Communion in the Hand

[palmas85]

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:

The Church went to receiving on the tongue beacause to a great degree people had lost sight of exactly what communion was. People would use consecrated Hosts as love charms, amulets to ward off sickness, as a good luck charm etc.It was used in healing ceremonies. People had private exhibitions in their homes for which they charged admission. They were used in Satanic ceremonies, It was used in fortune telling ceremonies and if you needed one you could purchase. Many of the laity really didn’t know exactly what they were doing.

Now could these things happen today?

Well a Host consecrated at a Papal Mass was offered for sale on E-Bay recently.

A college professor recently obtained a consecrated Host and desecrated it after making a search on the internet and through the Media to get one.

People have written to this very forum and asked what is the best way to preserve and exhibit the Host in their homes.

The Host is used in healing ceremonies in various areas by faith healers.

Now I’m not stupid and I know that where there is a will there is a way and if people really want to get one they will.

I’ll say this. many Catholics today apparently believe that the consecrated Host is only a symbol anyway. For me that is a very bad thing and something that we as Catholics should be concerned with greatly.

Would receiving on the tongue help to develop and instill a deeper sense of reference for and belief in the Real Presence? I don’t know, but it really wouldn’t hurt. And as I have repeatedly said, I have never ever at any time seen a coherant reason as to why we do it anyway.

 

[Roza]

Well a Host consecrated at a Papal Mass was offered for sale on E-Bay recently.

I remember still being in my anti bout when that host was on eBay and sadly I was joking about it with other ex’s I know. I know better now, I don’t know why I so missed everything before other than I know 20 yrs ago I was more into the NAM. Wasn’t that 2 or 3 years ago or was there another more recently? The one I remember was, I thought from a Mass JPII said.

 

[mlchance]

Now I’m not stupid and I know that where there is a will there is a way and if people really want to get one they will.

Which pretty much demolishes the first half of your post. Let’s not forget: Abuses of the Body of Christ happened even when reception in the hand was not permitted. In fact, there’re Eucharistic miracles associated with such abuses.

I’ll say this. many Catholics today apparently believe that the consecrated Host is only a symbol anyway. For me that is a very bad thing and something that we as Catholics should be concerned with greatly.

Would receiving on the tongue help to develop and instill a deeper sense of reference for and belief in the Real Presence? I don’t know, but it really wouldn’t hurt.

Agreed, it wouldn’t hurt, but it wouldn’t necessarily make things any better. For my money, I’d bet on the loss of faith in the Real Presence having more to do with the so many priests and bishops openly dissenting from Humanae Vitae that it does with the mode of reception.

After all, if I don’t have the faith to trust the Church with something as tangible as sex, how can I have the faith to trust the Church regarding the mysteries of faith?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[palmas85]

Which pretty much demolishes the first half of your post. Let’s not forget: Abuses of the Body of Christ happened even when reception in the hand was not permitted. In fact, there’re Eucharistic miracles associated with such abuses.

Agreed, it wouldn’t hurt, but it wouldn’t necessarily make things any better. For my money, I’d bet on the loss of faith in the Real Presence having more to do with the so many priests and bishops openly dissenting from Humanae Vitae that it does with the mode of reception.

After all, if I don’t have the faith to trust the Church with something as tangible as sex, how can I have the faith to trust the Church regarding the mysteries of faith?

– Mark L. Chance.

I disagree. The relative ease with which one can secrete a Host when receiving in the hand makes the whole thing easier for the majority of the people. While possible to remove a host while receiving on the tongue the host is almost invariably damaged as a result as not suitable for exhibitions etc.

I think the reasons are all related and intertwined. You have to start somewhere and starting with the simplest things can often have amazing effects.

Years ago New York City was in the midst if a virtual crime wave falling apart as it were. The mayor and Police Commissioner made a decision that enraged millions nationwide. They went after the small timers, hustlers, street criminals etc that were often overlooked when going after those who committed more serious crimes. Guess what happened.

The atmosphere on the streets changed in the areas where the crackdown was instituted. It was found that by correcting small things the general acceptance of them changed as well. In fact the number of larger crimes started dropping. It was determined that was the result in a change of attitude. People were no longer willing to accept the small criminality that they had accepted before as being inevetible and in some fashion that extended all the way up.

People today in the Catholic Church are in pretty much the same boat. We accept all the little abuses and deviations because we think they cannot be corrected. Most of these abuses come about from a lack of reverence, So by changing the way we view the Eucharist just may in some sense change the way we view everything else. As I said, it wouldn’t hurt.

