Communion in the hand

[LeroyCRHP]

This my form of the church is better than your form of the church is not good.

Personally I believe what Deacon Ed is saying for the first 300 years were in the hand. I don’t see in the Bible any basis for what you say here. I don’t have a problem taking the body of Christ either way. I don’t have the ability to see the reverence of a person taking communion and it’s not my responsibility (someone much higher than I). Just my opinion from what I read in the Bible we should take both the bread and wine.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (New American Standard Bible)
The Lord’s Supper:
*For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; **and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." **In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” **For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. *

I consider receiving communion in the hand as sacrilegious and I can’t understand why the Catholic church allows this. I was taught in the catholic school that the priest’s index fingers and thumbs were consecrated and he was the only one allowed to touch the host. Also, why is it OK to stand to receive holy communion but out of respect for the holy eucharist, we genuflect before entering the pew and we kneel at the consecration. It doesn’t make sense to me.

 

[una_fides]

Personally I believe what Deacon Ed is saying for the first 300 years were in the hand.

No one has provided any evidence that it was a universal practice for the first 300 years of the Church to receive Communion in the hand. There is only ONE early Church father to my knowledge that ever mentioned it at all (St. Cyprian), and he never claimed it to be a universal practice. For all we know, it could have only been done in his one isolated church!

I don’t see in the Bible any basis for what you say here.

Good thing that we are not protestants; otherwise this argument would have worked. We are Catholic and hold to apostolic Tradition, of which the Bible is a part but is not by any means the whole. Jesus did and taught many things not recorded in Scripture, and the Bible was never meant to be a complete summary of the faith, nor does it anywhere ever claim to be.

I don’t have a problem taking the body of Christ either way. I don’t have the ability to see the reverence of a person taking communion and it’s not my responsibility (someone much higher than I).

But how much better is it when the outward action most clearly demonstrates the inward disposition (or at least what it should be).

Just my opinion from what I read in the Bible we should take both the bread and wine.

First, let me again clarify as I have in an earlier post that you are referring to Communion by appearance and not by its actual substance when you use the words “bread and wine.” Just to be clear to everyone regarding what the Communion actually is at that point, you may want to refer to it as the “Body (and Blood) of Christ,” “Eucharist,” “Blessed Sacrament,” or another term that clearly demonstrates its substance after transubstantiation takes place.
Second, here is Trent on the matter of needing to receive both species of Communion (aka. Body and Precious Blood):

Canon 1. If anyone says that each and all the faithful of Christ are by a precept of God or by the necessity of salvation bound to receive both species of the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist,[14] let him be anathema.
Canon 3. If anyone denies that Christ, the fountain and author of all graces, is received whole and entire under the one species of bread, because, as some falsely assert, He is not received in accordance with the institution of Christ under both species,[16] let him be anathema.
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent21.htm

The reason is that Christ is truly and fully present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in each species of Communion. Hence, the sacred host is not just the Body alone, and the chalice does not just contain the Blood alone. They each are complete and are the whole of Christ’s presence. They are consecrated separately on account of their symbolism of faith. Bread represents flesh, and wine represents blood. Yet it must be believed that each species contains all of Christ’s full Real Presence.

 

[Caesar517]

Just open up your mouth, tilt your head back slightly, and stick out your tongue slightly. They really should have servers with those golden plates that goes underneath and follows the priest’s hand. That makes it much safer. (I’ve had a priest miss my mouth on two occasions! Once it landed on the patten and the other not so good. This priest was sooo old! I felt bad for him.) But don’t worry. That’s less likely to happen. Whereas it’s almost certain that some particles could possibly fall to the ground as a result of Communion in the hand. It’s much safer to have it on the tongue, and it sets a better example for everyone else.

I think I will try this tomorrow. BTW, the altar servers do have gold plates (can’t remember the right word), but they usually aren’t even holding them level.

The idea of kneeling to receive also appeals to me, but I can’t really do that at my parish.

 

[una_fides]

The idea of kneeling to receive also appeals to me, but I can’t really do that at my parish.

