Communion in the Hand

[Lynn_Suer]

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.

Originally Posted by Aramis:
The DL of St John and St Basil both have the same explicit epiclesis.

According to the documents posted on the website of the Eastern Catholic Pastoral Association of Southern California at Qorbono,
the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil both use the standard formulation: “This is my Body… This is my Blood.”

 

[Aramis]

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.

According to the documents posted on the website of the Eastern Catholic Pastoral Association of Southern California at Qorbono,
the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil both use the standard formulation: “This is my Body… This is my Blood.”

They have BOTH.
the words of institution are prior to the epiclesis.

Taken from the Melkite texts as shown at: melkite.org/Dliturgy.htm

PRIEST: With these blessed powers we also, O Master who love mankind we too cry out and say, Holy are You and all holy, You and Your only-begotten Son, and Your Holy Spirit. Holy are You and all holy and magnificent is Your glory, who so loved Your world as to give Your only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish, but may have eternal life. When He had come and fulfilled all that was appointed Him to do for our sakes, on the night on which He was delivered up, or rather delivered Himself up for the life of the world, taking bread in his holy, spotless and blameless hands, giving thanks and blessing + sanctifying and breaking it, gave it to his holy disciples and apostles and said

(Priest bows his head and raises his right hand reverently and says the following)

Take, eat; this is may body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins.

PEOPLE: Amen

PRIEST: Likewise, the chalice + after He had supped, saying; Drink of this, all of you, this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.

PEOPLE: Amen.

PRIEST: Remembering, therefore, this precept of salvation and everything that was done for our sake: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand, the second and glorious coming again. We offer You your own, from what is your own, in all and for the sake of all.

PEOPLE: We praise You. We bless You. We give thanks to You, O our God.

PRIEST: Moreover, we offer You this spiritual and unbloodly worship, and we ask, pray and entreat: sand down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts offered.

DEACON: Bless the holy bread, Master.

PRIEST: +And make this bread the precious Body of your Christ.

DEACON: Amen. Bless the holy chalice, Master.

PRIEST: +And that which is in this chalice the precious Blood of your Christ.

DEACON: Amen. Bless them both, Master.

PRIEST: +Changing them + by your Holy Spirit.

DEACON: Amen. Amen. Amen.

PRIEST: So that, to those who partake of them, they may be for the cleansing of soul, for the remission of sins, for the communion of your Holy Spirit, for the fullness of the kingdom of heaven, for intimate confidence in You, and not for judgment or condemnation.

The various particular churches use different translations, and so what you hear in the Ruthenian is slightly different wording, but it’s also present in the Greek Orthodox version (goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc.asp )

 

[elts1956]

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.”

Oky doky. Thanks Japhy.

 

[Kevin_Driffield]

They have BOTH.
the words of institution are prior to the epiclesis.

Taken from the Melkite texts as shown at: melkite.org/Dliturgy.htm

PRIEST: With these blessed powers we also, O Master who love mankind we too cry out and say, Holy are You and all holy, You and Your only-begotten Son, and Your Holy Spirit. Holy are You and all holy and magnificent is Your glory, who so loved Your world as to give Your only begotten Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish, but may have eternal life. When He had come and fulfilled all that was appointed Him to do for our sakes, on the night on which He was delivered up, or rather delivered Himself up for the life of the world, taking bread in his holy, spotless and blameless hands, giving thanks and blessing + sanctifying and breaking it, gave it to his holy disciples and apostles and said

(Priest bows his head and raises his right hand reverently and says the following)

Take, eat; this is may body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins.

PEOPLE: Amen

PRIEST: Likewise, the chalice + after He had supped, saying; Drink of this, all of you, this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins.

PEOPLE: Amen.

PRIEST: Remembering, therefore, this precept of salvation and everything that was done for our sake: the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand, the second and glorious coming again. We offer You your own, from what is your own, in all and for the sake of all.

PEOPLE: We praise You. We bless You. We give thanks to You, O our God.

PRIEST: Moreover, we offer You this spiritual and unbloodly worship, and we ask, pray and entreat: sand down your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts offered.