 

[mlchance]

…People today in the Catholic Church are in pretty much the same boat. We accept all the little abuses and deviations because we think they cannot be corrected.

Good point, except receiving Communion in the hand isn’t an issue of criminality or an abuse, which sort of goes against your larger point.

It is too commonly asserted without a shred of evidence that receiving Communion in the hand has led to a widespread crisis of faith in the Real Presence. Heck, one is hard-pressed to even seriously document this alleged crisis of faith.

I receive Communion in the hand. I have no doubt about the Real Presence. I strive, by the grace of God, to make a genuine effort to receive Christ worthily and with reverence. If the Church decides to change the rules for receiving the Eucharist, I shall humbly submit to her authority.

Now, admittedly, getting rid of Communion in the hand would probably be a good thing. I can’t see it alienating anyone who takes seriously both the Real Presence and Church authority.

Still, I’d favor other changes, such as the return of the Tabernacle to the church proper rather than being relegated to a chapel, more frequent exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, firmer catechesis and homiletics related to the Real Presence, and a much more vigorous emphasis on the Church’s doctrines related to sexual morality (to include refusing Communion to those known publicly to defy such doctrines).

But that’s just me.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Kevin_Driffield]

I disagree. The relative ease with which one can secrete a Host when receiving in the hand makes the whole thing easier for the majority of the people. While possible to remove a host while receiving on the tongue the host is almost invariably damaged as a result as not suitable for exhibitions etc.

There is an easily obtained chemical, available in any drug store, It is probably present in bathroom cabinets of most households who have an adult male. This chemical without causing any danger to health dries up the mouth for a period long enough for a communion wafer to remain undamaged in the mouth. This fact was known to satanists in the 19th century. Of all the reasons for banning reception of the Sacred Host in the hand the prevention of desecration is the least plausible.
]

 

[palmas85]

Good point, except receiving Communion in the hand isn’t an issue of criminality or an abuse, which sort of goes against your larger point.

It is too commonly asserted without a shred of evidence that receiving Communion in the hand has led to a widespread crisis of faith in the Real Presence. Heck, one is hard-pressed to even seriously document this alleged crisis of faith.

I receive Communion in the hand. I have no doubt about the Real Presence. I strive, by the grace of God, to make a genuine effort to receive Christ worthily and with reverence. If the Church decides to change the rules for receiving the Eucharist, I shall humbly submit to her authority.

Now, admittedly, getting rid of Communion in the hand would probably be a good thing. I can’t see it alienating anyone who takes seriously both the Real Presence and Church authority.

Still, I’d favor other changes, such as the return of the Tabernacle to the church proper rather than being relegated to a chapel, more frequent exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, firmer catechesis and homiletics related to the Real Presence, and a much more vigorous emphasis on the Church’s doctrines related to sexual morality (to include refusing Communion to those known publicly to defy such doctrines).

But that’s just me.

– Mark L. Chance.

As would I. I don’t know if receiving in the hand has led to a lack of faith. I do know why the Church stopped allowing the practice many years ago and I see much of the same today.

 

[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?

Go to website Ut Unum Sint. ]http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0221/__PC.HTM
CHAP. 1 PARA 6

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25051995_ut-unum-sint_en.html

The growth of communion #10 papra 3 AND 11 PARA.3 especially.

12 or put in a google search for Ut Unum Sint churches outside the Catholic Church​

 

[Aramis]

There was a reason why for 1,000 years Communion in the Hand was forbidden.

Pope Paul VI made a huge blunder. Pope Pius XII has already decalared that going back to the primitive or early Church was the error of antiquarianism that he wrote about in his encyclical “Mediator Dei”. The church grows organically and one can never contradict this organic growth and the tradition that is guided by the Holy Spirit.

The Protestants changed Communion in the Hand forever. It can no longer be used by Catholics because Communion in the Hand is now a Protestant practice that is used on purpose to deny the real presence. They believe it is only bread and a symbol. and that is what Communion in the Hand is meant to convey.

Actually, communion in the hand has been in use in the Syriac and Armenian rites, both in union with rome and outside union with rome, since the apostolic era, and into the present. Likewise, communion via spoon under both species has been the practice of the Byzantine rite (both within union and outside it) since the aposotlic era.

The Church only discontinued reception in the hand by laity in the Latin Rite, and reinstituted it. It’s a discipline, and one that has been retained for the clerics the whole time.

