Communion in the hand

[John_Higgins]

una fides:

It began out of disobedience to the rules of the Church.

Yeah. You know this how? Let me invision—five or six American bishops gather and say “How are we going to disobey Rome today? How 'bout we have communion distributed in the hand?”

Really?

You don’t know why it began, so stop pretending that you do.

John

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I agree. It has lead to a disbelief in the Real Presence of Christ and to many many abuses and sacrilegious acts.

Care to back up this claim with any proof?

 

[Shin]

In the beginning, I received Communion in the hand, as it was the standard practice where I went, and I felt more comfortable in that it is unusual to have someone else place anything in your mouth.

However, my old and faithful virgin aunts shortly after my first Communion, asked me to receive Communion on the tongue – they asked it as a favor, to always do it this way. I said I would do so, it not making a great difference to me at the time one way or the other and these good people asking me to do so for their sake.

Since then, I have of course, learned about the various problems with reverence that have taken ahold of the Church and that Communion on the tongue is both superior in reverence and prudence – for the reasons mentioned beforehand and further.

So I have since always received on the tongue, first as a favor and a promise, and also pleasantly with additional reasons beneficially revealed.

In life I think one often finds if one does certain things for God, without even knowing why, He may later reveal them to you to show His pleasure and the benefits of the good path He has taken you.

I also only receive kneeling, out of reverence, it is not hard for me to go to both knees, after all being capable of genuflecting before the Sacrament in line, it is not more to go to both knees, and rise again swiftly.

If anyone wishes to do these things, let me urge you to do so. And let me also ask you to do so, as a simple favor, Christian to Christian. Will you please do so, for charity’s sake perhaps, putting aside personal preferences?

Thank you. You have my especial prayers if you do so.

 

[Cluny]

It is my understanding that the church was in error at that time and it was a sin to receive communion in the hand.

---

What you’re saying is that the Church sinned in her liturgical usages at one time.

This is impossible.

In the Chaldean Catholic and Assyrian Churches, communion in the hand has ALWAYS been the norm.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

thanks for the info. i realize there’s a growing interest in eastern practices, but personally they do not at all appeal to me. the eastern orthodox churches have been infected with poison of schism for quite some time. i wish people would take a harsher view on them than on SSPX, whose members at least recognize the pope as having superior authority. archbishop lefebvre was excommunicated for disobedience not for saying that the pope was equal to him as the eastern orthodox leaders still do to this day. btw, did you know the pope just lifted the excommunication on the four bishops appointed by lefebvre? you can tell i’m a little bitter as to the harsh stance taken against sspx but the light stance taken on the orthodox. but i digress…

I was speaking of the Eastern CATHOLIC Churches, not the Orthodox. You may be unaware of the fact that the Catholic Church is a “communion of Churches” – the Latin Rite Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches (22 of them). Thus, the Catholic Church is actually composed of 23 different churches, each in communion with the others.

Oh, and the Holy Father has not lifted the excommunications (at least, not yet).

Deacon Ed

 

[Cluny]

We kneel at the consecration, and we kneel to receive. We are not Protestants, and it’s about time we stop acting like it. (“we” meaning everyone today who claims to be Catholic)

---

Are you saying that Eastern Catholics, who have generally stood to receive communion, have no right to claim to be Catholic? Or that they are acting like Protestants by so doing?

FWIW, Protestants have historically either sat or knelt to receive communion, not stood.

I might add, it would be VERY difficult and dangerous to receive from the spoon (the usualy practice in Byzantine Churches) if kneeling.

 

[rinnie]

I cannot see the RCC letting you receive Communion in your hand if it was a sin. It just does not add up.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by una fides
It began out of disobedience to the rules of the Church.

Yeah. You know this how? Let me invision—five or six American bishops gather and say “How are we going to disobey Rome today? How 'bout we have communion distributed in the hand?”

Really?

You don’t know why it began, so stop pretending that you do.

John

---

Well John Higgins —you are not familiar with the instruction Memoriale Domini --1969 from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship: When speaking of communion in the hand the following is stated.–“this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested from the Holy See”. This is disobedience is it not.

If you read further —the majority of the bishops voted down the introduction of communion in the hand. Now in areas where the practice had been illegally introduced and had already established itself – the Pope allowed it to continue --giving the bishops the task of carefully weighing the circumstances–to avoid the risk of lack of respect, false opinions, and other ill effects.

Now it did not go to well with guarding against the lack of respect --for Pope John Paul II when speaking of communion in the hand made mention of cases of the deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharist.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.
Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.
The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

 

[una_fides]

I cannot see the RCC letting you receive Communion in your hand if it was a sin. It just does not add up.

It was a sin to receive in the hand when it was illicit, aka prior to Paul VI’s indult. The Church did not permit reception of Communion in the hand prior to this time. It was individual priests/bishops who did so out of their own disregard for the Church’s laws.

