Communion in the Hand

[japhy]

Pope John Paul II’s explanation of Salvation Outside the Catholic Church, ie. explanation of what constitutes, “Church”.

Could you be a bit more specific? Where it UUS does Pope John Paul II define that? I see a bunch of quotes from Lumen Gentium, for instance, and Unitatis Redintegratio… but where is he solemnly defining something?

 

[elts1956]

Could you be a bit more specific? Where it UUS does Pope John Paul II define that? I see a bunch of quotes from Lumen Gentium, for instance, and Unitatis Redintegratio… but where is he solemnly defining something?

Don’t know that he is “solemnly” declaring anything. That is what I can’t figure out. I understand what he is saying, but are Catholics required to understand and believe it? I can’t remember exactly where this is in Ut Unum Sint. Will have to check and get back to you. May take a while.

 

[benedictus2]

There was development in doctrine. The doctrine that developed was the Eucharist. .

True, the doctrine on the Eucharist is a doctrine. The manner of reception however, is not. It is rubrics.

The only thing we need to watch out for is the possible desecration oh the host when received by hand. But it is not doctrine.

I was too young when the change took place but as I’ve posted before, as much reverence or even more can be achieved by receiving by hand.

The dwindling respect and appreciation of the Eucharist is not due to this change. A lot of it is due to the liberal theology being bandied about. It is due to a lack of catechism of the post Vatican II generation.

Those of us who perhaps know a little bit more than the rest, should perhaps get involved in some sort of catechical formation in our parishes and lift the general understanding regarding the Eucharist.

One thing I have learned as well, is to thoroughly check the reasons for the change in this and that rubric, and this and that understanding of a doctrine, rather condeming outright the change.

 

[Thunderbird]

You know, at first I was completely fine with reception of the Host in the hand (after all, that was how I was taught when I went through RCIA)… but I was talking to someone about Satanists and how they have their Black Masses. Apparently, the fact that we’ve made Communion in the Hand a normal practice makes it easier for them to show up and pocket our Host for later profaning.

That combined with the fact that it just feels more natural to accept the Host on the tongue makes me a staunch opponent of Communion in the Hand.

Edit to Add: Thinking back on RCIA, I actually wasn’t taught how to receive the Eucharist until I was literally standing in line to receive at Easter Vigil. My Catechism Instructor tapped me on the shoulder, whispered what to say and did the right palm over left gesture…and that was that.

 

[Lynn_Suer]

Originally posted by Japhy:
The Ordinary Magisterium is exercised when the Magisterium teaches without the guarantee of certain truth found in its infallible Sacred Magisterium. The Ordinary Magisterium is non-infallible, but its teachings have the guidance of the Holy Spirit to the extent that the ordinary non-infallible teachings of the Magisterium can only err to a limited extent. They cannot err to such an extent that the errors would lead someone away from the path of salvation. The teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium have the charism of salvific truth.

There are two types of teachings of the Magisterium, categorized by the function under which they are taught: the teachings of the infallible Sacred Magisterium and the teachings of the non-infallible Ordinary Magisterium. Now in principle these are distinct, but in practice it can be difficult to determine, in every case, whether a teaching is infallible or non-infallible. Whenever it is truly not clear if a teaching has been taught infallibly or not, it should be considered a reliable but non-infallible teaching of the Magisterium

Dear Japhy,

Please read the disclaimers on the blogs that you quote from. I followed your “read more” invitation to a blog, and then checked out its “home” and found this (see below). I recommend you read Father John Hardon’s archives instead.

The blog’s home disclaimer:
“Please note that most of my theology writings are speculative, rather than dogmatic. Also, many of the ideas expressed on this site are a matter of pious disagreement among faithful Catholics.”

 

[elts1956]

True, the doctrine on the Eucharist is a doctrine. The manner of reception however, is not. It is rubrics. Amen

The only thing we need to watch out for is the possible desecration oh the host when received by hand. But it is not doctrine. Amen.

I was too young when the change took place but as I’ve posted before, as much reverence or even more can be achieved by receiving by hand.Amen.

The dwindling respect and appreciation of the Eucharist is not due to this change. A lot of it is due to the liberal theology being bandied about. It is due to a lack of catechism of the post Vatican II generation. Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen.

Those of us who perhaps know a little bit more than the rest, should perhaps get involved in some sort of catechical formation in our parishes and lift the general understanding regarding the Eucharist. Yes, there are many groups to become involved in. We are starting the Why Catholic series in our diocese in Oct.

One thing I have learned as well, is to thoroughly check the reasons for the change in this and that rubric, and this and that understanding of a Amen

 

[RonBlizz]

I personally do not think that Holy Communion received in the hand is a bad thing. After all, that is most likely how the apostles received it at the Lord’s Supper. Of course, I could be convinced otherwise.