What the protestants do or do not do is immaterial to the validity and licitness of the Catholic liturgies (note the plural!) of the various rites.

 

[japhy]

Go to Ut Unum Sint.

He’s quoting Vatican II documents (Unitatis Redintegratio and Lumen Gentium); those documents didn’t define in a dogmatic way the relationships between the Catholic Church, separated Churches, and other Christian ecclesial communities, but presented the pastoral situation in a matter-of-fact way.

 

[benedictus2]

I think we can shed a bit more light into this issue if we can establish;

1. 
   *]When did we start receiving communion on the tongue instead of by hand
   *]Is there a document (council documents, encyclical, papal bull,etc) decreeing the change?
   *]Reason given for the change?
   *]Why did we revert to hand communion post Vatican II?
   *]What reasons were given for the change? Documents relating to this change.
   From what little I know, the change from hand to tongue had to do with an over-reaction to Arianism.
   
   Any one care to do a bit of research on this and enlighten us all?

 

[japhy]

When did we start receiving communion on the tongue instead of by hand?

This article draft is a helpful source. There are references to Pope St. Leo the Great – “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” (“Hoc enim ore sumitur quod fide creditur”), Sermon 91.3 – and Pope St. Agapitus – from Pope St. Gregory the Great’s Dialogos 3.117 – both of which involve the reception of Holy Communion directly into the mouth. The quote from Pope Leo I is probably the basis for the prayer used in the Mass (older and newer forms) while the priest is carrying out the ablutions, which says “What we have taken with our mouth, O Lord, may we receive with a pure mind: and from a temporal gift may it become for us an everlasting remedy” (“Quod ore súmpsimus, Dómine, pura mente capiámus: et de múnere temporáli fiat nobis remédium sempitérnum”).

Even clearer are references to the Council of Rouen (878): “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but only in their mouths” (“nulli autem laico aut feminae eucharistiam in manibus ponat, sed tantum in os eius”); and an earlier council known as “In Trullo” (692) which made it unlawful for the laity to give themselves Communion.

Is there a document (council documents, encyclical, papal bull,etc) decreeing the change?

See above. The practice was already well-established by Trent. I could look for some councils prior to Trent to see what they say about it.

Reason given for the change?

Only the priest(s) celebrating the Mass received by their own hand. Even other priests or bishops present would receive on their tongue. The priest is only handling the Host with his hands by necessity. This was due to a growing sense of concern about the true nature of the Eucharist, even care for the particles of it. The oft-quoted catechism of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, while it speaks of receiving in the hand, also speaks of extreme caution lest a particle of the Eucharist fall from the hand!

Why did we revert to hand communion post Vatican II?

People did it illegally at first. Then Pope Paul VI, while reinforcing the Church’s teaching and belief about receiving on the tongue, gave Episcopal Conferences an easy way out. Read it here. There’s not much of a paper trail in existence. It comes down to this: people started the practice illegally so that they could qualify for the indult which would make it legal for the time being.

What reasons were given for the change? Documents relating to this change.

The “change” was not a universal change. Not every Bishops’ Conference in the world has received this indult. The universal mode of reception of Communion is still on the tongue only.

I’ll find whatever documents are related to Communion in the Hand in the compendium Documents on the Liturgy. I’ll get back to you later tonight.

 

[japhy]

Documents on the Liturgy, Section 8.A – pages 637-66, documents 252-267, paragraphs 2034-2104 – covers documents on Holy Communion’s minister and rites.

DOL 252 [Quo actuosius (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=264606) (25 April 1964) was a decree from the Sacred Congregation of Rites which resulted in the formulary for distribution of Communion to be changed to Corpus Christi. / Amen.

DOL 253 (24 April 1965) authorizes certain women religious in Brazil to give Communion, under certain conditions (experimental, for one year).

DOL 255 (31 May 1966) sets forth a particular rite to be followed by women religious in Canada authorized to distribute Communion (no time period given).

DOL 256 (11 November 1966) authorizes superiors of nonclerical men religious and women religious in Canada to give Communion to themselves and to the religious under them and the faithful present, under certain conditions (for three years).

DOL 257 (14 February 1968) authorizes bishops in West Germany to deputize laypersons for the distribution of Communion, under certain conditions (no time period given).

DOL 258 (28 November 1968) authorizes bishops in Jamaica to deputize laypersons for the distribution of Communion, under certain conditions (for three years).