Why not? Do they have a clear space on the ground? No pointy objects or anything to hinder you from kneeling on it? Kneeling is the universal posture of the Latin Rite Church. It is only by indult that the bishops in the US have been permitted to say that standing is the “norm” here. Norm doesn’t mean rule btw. If you feel obliged to kneel, then I certainly would. Maybe give it a try and see what happens. You may feel like people are looking at you, but they really aren’t. They don’t care. At least that’s my experience. But then again, I rarely attend Novus Ordo masses where that would happen anyway, but whenever I do, I kneel to receive. I actually went to many different parishes in my area for daily mass and received kneeling. I didn’t encounter any weird stares or anything. In one parish, they even had a kneeler on the side and several people opted to receive kneeling on it. Anyway, I do think it demonstrates a great sign of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament in a way unparalled to standing. I’m not saying standing is wrong, but I personally think kneeling is better.

 

[LilyM]

No one has provided any evidence that it was a universal practice for the first 300 years of the Church to receive Communion in the hand. There is only ONE early Church father to my knowledge that ever mentioned it at all (St. Cyprian), and he never claimed it to be a universal practice. For all we know, it could have only been done in his one isolated church!

St Cyprian AND St John of Damascus, AND Theodoret Bishop of Cyrrhus, thank you. catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion3.htm

And above all St Cyril of Jerusalem. HE discusses it at length in his 'Mystagogical Catechesis - “Approaching therefore, do not come forward with the palms of the hands outstretched nor with the fingers apart, but making the left [hand] a throne for the right since this hand is about to receive the King. Making the palm hollow, receive the Body of Christ, adding ‘Amen’. "

Catechesis meaning TEACHING - as in St Cyril was writing about the practice in order to TEACH people preparing to join the Church how to receive Communion, among other things. So we have something that was widely taught and instructed to new members about to enter the Church. By a Bishop of Jerusalem, prominent in the Church, and one of its Doctors, not a nobody. Not some isolated and abusive practice.

And how little faith must anyone have in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church if you think He permits it to accept CITH merely as a popular abuse!

Have we not seen many many cases of ordinations of women to the priesthood? Have we not seen many calling themselves Catholic who promote contraception, homosexual marriage, remarriage after divorce without annulment and, dear God, even abortion!

Are they not abuses? Have these abuses caused the Vatican to approve of women being ordained? Contraception? Abortion? Gay marriage? Of course not! Give their Holinesses and the Church Christ founded on Peter some credit in this regard!

 

[alih]

this is fascinating…i was under the impression that this was the “traditional forum.” i must be in error. the traditionalists do not, repeat…do not permit communion in hand. this practice is that of the “novus ordo.” (new order).
if this is true, why then are discussions tainted toward that which is an unacceptable practice? have a good year. (alih)

 

[Caesar517]

Why not? Do they have a clear space on the ground? No pointy objects or anything to hinder you from kneeling on it? Kneeling is the universal posture of the Latin Rite Church. It is only by indult that the bishops in the US have been permitted to say that standing is the “norm” here. Norm doesn’t mean rule btw. If you feel obliged to kneel, then I certainly would. Maybe give it a try and see what happens. You may feel like people are looking at you, but they really aren’t. They don’t care. At least that’s my experience. But then again, I rarely attend Novus Ordo masses where that would happen anyway, but whenever I do, I kneel to receive. I actually went to many different parishes in my area for daily mass and received kneeling. I didn’t encounter any weird stares or anything. In one parish, they even had a kneeler on the side and several people opted to receive kneeling on it. Anyway, I do think it demonstrates a great sign of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament in a way unparalled to standing. I’m not saying standing is wrong, but I personally think kneeling is better.

Well the priest stands on the steps in front of the altar, so if I were to kneel, my head would be below his waist. It’s very rare (and extremely awkward) when someone does decide to kneel to receive at my parish.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Are they not abuses? Have these abuses caused the Vatican to approve of women being ordained? Contraception? Abortion? Gay marriage? Of course not! Give their Holinesses and the Church Christ founded on Peter some credit in this regard!

popes are not impeccable. they make mistakes of prudetial matters.

can you honestly say that comunion on the hand is a good practice which has helped the church?

i can’t.

 

[una_fides]

popes are not impeccable. they make mistakes of prudetial matters.

can you honestly say that comunion on the hand is a good practice which has helped the church?

i can’t.

It appears that there are many bishops and even cardinals that agree with me and you Dee Dee and that have proposed doing away with Communion in the hand and reception of Communion standing. Here’s an article from the Catholic News Service that explains the bishops’ current positions on the matter:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505657.htm

Oh and for the person earlier who claimed the ridiculous idea that the Church taught that Communion in the hand was a good thing and did not produce abuses, here are a few excerpts from the article for you (just in case the preponderance of evidence we’ve already provided wasn’t enough):

Cardinal Arinze said non-Catholics in particular sometimes fail to understand Communion in the hand. He related a story about one person who went up and received Communion and then took it home and kept the host in his scrapbook.