DEACON: Bless the holy bread, Master.

PRIEST: +And make this bread the precious Body of your Christ.

DEACON: Amen. Bless the holy chalice, Master.

PRIEST: +And that which is in this chalice the precious Blood of your Christ.

DEACON: Amen. Bless them both, Master.

PRIEST: +Changing them + by your Holy Spirit.

DEACON: Amen. Amen. Amen.

PRIEST: So that, to those who partake of them, they may be for the cleansing of soul, for the remission of sins, for the communion of your Holy Spirit, for the fullness of the kingdom of heaven, for intimate confidence in You, and not for judgment or condemnation.

The various particular churches use different translations, and so what you hear in the Ruthenian is slightly different wording, but it’s also present in the Greek Orthodox version (goarch.org/en/chapel/liturgical_texts/liturgy_hchc.asp )

 

[Podo2005]

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?

How exactly has it brought a loss of faith among the faithful?

 

[elts1956]

How exactly has it brought a loss of faith among the faithful?

I don’t think Communion in the Hand has anything to do with loss of faith. The folks receiving are still Catholic.

I think the problems with reverence for the Church, and respect in society began with the passing of Roe vs. Wade and other indignities foisted on the public since then by liberal politicians. It also begn when strong catechesis diminshed in the parishes, when bishops no longer stated absolutes and priests began to be afraid of their congregations, afraid they may say something not “politically correct” and have a backlash of their parishoners.

It has gotten so everyone believes they can form their own conscience without due reference and reverence for the Roman Catholic Church and its absolutes.

Again, receiving communion in the hand has nothing to do with loss of faith. I receive both ways and feel I am trying to be as faithful to the doctrines and dogmas of the Church as I can be.

 

[japhy]

How exactly has it brought a loss of faith among the faithful?

Because there are some Catholics who have no idea that what they are receiving is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. They think they’re getting a normal (albeit blessed) piece of bread; they receive and eat it accordingly. I’ve seen people wipe their hands on their pants after receiving Communion.

 

[elts1956]

How exactly has it brought a loss of faith among the faithful?

Because there are some Catholics who have no idea that what they are receiving is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. They think they’re getting a normal (albeit blessed) piece of bread; they receive and eat it accordingly. I’ve seen people wipe their hands on their pants after receiving Communion.

Japhy, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with these parishes and congregants? Why aren’t the priests and leaders of our church more concerned about people misunderstanding the truths of the Church. All I hear are platitudes with no back bone holding the flesh to the frame. I get so frustrated.

 

[japhy]

Japhy, WHAT IS THE PROBLEM with these parishes and congregants? Why aren’t the priests and leaders of our church more concerned about people misunderstanding the truths of the Church.

I would be willing to bet that the problem with the parishes is their leadership. A priest who calls Benedict the “Bishop of Rome” in the Eucharistic Prayer, instead of the Pope. A priest who introduces inclusive and ambiguous language into the texts of the Mass, like saying “for us -]men/-] and for our salvation” or “to the praise and glory of God’s (instead of ‘His’) name, for our good and the good of all this (or God’s, instead of ‘His’) church” (and yes, I’m sure they even say “church” with a lowercase “c”). A priest who gives Holy Communion – excuse me, “the eucharist” – in the hand to an army of “eucharistic ministers” standing at the altar before he has received himself, so that they stand there with the Host sitting in their hands. A priest who consecrates the wine while it sits in a pitcher instead of in chalices. A priest who makes up his own prayers (like the Collect and even the Eucharistic Prayer).

That’s the problem. And that problem is sometimes reinforced by a bishop who behaves just the same way.

 

[nor336]

I think receiving in the hand is a natural evolution of receiving standing.

It was easy to place the host on the tongue of a communicant when their mouth was no higher than the priest’s elbow.

But to place the host on the tongue of someone who’s mouth is higher than your shoulder, possibly higher than your head-- very tough.

So I see it as a two parter: I’d like to see a return to receiving kneeling, on the tongue. But till we can kneel again, I’m not going to worry too much about tongue vs. hand.