DOL 259 Fidei Custos (30 April 1969) is an Instruction from Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments regarding special ministers to administer communion. It’s not available online, but I could take the time to type it up if someone desires it.

DOL 260 [Memoriale Domini (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM) (29 May 1969) is an Instruction from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on the manner of giving Communion.

DOL 261 [En réponse à la demande (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWREPON.HTM) (29 May 1969) is a letter from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship to the presidents of episcopal conferences who petitioned for the indult for Communion in the hand.

As far as English-speaking episcopal conferences are concerned, these are the dates on which the indults were granted:

• South Africa - 3 Feb 1970
• Canada - 12 Feb 1970
• Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) - 2 Oct 1971
• Zambia - 11 Mar 1974
• New Zealand - 24 Apr 1974
• Australia - 26 Sep 1975
• England and Wales - 6 Mar 1976
• Papua New Guinea - 28 Apr 1976
• Ireland - 4 Sep 1976
• Pakistan - 29 Oct 1976
• USA - 17 Jun 1977
• Sctoland - 7 Jul 1977
• Malaysia and Singapore - 3 Oct 1977

So receiving Communion in the hand was done illegally in the US until the middle of 1977.

DOL 262 (25 June 1969) authorizes the Bishop of Duluth, Minnesota, to deputize laypersons to give Communion, under certain conditions (for three years).

DOL 263 (9 March 1971) authorizes bishops in the US to deputize layperson to give Communion, under certain conditions (for one year).

DOL 264 [Immensae Caritatis (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWIMCAR.htm) (29 January 1973) is an Instruction from the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments concerning reception of Communion in certain circumstances. It has one section on so-called “special ministers of the Eucharist” and one section on “devotion and reverence toward the EUcharist in the case of Communion in the hand”.

DOL 265 and 266 deal with receiving Communion and worship of the Eucharist outside of Mass. Not relevant here, except for a brief mention of the manner in which Communion is to be received (DOL 266, n. 2099).

DOL 267 Instructione “Memoriale Domini” (17 March 1976) is a letter from the Sacred Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Worship to presidents of episcopal conferences regarding Communion in the hand. It mentions that while “the reason for returning to the ancient and established practice of placing the consecrated bread on the hand were indeed sound and remain so”, nevertheless there were reports of “acts lacking reverence toward the Eucharist and other abuses” which make it clear that there is a need for “an insistent and careful catechesis”. It calls for a report from them (no later than Christmas of that year) concerning “all points pertinent to the introduction of the new usage for giving Communion.”

Why have I written this up? I am convinced that the desire for Communion in the hand is directly related to the permission for lay-people to distribute Holy Communion, which itself is related to the scarcity of priests. Once laypeople could give Communion (and thus touch the Host with their hands), why shouldn’t laypeople be allowed to receive Communion in their hands? A rabid application of democratization which sometimes went too far (where people were forbidden from receiving on the tongue).

 

[benedictus2]

To Japhy’s posts 111 & 112,

Wow! Thanks very much for that.

Havent’t had a chance to read it all but the little I’ve read has clarrified a lot of murky areas for me.

 

[antonabe]

I agree that if one believes in the real presence communion will not be received in the Hand.I remember during the time the SARS disease was widespread in Singapore I put out my tongue in the customary way and the Priest showed his displeasure by a gesture as everyone else had extended the hand.I believe the question of infallibility does not arise in matters of this nature as it is not strictly related to Dogma and Morals.Long years back every lady Catholic attending Church has to cover their heads with a Veil and that is not practiced any more.The point I am trying to make is that practises in the liturgy may change as someone said because Man has changed not the Church.With the changes in the environment man always desires change and that is one of the greatest criticism levelled against the Church is that she has not changed with the times.But the reachings of Jesus Christ will never change and thus the Church will never change in respect of Dogma and Morals.

 

[peary]

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. How does on reconcile it to this quote from a theologian?

When you think about it, receiving Communion on the tongue is unbiblical. At the Last Supper, Christ didn’t place bread into the apostles’ mouths, did he? He told them to “Take, and eat.” I think there would have been a loss of faith regardless, whether or not communion was given on the tongue OR in the hand. That is just the malaise the Church is presently in.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Japhy,

Not sure if you can answer this but you seem to know where to find the answers.

On the question of when we changed from hand to tongue, you cited some writings but they all relate to the time when the custom was already to receive the Eucharist on the tongue.

