Communion in the Hand

[antonabe]

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.

When communion is received in the tongue there is a degree of greater reverence as the the hands are usually clasped in reverence when the tongue is extended to receive communion.There are some in our Church who still geneflect.I believe we should leave it to the the individual to decide how he would like to receive and not make it obligatory to receive one way or another.The important thing is to believe in the real presence

 

[Kevin_Driffield]

Communion in the hand
I have been re- reading the the many previous threads of this discussion. The obvious importancethat so many attatch to the reception of this most Blessed Sacrament is inspiring but some of the comments are perhaps a trifle fatuous. Reasons such as" the mouth is cleaner than the hand" for instance or that retaining the Sacred Host for future desecration is easier through manual reception.
There also is a .pre-occupation concerning the fragments - (Our Lord is present in the consecrated host for as long as it can be perceived as bread.) I am not sure how large or small a crumb has to be before it can stil be perceived as bread. Our Lord knew before He humbled Himself to take the form of bread and wine that bread is friable and wine is spillable, as long as no direct intention of disrespect is intended by these occurrances just continue with your own devotions.
My overall impression is that most corespondents are concentrating too much on externals and are losing sight of the magnitude of the act of receiving His Body Blood Soul and Divinity within our bodies.
God is present always “in Him we live and move and have our being.” From the fruits of the Incarnation we are in the presence of Our Lord in a way that is easier to comprehend because he became a human being like us and told us “where two or three are gathered together in my name I am there in the midst of them”. An even greater intensity of our awareness of the Divine presence is when we enter a building where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved but the greatest intimacy we can achieve with Our Loving Lord is when we receive him in Communion. We must make the most of those precious fleeting moments before the bread and wine are absorbed by the natural digestive processes of thebody and ignore what other people are doing.

 

[japhy]

Reasons such as" the mouth is cleaner than the hand" for instance or that retaining the Sacred Host for future desecration is easier through manual reception.

In all honesty, the Host must get to the mouth eventually… need it get there by our hands?

There also is a pre-occupation concerning the fragments - (Our Lord is present in the consecrated host for as long as it can be perceived as bread.) I am not sure how large or small a crumb has to be before it can stil be perceived as bread.

The “pre-occupation”, as you call it, has been with the Church a very long time. Even the text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem which describes the manner of receiving in the hands also warns the recipient to be very careful about particles of the Eucharist.

The Real Presence is there so long as the accidents (appearances) of bread and wine remain. Crumbs of bread still have the appearance of bread.

My overall impression is that most corespondents are concentrating too much on externals and are losing sight of the magnitude of the act of receiving His Body Blood Soul and Divinity within our bodies.

I think we want to balance the two: we want to appreciate the magnitude of the gift we are receiving, we want to receive our Lord reverently, and we want to make sure that we treat the Eucharist with the reverence and care due to it. That means we can’t be content with just having a clean body, a sound mind, and a pious heart: we need also a watchful eye.

God is present always “in Him we live and move and have our being.” From the fruits of the Incarnation we are in the presence of Our Lord in a way that is easier to comprehend because he became a human being like us and told us “where two or three are gathered together in my name I am there in the midst of them”. An even greater intensity of our awareness of the Divine presence is when we enter a building where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved but the greatest intimacy we can achieve with Our Loving Lord is when we receive him in Communion.

Right: God is omnipresent, but the manner (or mode) of His presence is not the same everywhere. He is present substantially (that is, in His substance) in the Eucharist, unlike other presences.

 

[benedictus2]