The cardinal added that Communion in the hand does make it easier for sacrilege against a consecrated host. He reminded bishops that a host reportedly received at a papal Mass in 1998 was put up for sale on eBay earlier this year before being withdrawn by the seller.

 

[LilyM]

popes are not impeccable. they make mistakes of prudetial matters.

can you honestly say that comunion on the hand is a good practice which has helped the church?

i can’t.

I wouldn’t class liturgical disciplines, such as those relating to the Blessed Sacrament, to be mere prudential matters.

Do you really think the Holy Spirit would care so little about the manner in which we receive Our Lord? I think He cares a great deal about EVERY aspect of the Mass.

And can you honestly say that getting rid of Communion in the Hand entirely would restore reverence and participation levels to anything like what they were before it was reintroduced? I can’t - because it wasn’t CITH that caused much of the irreverence and lack of participation.

It was the entire ethos of the times, a general rebellion against ALL authority, demonstrated by the fact that ALL mainstream Christian denominations suffered and went through big change at the same time, and all suffer to this day.

 

[una_fides]

St Cyprian AND St Cyril of Jerusalem, thank you. (St Cyril being a doctor of the Church no less - whose teachings were and are quite widely known and studied as all the Doctors are) - and HE discusses it in his 'Mystagogical Catechesis - “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King".

Catechesis meaning TEACHING - as in St Cyril was writing about the practice in order to TEACH people preparing to join the Church how to receive Communion, among other things. So we have something that was widely taught and instructed to new members about to enter the Church. Not some isolated and abusive practice.

Whoah. Hang on. I never said or implied that it was an abusive practice back then. Way to read things into my post that weren’t there. Yes, it was Cyril not Cyprian. I sometimes get the two confused. Anyway, Communion in the hand was absolutely NOT a universal practice in the early Church nor is it even possible to be proven that it was even a widespread practice from the evidence we have. Cyril was not writing to the universal Church, as documents did not circulate well back then like they easily do today. He was writing to his local church at the time. He also was not elevated to the status of Doctor until much later, and the title Doctor refers to his doctrinal teaching. His writing concerning a custom of Communion in the hand does not prove anything more than that he practiced it and it was the custom in his general area.

In the mid 400s, Pope St. Leo the Great attested that the current common usage was Communion on the tongue. He speaks not as if he were introducing novelty but rather as attesting to a well established practice. Then in late 500s, Pope St. Gregory the Great (one of my favorite popes btw) writes how Pope St. Agapitus performed a miracle by placing the host into someone’s mouth.

Please read this article: franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

Communion in the hand was typically done out of necessity due to the persecutions that took place in the early Church. It also was never a universal rule nor is it historically possible for anyone to prose such. Unless you can provide authentic evidence from an early Church council that stated that Communion in the hand is a universal practice (which cannot be done) then you and the other proponents of Communion in the hand need to stop making such false claims.

Also realize that the bishops may decide to forbid Communion in the hand as was the practice of the Church for over over a thousand years. Btw, why did the Church forbid it altogether for so long? Perhaps because of the abuses, which the bishops and cardinals are explaining are taking place as well as lessening of the faith in the Real Presence that is produced when catechesis is lacking (which is often too many times the case). The Church forbid this practice for a reason. Let’s keep that in mind. Why it was permitted again at all on the other hand still remains a mystery… and the Church has never given so much as one reason that I’m aware of as to why Communion in the hand is a good thing.

 

[una_fides]

I wouldn’t class liturgical disciplines, such as those relating to the Blessed Sacrament, to be mere prudential matters.

I would… so do many bishops it appears…

And can you honestly say that getting rid of Communion in the Hand entirely would restore reverence and participation levels to anything like what they were before it was reintroduced? I can’t - because it wasn’t CITH that caused much of the irreverence and lack of participation.

Absolutely true that CITH is not the cause of the problems. Rebellion, lack of good catechesis, and modernism are. Nevertheless, it still facilitates further problems as cardinals and bishops have pointed out and as many people have observed and reported.

It was the entire ethos of the times, a general rebellion against ALL authority, demonstrated by the fact that ALL mainstream Christian denominations suffered and went through big change at the same time, and all suffer to this day.