Except the Apostles, as priests, were set apart (ordained) to consecrate and distribute the Eucharist.

I can’t understand why anyone would not want to kneel before Christ when they received him in the Blessed Eucharist.

May God be with you,
RonBlizz

 

[RonBlizz]

That combined with the fact that it just feels more natural to accept the Host on the tongue makes me a staunch opponent of Communion in the Hand.

I converted from Protestantism (Christian Church, Disciples of Christ) and was received into the Church via an SSPX chapel. I’ve never received Communion standing or in the hand. I can’t even imagine doing so.

May God be with you,
RonBlizz

 

[japhy]

I recommend you read Father John Hardon’s archives instead.

I know of the J.H. archive through therealpresence.org. Do you have a particular article of his you suggest for me to read? The only pages I see on which he uses the phrase “ordinary magisterium” he’s using the phrase “universal ordinary magisterium”, which is infallible. Encyclicals of the Pope, outside of solemn definitions within them, are not part of the universal ordinary magisterium. In this document, he’s actually misquoted Denz. 1792: Fr. John quotes it as “either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary magisterium”, whereas Denz. 1792 actually reads “either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power”. I don’t have access to the Latin original, but I would trust Denz. as being accurate and think Fr. John merely misquoted it (leaving out an important word, though). Canon Law sides with me on this one:
Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Those two cover things which require the “assent of faith”. But then Canon Law goes on:
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.
And Lumen Gentium, n. 25, says as much:
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
The phrase “religious assent” and “religious submission of mind/intellect and will” is used INSTEAD OF “assent of faith”, “definitive”, “held definitively” for a reason: these teachings are not infallible.

Finally, see this document (DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), especially paragraph 10.

The non-universal ordinary magisterium of the Church is non-infallible. It requires assent of mind and will, not of faith.

 

[Kevin_Driffield]

Originally posted by Kevin Driffield

Of course not. I simply wanted to remind people that the Crusades were a response, and were not unprovoked. The preaching of some saints as part of the Inquisition undoubtedly saved many people from the physical and spiritual harm of heresies, especially heresies such as that of the Cathars, who taught that life and marriage were evil, and that suicide was a sacrament. The church tribunals found few people guilty, who were then executed by the state. During the Reformation, a lot of propaganda was put out against the Church on this subject, which unfortunately is still with us. By the way, did you know that Galileo remained on friendly terms with Pope Urban VIII, received an annual pension of 100 crowns annually from the Holy See, and that the Pope gave him Apostolic Benediction before his death? I just wanted to counter the arguments of people who think the Church is always wrong.

 

[saint_rafael]

True, the doctrine on the Eucharist is a doctrine. The manner of reception however, is not. It is rubrics.

The only thing we need to watch out for is the possible desecration oh the host when received by hand. But it is not doctrine.

I was too young when the change took place but as I’ve posted before, as much reverence or even more can be achieved by receiving by hand.

The dwindling respect and appreciation of the Eucharist is not due to this change. A lot of it is due to the liberal theology being bandied about. It is due to a lack of catechism of the post Vatican II generation.

Those of us who perhaps know a little bit more than the rest, should perhaps get involved in some sort of catechical formation in our parishes and lift the general understanding regarding the Eucharist.

One thing I have learned as well, is to thoroughly check the reasons for the change in this and that rubric, and this and that understanding of a doctrine, rather condeming outright the change.

The rubrics or receiving always follows the development in the doctrine of the Eucharist. The two go together. It is impossible to have the rubrics of receiving separate from how the doctrine of the Eucharist is understood.

Receiving in the hand is irreverence by itself. Communion in the Hand will cause a gradual loss of faith in the real presence, pieces or particles of the sacred Host is lost, and as St. Thomas Aquinas taught the Church, to touch the Sacred Host with the hands is the privilege of the ordained.

75-80% of Catholics do not believe in the real presence. This is the direct result of receiving Communion in the Hand while standing, instead of the traditional kneeling on the tongue, and of the abuse that is EMHC.

Communion in the hand is an obsolte practice. It is not part of the tradition of the Church. A tradition is one that is living now. There has been no development in doctrine in the Eucharist is 500 yers. The doctrine is settled. The Council of Trent settled the doctrine of the Eucharist already.