Better to receive mindfully in the hand than thoughtlessly-- or self righteously-- on the tongue.

Which is NOT to imply that all or most people who receive on the tongue are either thoughtless or self righteous, but it can happen [at least in theory].

What I’m saying is, reguardless of your [lawful] means of receiving, do so with awareness of Who you are receiving. Be fully in the moment with no straying thoughts, be humble, be filled with, and fed by, Christ.

I could not believe what you typed “But till we can kneel again”. Are you not allowed to kneel in your church? If so, that is against Vatican rules. On receiving on the tongue, I read at one time, that this ritual is like a mother bird feeding her young in the nest. We are receiving our food for the soul from our Lord through the Priests fingers. Like it or not it seems logical.

 

[elts1956]

I would be willing to bet that the problem with the parishes is their leadership. A priest who calls Benedict the “Bishop of Rome” in the Eucharistic Prayer, instead of the Pope. A priest who introduces inclusive and ambiguous language into the texts of the Mass, like saying “for us -]men/-] and for our salvation” or “to the praise and glory of God’s (instead of ‘His’) name, for our good and the good of all this (or God’s, instead of ‘His’) church” (and yes, I’m sure they even say “church” with a lowercase “c”). A priest who gives Holy Communion – excuse me, “the eucharist” – in the hand to an army of “eucharistic ministers” standing at the altar before he has received himself, so that they stand there with the Host sitting in their hands. A priest who consecrates the wine while it sits in a pitcher instead of in chalices. A priest who makes up his own prayers (like the Collect and even the Eucharistic Prayer).

That’s the problem. And that problem is sometimes reinforced by a bishop who behaves just the same way.

So why doesn’t Pope Benedict XVI call a Bishop’s seminar in Rome, attendence mandatory and give them a refresher course for about five years. Good grief! “We” are not supposed to correct the Bishops who are sloppy in their attitude toward Church rituals and truth, so who wil do it? This is ridiculous and embarrassing. .

 

[elts1956]

I could not believe what you typed “But till we can kneel again”. Are you not allowed to kneel in your church? If so, that is against Vatican rules. On receiving on the tongue, I read at one time, that this ritual is like a mother bird feeding her young in the nest. We are receiving our food for the soul from our Lord through the Priests fingers. Like it or not it seems logical.

Hello Nor. You say not allowing kneeling in the Church at Mass for Communion is against Vatican rules??? Where is that document?

When the Communion rail went the way of general acceptance of Communion on the tongue, there is no place to kneel in the Church other than the pew???

 

[LilyM]

Because there are some Catholics who have no idea that what they are receiving is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. They think they’re getting a normal (albeit blessed) piece of bread; they receive and eat it accordingly. I’ve seen people wipe their hands on their pants after receiving Communion.

So did many of the first generation of reformers, those who denied the Real Presence, have no idea - and they also would all have been raised Catholic and furthermore receiving on the tongue.

Even though they weren’t able to physically manifest their disbelief in the same way, the disbelief was certainly just as strong.

 

[palmas85]

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. :**shrug:

There were also Priests involved in the Black Masses in those days. Not saying that it is good or bad and I have my own preference but I’ll propose a question. Why do those that receive in the hand standing prefer it that way?

It seems like a valid question that I have yet to see answered on these thread except with the somewhat childish responses of the Church says I can so I do or I approach Christ as an adult, a mature human being on my own two feel or perhaps the favorite It was done that way in the early church, an argument that has been pretty much shown to be moot once people understand why they did it that way. The there are always a few who bring up the eastern Churches both Catholic and Orthodox, neglecting that they do receive standing, but by intinction on the tongue.

So I’ll ask again, why? At least those of us that do receive on the tongue have a reason that we can articulate.

 

[japhy]

So did many of the first generation of reformers, those who denied the Real Presence, have no idea - and they also would all have been raised Catholic and furthermore receiving on the tongue.

But the reformers flat-out rejected the doctrine, and instructed their followers accordingly. I hope to God we don’t have priests doing that to Catholics. But while the catechists may not be teaching outright heresy, it’s evident they’re not teaching the faith solidly enough.