 

[Danoli]

I prefer to follow the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas in this matter…

“Because out of reverence toward this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated, hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this sacrament…”

St Thomas Aquinas then goes on to state that it is not lawful for anyone else to touch it!! Seeing as it is valid to receive in the hand, does this mean that the church are saying St Thomas was in error???

 

[Adrian_T]

Yeah. You know this how? Let me invision—five or six American bishops gather and say “How are we going to disobey Rome today? How 'bout we have communion distributed in the hand?”

It wasn`t the five or six American bishops; as far as I know, Cardinal Suenens introduced this practice in or around 1965. Even if it wasn’t him, someone else did introduce it, and it was a clear act of disobedience, as it was introduced without prior approval of the Holy See, read Memoriale Domini below:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

There, communion on the tongue - the valid law - is clearly emphasised and preferred, while communion in the hand is allowed basically as an “indult”.

Bishops, priests, and laity are “emphatically” urged to obey the law which is still valid & confirmed - (communion on the tongue).

Communion in the hand was practiced in the first centuries, it was even taken home, since the possibility of martyrdom was so high. However, I tend to believe there might be a day/night difference between the reverence of Christians back then vs the modern ones (while receiving communion in the hand I mean).

One of the things I always remember about the - modern - practice of communion in the hand - in the latin rite - is - it started as an act of disobience.

And, from a legal viewpoint, I was told that, while a bishop has the right to allow communion in the hand, no bishop has the right to forbid communion on the tongue.

 

[una_fides]

Yeah. You know this how? Let me invision—five or six American bishops gather and say “How are we going to disobey Rome today? How 'bout we have communion distributed in the hand?”

Really?

You don’t know why it began, so stop pretending that you do.

John

Dear John,
If something is forbidden by the Church, and a priest does it anyway, what do you call that? Sincerity? I doubt the disobedient priests set out to figure out ways they could disobey Rome. That’s not how disobedience works. Do your kids (if you have any) go around saying “how can I disobey dad today?” (they may, but I don’t know of any kids unless they are completely messed up that do that.) They do what they want because they want to do it regardless of what the authority above them has instructed. Vatican II clearly stated that no priest has any authority to change anything in the liturgy whatsoever. He must stick to the exact prayers in the rubrics and follow the norms as Rome authorizes down the chain of command. You can claim that the priests may have been ignorant, but if so, they certainly could not claim to be so invincibly as they have an obligation to know the directives of their superiors. Hence, they are guilty for doing so either way. I am not judging the state of their souls or the souls of any other of the MANY priests today who still continue to disobey Rome and alter the words at Mass and change things on their own accord. I’m just saying that what they are doing is disobedience objectively speaking and that objectively speaking it is wrong and is “a grave offense” against the faithful, as the Church has repeatedly stated.

 

[una_fides]

I was speaking of the Eastern CATHOLIC Churches, not the Orthodox. You may be unaware of the fact that the Catholic Church is a “communion of Churches” – the Latin Rite Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches (22 of them). Thus, the Catholic Church is actually composed of 23 different churches, each in communion with the others.

Oh, and the Holy Father has not lifted the excommunications (at least, not yet).

Deacon Ed

No I am quite aware of the eastern rite Churches in union with the pope. Like I said, I was going off on a tangent.

And yes, the holy father is likely lifting the excommunications as we speak… or type that is…
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14852

 

[una_fides]

Quote:
Originally Posted by una fides View Post
I agree. It has lead to a disbelief in the Real Presence of Christ and to many many abuses and sacrilegious acts.

I’ve heard stories from friends who have witnessed it first hand. I do not pay any attention to what people do at Communion, and I attend the TLM, so I don’t come across it personally. A close friend of mine told me how last week a mother took Communion and gave it to her baby, who then spit it out onto the floor! I’ve heard of many stories of people bringing home the Eucharist by putting it in their pocket. There was even a host from a papal mass that was sold on e-bay before!

Common sense would also tell you that if you receive Communion on the hand that there will be particles that will fall to the ground and that it makes it easier for people to slip it into their pockets. And the fact that anyone is now handling the Eucharist rather than just the priest deemphasizes the sacrificial and special nature of the ordained priesthood and makes the Eucharist seem more like common food rather than being the actual Divinity of Christ.

It appears that others in the previous posts have done my homework for me and have cited relevant texts for additional proof for you beyond personal experience and common sense. Please read them and then comment.

 

[Member]

---

Well John Higgins —you are not familiar with the instruction Memoriale Domini --1969 from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship: When speaking of communion in the hand the following is stated.–“this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested from the Holy See”. This is disobedience is it not.

If you read further —the majority of the bishops voted down the introduction of communion in the hand. Now in areas where the practice had been illegally introduced and had already established itself – the Pope allowed it to continue --giving the bishops the task of carefully weighing the circumstances–to avoid the risk of lack of respect, false opinions, and other ill effects.