Actually, you may want to check your sources on that. From what I’ve read, none of the mainstream protestant churches experienced anything close to the massive fallout that the Catholic Church did after Vatican II. Yes, rebellion against authority was part of the problem, but I think that also the modernist invention of the “spirit of Vatican II” as they would claim to justify their liturgical abuses and modified heresies is also to blame. But I suppose the only way we could prove anything would be to ask the people who left the Church why they chose to do so… That would be a good poling study wouldn’t it.

 

[nbjayme]

Every particle is Our Lord Jesus Christ. To protect every particle from accidentally falling or sticking on the hands of faithful and as an exercise of utmost respect to Our Lord —> Communion of the Tongue is recommended.

I do not understand why Communion on the hand should prevail after learning the above Truth. Of course, the Church provided guidelines for exceptions but exception is not a norm.

 

[LilyM]

Whoah. Hang on. I never said or implied that it was an abusive practice back then. Way to read things into my post that weren’t there. Yes, it was Cyril not Cyprian. I sometimes get the two confused. Anyway, Communion in the hand was absolutely NOT a universal practice in the early Church nor is it even possible to be proven that it was even a widespread practice from the evidence we have. Cyril was not writing to the universal Church, as documents did not circulate well back then like they easily do today. He was writing to his local church at the time. He also was not elevated to the status of Doctor until much later, and the title Doctor refers to his doctrinal teaching. His writing concerning a custom of Communion in the hand does not prove anything more than that he practiced it and it was the custom in his general area.

In the mid 400s, Pope St. Leo the Great attested that the current common usage was Communion on the tongue. He speaks not as if he were introducing novelty but rather as attesting to a well established practice. Then in late 500s, Pope St. Gregory the Great (one of my favorite popes btw) writes how Pope St. Agapitus performed a miracle by placing the host into someone’s mouth.

Please read this article: franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

Communion in the hand was typically done out of necessity due to the persecutions that took place in the early Church. It also was never a universal rule nor is it historically possible for anyone to prose such. Unless you can provide authentic evidence from an early Church council that stated that Communion in the hand is a universal practice (which cannot be done) then you and the other proponents of Communion in the hand need to stop making such false claims.

Also realize that the bishops may decide to forbid Communion in the hand as was the practice of the Church for over over a thousand years. Btw, why did the Church forbid it altogether for so long? Perhaps because of the abuses, which the bishops and cardinals are explaining are taking place as well as lessening of the faith in the Real Presence that is produced when catechesis is lacking (which is often too many times the case). The Church forbid this practice for a reason. Let’s keep that in mind. Why it was permitted again at all on the other hand still remains a mystery… and the Church has never given so much as one reason that I’m aware of as to why Communion in the hand is a good thing.

You are implying that it wasn’t widespread practice - which honestly we don’t really know. We have my handful of quotes (not just St Cyril, remember) against yours - all from sites which dislike at best, loathe at worst, communion in the hand and thus have an ax to grind. So who is right? How widespread was it? Does it really matter? It’s not like any of the good folk who did so were chastised for it, even though they wrote freely about the practice.

Somehow you’re implying that it wasn’t legitimate because the church did away with it at a later date. That’s a bit like saying the midnight communion fast is wrong because the Church did away with IT in favour of three hours and later one hour.

You seem to have ignored that CITH was not just practiced by St Cyril, or written about by him, but taught publicly, in lectures by him, to catechumens about to enter the church. Was there a persecution going on in Jerusalem in St Cyril’s time? In Damascus in St John’s time?

The Church forbid it for a reason, sure, and then it permitted it again. Also doubtless for a reason. Not a one of us probably even KNOWS all the reasons for the banning or the reinstatement, let alone being in any fit position to judge whether overall they were good reasons or not.

 

[una_fides]

The Church forbid it for a reason, sure, and then it permitted it again. Also doubtless for a reason. Not a one of us probably even KNOWS all the reasons for the banning or the reinstatement, let alone being in any fit position to judge whether overall they were good reasons or not.