 

[japhy]

You say not allowing kneeling in the Church at Mass for Communion is against Vatican rules?

No Catholic can be denied Holy Communion simply because they prefer to stand or kneel; Redemptionis Sacramentum:
90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

1. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
   You might also be interested in what a number of Curial Letters have to say on this topic.

When the Communion rail went the way of general acceptance of Communion on the tongue, there is no place to kneel in the Church other than the pew?

Those who have the constitution (and knees) to do so can kneel at the feet of the priest.

 

[elts1956]

There were also Priests involved in the Black Masses in those days. Not saying that it is good or bad and I have my own preference but I’ll propose a question. Why do those that receive in the hand standing prefer it that way?

It seems like a valid question that I have yet to see answered on these thread except with the somewhat childish responses of the Church says I can so I do or I approach Christ as an adult, a mature human being on my own two feel or perhaps the favorite It was done that way in the early church, an argument that has been pretty much shown to be moot once people understand why they did it that way. The there are always a few who bring up the eastern Churches both Catholic and Orthodox, neglecting that they do receive standing, but by intinction on the tongue.

So I’ll ask again, why? At least those of us that do receive on the tongue have a reason that we can articulate.

Okay, my mind is blank on this one. One reason I can think of is that the Bishops “told us so”. In the scurry to help the faithful feel more equal to the celebrant of the Mass, they decided the old rule was no longer to be used. Voila, everyone began receiving the Eucharist in the hand. I know I did.

Those who attended RCIA after Vatican II may have a better explanation than I.

 

[elts1956]

No Catholic can be denied Holy Communion simply because they prefer to stand or kneel; Redemptionis Sacramentum:
90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

1. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
   You might also be interested in what a number of Curial Letters have to say on this topic.

Those who have the constitution (and knees) to do so can kneel at the feet of the priest.

Ya know, I have NEVER seen anyone do that when taking Communion. I learn something new every day. I think if I were to try that, the people behind me would rush to help me up. The spirit may be willing, but the constitution, (knees) are very weak. Thanks again Japhy.

 

[elts1956]

No Catholic can be denied Holy Communion simply because they prefer to stand or kneel; Redemptionis Sacramentum:
90. “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.

1. In distributing Holy Communion it is to be remembered that “sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who seek them in a reasonable manner, are rightly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them”. Hence any baptized Catholic who is not prevented by law must be admitted to Holy Communion. Therefore, it is not licit to deny Holy Communion to any of Christ’s faithful solely on the grounds, for example, that the person wishes to receive the Eucharist kneeling or standing.
   You might also be interested in what a number of Curial Letters have to say on this topic.

Those who have the constitution (and knees) to do so can kneel at the feet of the priest.

Because there are some Catholics who have no idea that what they are receiving is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ. They think they’re getting a normal (albeit blessed) piece of bread; they receive and eat it accordingly. I’ve seen people wipe their hands on their pants after receiving Communion.

But Japhy, don’t you think ignorance of what they are doing is more due to lack of catechesis than the “form” of receiving the Host? I know Catholics who could outrun me around the block five times regarding their knowledge of the Faith and they receive in the hand.

 

[antonabe]

Sometimes knowledgw of the Faith and actual Faith in the Real Presence are two two different things.I also know a fiiend who could quote chapter and verse of the Bible and Catechesis but is sceptical about Faith.Reverence in my view is a external Manifestation of ones Faith.Of course some people are introverts and do not wish to show external signs of reverence.
When the Eucharist is received in the tongue,most people clasp their hands in reverence,of course I must admit this may depend on the location of the Parish ,perhaps the country.Some bend one knee and bow slightly,some others,though few, kneel even at the main alter when the Priest is giving Communion.In our Parish Communion at the two aisles in the side of the Church is given to the tongue as peolple geneflect at the rails.As an act of reverence I have seen people extending both hands to the priest and the Eucharist is of course laid on one Hand.Another friend of mine who is tall takes the Host with his hand from the Parish Priest who is short at communion but takes the Host with the tongue from the Assistant PP as he is also tall.Circumstances not lack of reverence could be a factor