Now it did not go to well with guarding against the lack of respect --for Pope John Paul II when speaking of communion in the hand made mention of cases of the deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharist.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Since taking the Eucharist in the hand is a “deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharist”, why do the bishops allow the little children to be taught to receive communion in the hand at First Holy Communion. Shouldn’t they at least be told they have the option to receive in the hand or on the tongue and in doing so eventually take away the option to take the Eucharist in the hand? It would be a slow process but to me it would seem a step in the right direction.

 

[JPUSC]

thanks for the info. i realize there’s a growing interest in eastern practices, but personally they do not at all appeal to me. the eastern orthodox churches have been infected with poison of schism for quite some time. i wish people would take a harsher view on them than on SSPX, whose members at least recognize the pope as having superior authority. archbishop lefebvre was excommunicated for disobedience not for saying that the pope was equal to him as the eastern orthodox leaders still do to this day. btw, did you know the pope just lifted the excommunication on the four bishops appointed by lefebvre? you can tell i’m a little bitter as to the harsh stance taken against sspx but the light stance taken on the orthodox. but i digress…

The Church’s stance with the Orthodox during the schism wasn’t light. The excommunication of the Orthodox Patriarch in 1054 was only lifted recently in 1965. There’s no doubt many Catholics were unhappy with the Orthodox in 1054.

You should be glad that the lifting of the SSPX bishops’ excommunications only took a couple of decades. I expect that the wave of SSPX followers coming back into full communion with Rome will be welcomed back with open arms in no time.

 

[Walking_Home]

Since taking the Eucharist in the hand is a “deplorable lack of respect toward the Eucharist”, why do the bishops allow the little children to be taught to receive communion in the hand at First Holy Communion. Shouldn’t they at least be told they have the option to receive in the hand or on the tongue and in doing so eventually take away the option to take the Eucharist in the hand? It would be a slow process but to me it would seem a step in the right direction.

---

Cases of deplorable lack of respect—is not to be taken as a blanket statement that all who receive in the hand are exhibiting deplorable lack of respect. But hand communion has opened the door for the cases where the deplorable lack of respect does happen.

And yes --children being prepared for First Communion should also be taught the always valid practice of communion on the tongue. Our late Pope also made mention that the right to receive on the tongue was also being denied in some places where communion in the hand was authorized.

I don’t know if you are aware-- with our current Pope --those receiving from him --are to kneel and receive on the tongue.

 

[maurin]

The Church’s stance with the Orthodox during the schism wasn’t light. The excommunication of the Orthodox Patriarch in 1054 was only lifted recently in 1965.

You should be glad that the lifting of the SSPX bishops’ excommunications only took a couple of decades. .

actually, you should be, and every other of the Faithful.

Only good fruit will come—let us all pray for the talk to be true.

I expect that the wave of SSPX followers coming back into full communion with Rome will be welcomed back with open arms in no time

we’ve never left Her Bosom.

 

[cmom]

I’m gonna quote a theologian from another list I am on who is discussing this very issue. He is using Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann’s benchmark 2 vol. set, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origins and Development

"St Thomas Aquinas St. Thomas was NOT fluent in Greek as he was in Latin.

St. Thomas used other people’s translations from Greek to Latin in his works. He knew some Greek, but not enough to write Greek, let alone to trust his own ability to translate Greek to Latin.

Most of the experts on the history of Thomas state that the Greek documents from the the period of the Infant Church were — for the most part not available to Thomas. Ergo, Thomas would not have had these kinds of texts available to him.

To anyone who really has any kind of in-depth knowledge of Thomas, his history, education, scholarship, and writing patterns - and last but not least - HIS GREAT RESPECT FOR THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION: If Thomas had been aware that the Universal practice in the Infanct Church - as it was established and taught by the Apostles - was for Deacons to be regular ministers of the Eucharist - even the most prominent ones in certain periods… Thomas would never have stated some of the things he did about Deacons and the Eucharist.

 

[Walking_Home]

I’m gonna quote a theologian from another list I am on who is discussing this very issue. He is using Fr. Joseph A. Jungmann’s benchmark 2 vol. set, The Mass of the Roman Rite, Its Origins and Development

"St Thomas Aquinas St. Thomas was NOT fluent in Greek as he was in Latin.

St. Thomas used other people’s translations from Greek to Latin in his works. He knew some Greek, but not enough to write Greek, let alone to trust his own ability to translate Greek to Latin.

Most of the experts on the history of Thomas state that the Greek documents from the the period of the Infant Church were — for the most part not available to Thomas. Ergo, Thomas would not have had these kinds of texts available to him.

To anyone who really has any kind of in-depth knowledge of Thomas, his history, education, scholarship, and writing patterns - and last but not least - HIS GREAT RESPECT FOR THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION: If Thomas had been aware that the Universal practice in the Infanct Church - as it was established and taught by the Apostles - was for Deacons to be regular ministers of the Eucharist - even the most prominent ones in certain periods… Thomas would never have stated some of the things he did about Deacons and the Eucharist.

---

I believe I have come across something like that before --and if I remember right --it was in reference to that there were no priests in the “early” Church. The priesthood was a later “invention” by made up by the Church.