumed to the last speck by the presiding priest. Thus the priest always had a paten on the altar and the only way the fragments could be saved when the faithful received was to have them kneel and the altar boy place the plate under the chin of each person.If i understood correctly, before the 2e vatican counsel, they only allowed communion in the mouth, but sinds the 2e vatican counsel they also allowed communion it to be given in the hand. Can anyone explain why in some cases (and which cases /) they allowed it to be given in the hand ?
usccb.org/liturgy/girm/bul5.shtmlIf Communion is received in the hand, the hands should first of all be clean. If one is right handed the left hand should rest upon the right. The host will then be laid in the palm of the left hand and then taken by the right hand to the mouth. If one is left-handed this is reversed. It is not appropriate to reach out with the fingers and take the host from the person distributing.
Not really. The Apostles were the precursor to our bishops and priests, i.e., those who were ordained. Jesus didn’t go to the crowds and confect the Eucharist and invite them all to “take” it into their hands. He did so to the Apostles only. Priests have always been allowed to handle the Eucharist.That is very strange when we take into consideration that at the Last Super Jesus most probablible broke the bread and gave it to His apostles not in the mouth but in the hand. Was it wrong too?
placido
Communion on the tongue is the normative method of receiving. Not in the hand. An indult had to be granted for this exception.Unfortunately, this is not true in my diocese. We are told not to ask for it in the mouth. It makes me sad.
Pawel, why do you suppose Jesus couldn’t preach effectively in His home town, but could everywhere else? Because they were familiar with him. Familiarity breeds contempt. They all “knew” Jesus. Saw Him growing up as a small boy, etc. “Oh, we know him. We saw him grow up. He can’t be anymore special than us.” type of thing.What has this to do with the reverence in church? And what kind of familiarity you mean?
I think communion on the hand is more natural. After all it is a kind of sharing of this special food among the priest and his fellow believers. On the other hand communion given straight in the mouth looks to me more like a feeding act and is, therefore, less natural.
Did Jesus feed His disciples by putting pieces of bread in their mouths during the Last Supper? I do not think so.
hearsay is gossip, and a sinCommunion on the tongue is the normative method of receiving. Not in the hand. An indult had to be granted for this exception.
I would recommend everyone just look at the fruits of Communion in the hand. I heard of one parish that had put the tabernacle in a broom closet! It actually had a broom leaning against it! Is that how we should reverence Jesus Christ, Son of God, Creator of the Universe!? Hardly. And how many people do you see neglect to genuflect before the tabernacle? Many.