Communion in the hand
I have been re- reading the the many previous threads of this discussion. The obvious importancethat so many attatch to the reception of this most Blessed Sacrament is inspiring but some of the comments are perhaps a trifle fatuous. Reasons such as" the mouth is cleaner than the hand" for instance or that retaining the Sacred Host for future desecration is easier through manual reception.
There also is a .pre-occupation concerning the fragments - (Our Lord is present in the consecrated host for as long as it can be perceived as bread.) I am not sure how large or small a crumb has to be before it can stil be perceived as bread. Our Lord knew before He humbled Himself to take the form of bread and wine that bread is friable and wine is spillable, as long as no direct intention of disrespect is intended by these occurrances just continue with your own devotions.
My overall impression is that most corespondents are concentrating too much on externals and are losing sight of the magnitude of the act of receiving His Body Blood Soul and Divinity within our bodies.
God is present always “in Him we live and move and have our being.” From the fruits of the Incarnation we are in the presence of Our Lord in a way that is easier to comprehend because he became a human being like us and told us “where two or three are gathered together in my name I am there in the midst of them”. An even greater intensity of our awareness of the Divine presence is when we enter a building where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved but the greatest intimacy we can achieve with Our Loving Lord is when we receive him in Communion. We must make the most of those precious fleeting moments before the bread and wine are absorbed by the natural digestive processes of thebody and ignore what other people are doing.

Excellent post!

 

[benedictus2]

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.

Top marks for your post!

Although I don’t think the discontinuance of reception by hand began with the Tridentine Mass. I believe this began earlier.

But the point about the different rites is very good. There is even a rite that Rome has declared valid and this rite does not have the actual words of consecration, i.e." This is my body… this is my blood."

 

[Lynn_Suer]

Originally posted by Benedictus2There is even a rite that Rome has declared valid and this rite does not have the actual words of consecration, i.e." This is my body… this is my blood."

Not possible.

 

[Aramis]

Not possible.

Quite possible. The Anaphora of Sts. Addai and Mari, used in the Maronite Quorbono.

It contains an institution narrative, but not the direct quotation of Christ’s words.

 

[japhy]

Although I don’t think the discontinuance of reception by hand began with the Tridentine Mass. I believe this began earlier.

Aramis did not say the discontinuance began with the Tridentine Mass. Aramis used the phrase “the Latin Rite”, which is the liturgy as celebrated in the Roman Church.

But the point about the different rites is very good. There is even a rite that Rome has declared valid and this rite does not have the actual words of consecration, i.e." This is my body… this is my blood."

There’s a question as to whether those words were omitted from written records for secrecy’s sake…

 

[Aramis]

Aramis did not say the discontinuance began with the Tridentine Mass. Aramis used the phrase “the Latin Rite”, which is the liturgy as celebrated in the Roman Church.

Quite true. I also pointed out that communion in the hand is permitted and used in several other rites within the Holy Catholic Church.

There’s a question as to whether those words were omitted from written records for secrecy’s sake…

But, as recorded (and used) the institution narrative without the explicit quote of Christ is accepted by Rome. Perhaps only as an Economia.

The Catholic Church says it is valid. Good enough for me.

 

[VivienneJ]

Communion in the hand
I have been re- reading the the many previous threads of this discussion. The obvious importancethat so many attatch to the reception of this most Blessed Sacrament is inspiring but some of the comments are perhaps a trifle fatuous. Reasons such as" the mouth is cleaner than the hand" for instance or that retaining the Sacred Host for future desecration is easier through manual reception.
There also is a .pre-occupation concerning the fragments - (Our Lord is present in the consecrated host for as long as it can be perceived as bread.) I am not sure how large or small a crumb has to be before it can stil be perceived as bread. Our Lord knew before He humbled Himself to take the form of bread and wine that bread is friable and wine is spillable, as long as no direct intention of disrespect is intended by these occurrances just continue with your own devotions.
My overall impression is that most corespondents are concentrating too much on externals and are losing sight of the magnitude of the act of receiving His Body Blood Soul and Divinity within our bodies.
God is present always “in Him we live and move and have our being.” From the fruits of the Incarnation we are in the presence of Our Lord in a way that is easier to comprehend because he became a human being like us and told us “where two or three are gathered together in my name I am there in the midst of them”. An even greater intensity of our awareness of the Divine presence is when we enter a building where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved but the greatest intimacy we can achieve with Our Loving Lord is when we receive him in Communion. We must make the most of those precious fleeting moments before the bread and wine are absorbed by the natural digestive processes of thebody and ignore what other people are doing.

A sensible refocussing on what is really important about receiving the Eucharist.

Where fragments are concerned, dare I suggest you use your tongue to remove these from your hand?

 

[elts1956]

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.