I was thinking more of the time prior to this. I am assuming that the very first Christians (from say 34AD to maybe 200AD but this is just a guess) would have been receiving by hand as was customary in those days. So I am wondering why it changed when it did and when did this happen?

If the change happend around the time of the Arian heresy (300AD), wuld this have had anything to do with the change?

A priest friend once mentioned that there was an over reaction to the Arian resulting on an over emphasis on Christ’s Divinity.

Please don’t think I am making you do all the leg work as I will try to do some research myself.

 

[benedictus2]

Having read more of Japhy’s post and some others, I have come to the conclusion that the issue with Hand Communion has much less to do with the lack, or diminishment thereof, of our reverence for the sacrament, than with greater possibilities of desecration.

I am sure though that were the Magisterium to think this a very great risk, then the practice would be stopped.

Our hands are not any less “dirty and sinful” and therefore undeserving of contact with Christ’s body than our tongue. When you come to think of it, it is probably worse since that is the instrument with which we “kill” other people with our words. This is the part of our body that enunciate the lies so contrary to Christ’s truth.

A helpful passage to remember here is when Christ was admonished by the Pharisees for allowing his disciples to eat without washing their hands.

I could very well line up for communion and receive it on my tongue and still not have much of an appreciation of the sacredness of what I am receiving.

I am a post Vatican II child and I have grown in faith receiving communion in my hand. I don’t think having the Body of Christ placed directly on my tongue will change the value I place on this sacrament. I could not receive it more reverently if I tried.

I actually prefer receiving Him this way. I step aside, spend sometime in contemplation, then I eat. But I am very mindful to feel around my left palm for any fragments. This last bit I did not use to do, only after having read about it so I can’t stress that the issue here is education.

When my niece had her First Communion, I instructed her to do the same.

I think what we all need is to gain a better appreciation of the entire Mass and not just the Liturgy of the Eucharist and for that matter communion.

There is this couple in church who would turn up for Sunday Mass late most of the time (sometimes the tail end of the homily) and during communion would kneel and receive on their tongue.

They obviously value the Eucharist very much, and yet time and again, they failed to turn up early enough for the Word of God.

One Church Father (I can’t remember who) wrote that “to fail to listen attentively to the Word of God would be the same thing as having allowed the Body of Christ to fall to the ground “(this is not verbatim as I can’t find the exact quote).

Still, I too have my peeves about the liturgical abuses that happen in some of the churches I have attended. One that really grates is when people sit during the consecration. Talking about irreverence, that, I think is one.

The growing lack of appreciation for the Eucharist cannot be traced back to this change in mode of reception. That is much too simplistic a conclusion.

A lot is due to the fact that there are priests who are outright in disagreement with the Magisterium and preach as much. The very vocal liberals who get a lot of mention in the papers, is another one.

Then there are those of us who do not know much about what the Mass is and can probably not give a good enough rebuttal should someone tell them that “I don’t need to go to Mass, I can pray anywhere”.

How we live our lives (yes US) can also lead to the general disenchantment with the Catholic Church and her beliefs and practices. We’re probably giving bad examples in being hypocritical, arrogant, dogmatic to the extreme, etc.

But I am not worried. This is Christ’s Church after all and He will guide it always into all truth.

I try to live as best a Christian life as I can (not always succeeding) and take comfort in His promise to Julian of Norwich: All will be well. All manner of things shall be well.

 

[peary]

The calling of crusades and the verdicts of the Inquisition judges are not papal teaching on faith and morals. Hence they are not covered by the doctrine of infallibility.

BTW, the crusades were called in response to the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim’s destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, and to safeguard Christian pilgrims who were under attack by Moslems on their journey to the Holy Land. As for the Inquisition, its courts were conducted much more justly than other courts of the times. The pope protested against abuses that crept in, as when figures of authority attempted to use the courts of the Inquisition for their own purposes but he was often ignored. The Vatican sponsored Galileo’s work and asked him to wait before publishing his as yet unproven theory.

FINALLY, a voice of reason in here! Thank you.

 

[japhy]

I was thinking more of the time prior to this. I am assuming that the very first Christians (from say 34AD to maybe 200AD but this is just a guess) would have been receiving by hand as was customary in those days.

I don’t know of any such record.

A priest friend once mentioned that there was an over reaction to the Arian resulting on an over emphasis on Christ’s Divinity.

I wouldn’t call forbidding Communion in the hand, and requiring Communion on the tongue, an “over-reaction”. I think it emphasizes all the right things.