Sounds like you are unable to come up with any reasons why the Church would forbid it, so you are trying to dismiss the argument. I can come up with a very sound reason why Pope Paul VI later permitted Communion in the hand. An Episcopal Conference basically ignored the Pope’s teaching regarding Communion in the hand and was *out of disobedience * distributing it as such anyway. The pontiff then felt forced to comply so that he would not cause a possible schism. Here’s Pope JP2’s take on it:

"In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been introduced…However, cases of a deplorable lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist."
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_24021980_dominicae-cenae_en.html

Here’s a question to ask yourself. Has Communion in the hand strengthened and clarified the faith of the Church regarding the Real Presence of Christ? Has it done anything beneficial?
On the other hand, has it led to abuses? Could it be possible that it has produced a decrease in faith in the Real Presence of Christ where catechesis is lacking? Has CITH produced a desecration of the particles of the Sacred Species that have fallen to the ground?

All the questions there but the last have been answered so far. To answer the last question, the Church infallibly taught at the Council of Trent that Christ is present in each of the particles. We know that particles can fall to the ground when the Eucharist is moved from place to place. For this reason, the priest is to take the utmost care to only touch the Eucharist with his fingertips. The Church for this reason has proscribed precautions to avoid any particles falling to the ground. The inevitable problem with Communion on the hand is that particles (Jesus most vulnerable) will inevitably remain in the hand afterward and some can even fall to the floor to be trampled on. Is this really the amount of dignity and respect we want to show to our Lord? Certainly there must be a better way…

 

[una_fides]

Ok, one more last argument (then I’m going to sleep), let’s think for a minute about which side of the theological spectrum promotes Communion in the hand. If we look at the most liberal of people who claim to be Catholic and yet deny all her teachings and who practice things like the ordination of women (which JP2 btw said is impossible to occur) and who change the Mass to take out all the references to a male gender, and who deny many infallibly defined dogmas of the Catholic faith, they are also the ones promoting Communion in the hand. Even more significantly, those liberals who deny the Real Presence and appall the worship of our Lord in the Eucharist, tend to be the most ardent supporters of Communion in the hand. Why?

 

[Cluny]

If we look at the most liberal of people who claim to be Catholic and yet deny all her teachings and who practice things like the ordination of women (which JP2 btw said is impossible to occur) and who change the Mass to take out all the references to a male gender, and who deny many infallibly defined dogmas of the Catholic faith, they are also the ones promoting Communion in the hand.

---

As I have pointed out, certain of the Eastern Churches and ancient still-celebrated Liturgies, such as Ss Addai and Mari and St. James call for communion in the hand, and receiving standing, with NO denial of the Real Presence expressed or implied.

 

[una_fides]

As I have pointed out, certain of the Eastern Churches and ancient still-celebrated Liturgies, such as Ss Addai and Mari and St. James call for communion in the hand, and receiving standing, with NO denial of the Real Presence expressed or implied.

We are in the west. Communion in the hand is not part of our Tradition, at least not for over a thousand years. It was banned for good reasons, likely the same reasons that they want to ban it again now. It is a special exception to the universal law of the Church, which is to receive Communion kneeling and on the tongue. The Church can and should repeal this indult just as a child who receives a privilege and abuses it should no longer be permitted to have it. Granted most people don’t abuse the indult, but because of the frequency of abuses, the lack of good catechesis, the problem with particles, and the decrease in faith in the Real Presence, the indult should be repealed as the experiment has failed to produce any real increase in faith or devotion and as only produced an increase of problems.

You also did not answer the problems with particles and the increase in abuses that take place as a result. Also if it has been a part of those traditions–which I would like to see some solid proof that it has always been–then they obviously have had good catechesis in order to preserve their faith in the Real Presence. What we are seeing in the US and Canada, where it has been introduced, is a large decline in faith in the Real Presence as well as many many many abuses. In order to protect our Lord and maintain the traditional reverence for his presence that has persisted throughout the centuries in the West, we must do away with Communion in the hand.

 

[Cluny]

We are in the west.

---

Who’s “we”, Kemo Sabe?

I’m an Eastern Christian living in the West, yea Arizona, and none of the Eastern Churches have the problems you’re mentioning.

 

[una_fides]

We are in the west.

---

Who’s “we”, Kemo Sabe?

I’m an Eastern Christian living in the West, yea Arizona, and none of the Eastern Churches have the problems you’re mentioning.

Then you obviously do not understand the extent of the problem since you are living isolated from it and have not seen it first hand. I suggest doing further reading about the many abuses that have and are taking place as well as the many churches that either are not teaching the right things or that are teaching the wrong things regarding the Real Presence. There are many so called “liberal Catholics” today who are trying to destroy the Church from within. Open your eyes to the problem. The smoke of Satan has entered the Church just as Pope Paul VI said it has.