Certainly: one receives the whole Jesus under either form.

Hi Japhy. It would be interesting to know how these changes came about, when the Dioceses and Parishes in the U.S. received the indult and where one can read it . As I understand of the bit I have read, this ritual of Communion in the hand was not to have been a blanket permission given by a document created during Vatican II.

I don’t think receiving the Host in the hand is evil, nor does it necessarily lead to a lack of reverence, but how did ALL the dioceses in the U.S. decide THIS form was to be available to all parishioners. The form of receiving on the tongue was never denied, but it certainly was not supported by the Hierarchy here in the U.S.

Perhaps this statement of policy and reception was only the beginning for some Bishops to instigate some of their own teachings, some of the drivel Catholics have been taught over the last 48 years. After all, a lot of them possibly established Communion in the Hand without permission from Rome. If they did this without first obtaining Papal permission, one wonders what else they have done that is leading some of us astray.

Boy oh Boy, I have never thought I would be thinking and saying such things about men who have been consecrated to God. Sorry if I have insulted anyone.

 

[elts1956]

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.

Certainly: one receives the whole Jesus under either form.

Not possible.

I went to an NO Mass yesterday, which was done very well, with one exception. Maybe I am nit picking, but at the concescration the priest said “This is my body, This is my blood. Do this as “a” memory of me”. “A” means several, not one important memory doesn’t it? It just didn’t sit well with me.

 

[japhy]

at the concescration the priest said “This is my body, This is my blood. Do this as “a” memory of me”.

There’s no reason not to just read the words of the Missal. Messing with them flirts with invalidity!

This is the thing to do “in memory” of Jesus, because it is a zikkaron, and anamnesis, not just a “memory”.

 

[Lynn_Suer]

Original posted by Aramis: The Anaphora of Sts. Addai and Mari, used in the Maronite Quorbono. It contains an institution narrative, but not the direct quotation of Christ’s words.

Thanks for the references! In case anyone is wondering, in the Liturgy of St. Mark and in the Liturgy of St. James, the priest calls upon God to make this bread the Body of Christ.

 

[japhy]

It would be interesting to know how these changes came about, when the Dioceses and Parishes in the U.S. received the indult and where one can read it. As I understand of the bit I have read, this ritual of Communion in the hand was not to have been a blanket permission given by a document created during Vatican II.

The indult is granted to Episcopal Conferences, whose bishops can choose to apply the indult (that is, allow Communion in the hand) or not. The U.S. Bishops’ Conference received the indult in 1977. So far as I know, all the U.S. bishops since then have applied the indult.

And no, Vatican II never mentioned Communion in the hand at all.

The form of receiving on the tongue was never denied, but it certainly was not supported by the Hierarchy here in the U.S.

Nevermind the hierarchy – they’re not the ones directly catechizing the faithful. Why is it that Joe and Mary Catechist force Communion in the hand upon all our children? Are they even told about the “default” method of reception? If not, they do our children a disservice, and are at least implicitly thumbing their nose at the traditional and universal practice of the Church. Kind of like the standard operating procedure of NEVER teaching our children (or adults) the common Latin responses of the Mass.

Perhaps this statement of policy and reception was only the beginning for some Bishops to instigate some of their own teachings, some of the drivel Catholics have been taught over the last 48 years. After all, a lot of them possibly established Communion in the Hand without permission from Rome. If they did this without first obtaining Papal permission, one wonders what else they have done that is leading some of us astray.

It’s not impossible. It hurts to think/say it, but it’s a realistic possibility.

 

[Aramis]

Thanks for the references! In case anyone is wondering, in the Liturgy of St. Mark and in the Liturgy of St. James, the priest calls upon God to make this bread the Body of Christ.

The DL of St John and St Basil both have the same explicit epiclesis.

 

[LilyM]

A sensible refocussing on what is really important about receiving the Eucharist.

Where fragments are concerned, dare I suggest you use your tongue to remove these from your hand?

Amen! I know that in my years of regularly receiving Communion in the hand - and checking my hands, as taught, for fragments afterward - I can think of very few occasions where ANY visible fragments were present, and it was a simple matter to place those fragments in my mouth.