Protestants changed Communion in the Hand forever and it is the error of Antiquarianism. See post #72

 

[Ed_Hartmann]

I tried to stay out of any further discussion on this topic since I believe that Jesus does not concern himself with receiving the Eucharist in the hand or on the tongue.He must rejoice when His children come to the table. Then I read the reply by saint Rafael. To say that I am astounded by his comments is an understatement. The good people who come to the Eucharist with their hands out receive this gift with the most reverence.They are not about to abandon their faith. The statement that touching the Eucharist is a privilege of the ordained goes beyond anything I have ever heard. Does that privilege also include the ordained who raped and soul murdered our children? The ordained have no more right to touch the Eucharist than I have. If it is a privilege for them then it is a privilege for me. Please stop placing the clergy above the laity. Our baptism is what gives all of us an equal right to hold the Eucharist in our hands.
To blame our posture for the decline in the belief of the real presence is just nonsense. The real reason is that the institutional church has lost its credibility. A well educated laity has witnessed the corruption in the hierarchy and decided that they can no longer support this dreadful lack of leadership. The church needs serious reform, but that does not include how we receive the Eucharist.

 

[benedictus2]

The rubrics or receiving always follows the development in the doctrine of the Eucharist.

Rubrics may follow doctrine but it is still not doctrine. So to go back to a previous practice is still not devolution of doctrine.

I have not read up on this but can you enlighten me if you know the answer, as to what developed in the doctrine of the Eucharist for the reception to change from hand to tongue.

From what I remember, this was due to an over reaction to Arianism such that there came an over emphasis on Christ’s Divinity and a downplaying of his Humanity.

I do not think receiving in the tongue is wrong, but i content that it is equally valid to receive Him in the hand.

Receiving in the hand is irreverence by itself.

How and Says who?

75-80% of Catholics do not believe in the real presence. This is the direct result of receiving Communion in the Hand

Can you prove causality?

Communion in the hand is an obsolte practice.

How can it be obsolete when more Catholics receive Christ this way?

a) It is not part of the tradition of the Church. B) A tradition is one that is living now.

A) Sorry, but it was part of the tradition of the church.
**B) **I agree. And communion in the hand is how we the living, do it NOW.

Popes have approved it. Those of you who whinge about it are not the Pope. So, do you think you know better than Pope Benedict?

Protestants changed Communion in the Hand forever and it is the error of Antiquarianism. See post #72

Arguing that because this is the protestant way it automatically makes this way erroneous is ludicrous. (Can’t believe I’d ever have cause to say that

 

[Walking_Home]

I tried to stay out of any further discussion on this topic since I believe that Jesus does not concern himself with receiving the Eucharist in the hand or on the tongue.He must rejoice when His children come to the table. Then I read the reply by saint Rafael. To say that I am astounded by his comments is an understatement. The good people who come to the Eucharist with their hands out receive this gift with the most reverence.They are not about to abandon their faith.** The statement that touching the Eucharist is a privilege of the ordained goes beyond anything I have ever heard. **Does that privilege also include the ordained who raped and soul murdered our children? The ordained have no more right to touch the Eucharist than I have. If it is a privilege for them then it is a privilege for me. Please stop placing the clergy above the laity. Our baptism is what gives all of us an equal right to hold the Eucharist in our hands.
To blame our posture for the decline in the belief of the real presence is just nonsense. The real reason is that the institutional church has lost its credibility. A well educated laity has witnessed the corruption in the hierarchy and decided that they can no longer support this dreadful lack of leadership. The church needs serious reform, but that does not include how we receive the Eucharist.

---

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

LETTER
DOMINICAE CENAE
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO ALL THE BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH
ON THE MYSTERY AND WORSHIP
OF THE EUCHARIST

In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion, that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those countries where this practice has been authorized.

**But one must not forget the primary office of priests, who have been consecrated by their ordination to represent Christ the Priest: for this reason their hands, like their words and their will, have become the direct instruments of Christ. **Through this fact, that is, as ministers of the Holy Eucharist, they have a primary responsibility for the sacred species, because it is a total responsibility: they offer the bread and wine, they consecrate it, and then distribute the sacred species to the participants in the assembly who wish to receive them. Deacons can only bring to the altar the offerings of the faithful and, once they have been consecrated by the priest, distribute them. How eloquent therefore, even if not of ancient custom, is the rite of the anointing of the hands in our Latin ordination, as though precisely for these hands a special grace and power of the Holy Spirit is necessary!

To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.

 

[japhy]

The good people who come to the Eucharist with their hands out receive this gift with the most reverence.

That’s a rather general claim.

The statement that touching the Eucharist is a privilege of the ordained goes beyond anything I have ever heard.

Pope John Paul II, in 1980, wrote this in Dominicae Cenae: “To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist. It is obvious that the Church can grant this faculty to those who are neither priests nor deacons, as is the case with acolytes in the exercise of their ministry, especially if they are destined for future ordination, or with other lay people who are chosen for this to meet a just need, but always after an adequate preparation.” (n. 10)

Does that privilege also include the ordained who raped and soul murdered our children?