I am sorry that others have not been taught to do so. More catechesis is definitely require.

That does NOT mean that mandating reception on the tongue would change the minds and hearts of people who currently don’t believe in the Real Presence.

Don’t forget that all of the good folk who formed the first generation of Protestants (and came, in a lot of cases, to deny the Real Presence) would’ve been Catholics receiving on the tongue beforehand. With all respect to those who consider reception on the tongue to be inherently more reverent, it clearly did nothing for these people.

As for those who are intent on secreting a host for sacrilegious purposes, we have evidence of a very recent case in Florida, discussed on these very fora, where a person received on the tongue and yet managed to remove the host from their mouth on their return to their seat, put it in a ziploc bag and take it away from the church intending to ‘hold it for ransom’.

Not to mention evidence of many many black Masses being held throughout the ages when Communion on the Tongue was mandatory.

 

[elts1956]

There’s no reason not to just read the words of the Missal. Messing with them flirts with invalidity!

This is the thing to do “in memory” of Jesus, because it is a zikkaron, and anamnesis, not just a “memory”.

Yes, it just didn’t “feel” for lack of another word, right to me. I thought, okay, what change will he make next? Otherwise the Mass was great.

 

[elts1956]

There’s no reason not to just read the words of the Missal. Messing with them flirts with invalidity!

This is the thing to do “in memory” of Jesus, because it is a zikkaron, and anamnesis, not just a “memory”.

The indult is granted to Episcopal Conferences, whose bishops can choose to apply the indult (that is, allow Communion in the hand) or not. The U.S. Bishops’ Conference received the indult in 1977. So far as I know, all the U.S. bishops since then have applied the indult.

And no, Vatican II never mentioned Communion in the hand at all.

Nevermind the hierarchy – they’re not the ones directly catechizing the faithful. Why is it that Joe and Mary Catechist force Communion in the hand upon all our children? Are they even told about the “default” method of reception? If not, they do our children a disservice, and are at least implicitly thumbing their nose at the traditional and universal practice of the Church. Kind of like the standard operating procedure of NEVER teaching our children (or adults) the common Latin responses of the Mass.

It’s not impossible. It hurts to think/say it, but it’s a realistic possibility.

Hi again Japhy. Does an indult come down as an absolute rule, ie. we do/don’t have permission for Communion in the Hand, but you (the priests) had better do it anyway??? I realize parish priests are to obey the Bishop of the diocese they serve, but would they have had to obey in this case?

 

[japhy]

Does an indult come down as an absolute rule, ie. we do/don’t have permission for Communion in the Hand, but you (the priests) had better do it anyway?

The indult concerning Communion in the hand regards the reception by the faithful: in a given diocese, the bishop either accepts indult – in which case the faithful have permission to receive in the hand – or denies it – in which case the faithful do NOT have that permission. It has nothing to do with individual parishes, priests, or pastors.

So if a bishop accepts the indult, a pastor has no right denying the faithful from receiving in that manner. A priest cannot deny a member of the faithful (who can legally receive) Holy Communion in a manner consonant with all related law (including indults in effect). Priests (and other people) can certainly promote one form over another… but it seems odd to me that they would promote the provisional method over the universal one.

Update: Here’s what the indult looks like (at least, here is what was written for Poland in 2006, when Pope Benedict XVI approved the Polish bishops’ request… something Pope John Paul II refused to do):
Instante Excellentissimo Domino Iosepho Michalik, Archiepiscopo Premisliensi Latinorum, Praeside Conferentiae Episcoporum Poloniae, litteris die 6 martii 2006 datis, vigore facultatum huic Congregationi a Summo Pontifice BENEDICTO XVI tributarum, perlibenter concedimus ut in dioecesibus Poloniae usus admittatur consecratum Panem in fidelium manibus ponendi, ad normam Instructionis De modo sanctam Communionem ministrandi et adnexae Epistolae ad Praesides Conferentiarum Episcopalium (cf. AAS 61-1969, 541-547).
That bolded part reads: “we willingly permit that in the dioceses of Poland, the use may be granted [whereby] the consecrated Bread is placed in the hands of the faithful.”