That’s not for you to decide.

The ordained have no more right to touch the Eucharist than I have. If it is a privilege for them then it is a privilege for me. Please stop placing the clergy above the laity. Our baptism is what gives all of us an equal right to hold the Eucharist in our hands.

That’s not for you to decide. What authority do you have to dictate the practices of the Church and the privileges of the ordained? Do you also have a right to consecrate the Eucharist? To ordain a man a priest?

The clergy have the ministerial priesthood, which is a separate order from the baptismal priesthood. They are different from us. In a way, they are “above” us, because they have been chosen by God for a very special and necessary ministry in His Church, a ministry which involves the administration of the sacraments, but also to teach, govern, and sanctify.

To blame our posture for the decline in the belief of the real presence is just nonsense. The real reason is that the institutional church has lost its credibility. A well educated laity has witnessed the corruption in the hierarchy and decided that they can no longer support this dreadful lack of leadership.

So we need better bishops, priests, and deacons… not a new (non-)hierarchical system. But the institutional Church – which is the only Church there is, you know… you can’t separate the hierarchy component of the Church from the rest of the Church – can never lose its credibility in the real sense, because She is protected by the Holy Spirit. People can lose faith in Her because of the fact that She is made up of sinners, but the Church itself is not to blame.

The church needs serious reform, but that does not include how we receive the Eucharist.

What type of reform does the Church need, in your opinion?

 

[Walking_Home]

Interview in La Repubblica by Marco Politi with His Excellency Arch. Malcohm Ranjith, Secretary of the Congregation of Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments concerning Pope Benedict XVI’s plan for the Liturgy.

wdtprs.com/blog/2008/07/cdws-archbp-ranjith-on-pope-benedicts-plan-with-the-liturgy/

Does putting the Host in the hand diminish the sense of transcendence of the Eucharist?
"Yes, in a certain sense. It risks that the communicant feel It to be as normal bread. The Holy Father speaks often of the necessity of safeguarding the sense of "transcendence" (al di la) in the liturgy in its every expression. The gesture of taking the Sacred Host and putting it ourselves in the mouth and not receiving It reduces the profound meaning of Communion."

 

[japhy]

In this document, he’s actually misquoted Denz. 1792: Fr. John quotes it as “either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary magisterium”, whereas Denz. 1792 actually reads “either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power”. I don’t have access to the Latin original, but I would trust Denz. as being accurate and think Fr. John merely misquoted it (leaving out an important word, though).

I have since found the Latin text of Dei Filius, Chapter 3, n. 8:
DS #3011 (Old Denz. #1792) Porro fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur et ab Ecclesia sive solemni judicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur. (Source)

 

[Roza]

Question, Communion in the hand had it’s start in the 80’s too didn’t it? I remember it starting before I drifted off. I myself never did Communion in the hand back in the 80’s or currently.

Due to how my sight can still throw me off a bit and due to it being easy for me to drop things (I assume I have CTS), I assume it’s ok not to partake in the blood/wine?

 

[Andruschak]

I agree that communion in the hand is a bad practice. Some have said it has brought about a loss of faith among the faithful.

Um…OK, perhaps I am being dense…but I don’t quite understand how communion in hand leads to loss of faith and communion on tongue increases it.

Now when I was in RCIA, I was informed that both types were equally valid, and we had the choice.

Now I choose communion on the tongue, but not to be holier then thou, better then the handers, better somehow because I take it on the tongue.:dts:

No, I choose communion on the tongue since that was the way I learned in the Lutheran Church, as a teenager. That’s all. Just a learned habit:shrug:

 

[japhy]

Question, Communion in the hand had it’s start in the 80’s too didn’t it? I remember it starting before I drifted off. I myself never did Communion in the hand back in the 80’s or currently.

It began to be permitted in 1969! I don’t remember when the US received the indult, but I believe it was in the mid-to-late 70’s. (I wasn’t alive then.)

As the document I’ve linked to points out, this indult – this permission – for receiving Communion in the hand is (was?) only designed to be offered to those places where the practice is already illegally committed and the bishops either feel powerless to prevent it or think it would be pastorally insensitive to forbid it. I have a feeling, in my gut, that once word of the very existence of the indult got out, those who were in favor of Communion in the hand encouraged it so that they could eventually receive the indult.

Due to how my sight can still throw me off a bit and due to it being easy for me to drop things (I assume I have CTS), I assume it’s ok not to partake in the blood/wine?

Certainly: one receives the whole Jesus under either form.