Communion in the hand

[FCEGM]

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!

But in what manner was the Host given and received? When given in the hand then the manner was far different than has appeared in our time.

On December 12 of last year, Auxiliary Bishop Athanasius Schneider, ORC, of Kazakhstan was interviewed by Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN (interview available on cd); Bishop Schneider is an expert on the liturgies of the early Church and commented that even when received in the hand the Host was not touched by the fingers of the laity - and never received in the left hand. The recipient would bend over his/her right hand to then take the Host from the palm with his mouth (women had a cloth laid over the palm before the Host was placed there). Bishop Schneider has written a book on the liturgy that has not be translated fully, but this is an excerpt published in Osservatore Romano that addresses the issue:

te-deum.blogspot.com/2008/03/historical-liturgical-notes-on-rite-of.html

 

[rinnie]

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.

Una fides, Please do not take offense in what I am going to say. But you have not been a RC real long have You. Just asking, How long have you been RC if you don’t mind me asking.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

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.

of course the Holy Spirit cares, he’s God. but our popes and cardinals are not God. they have free will and are subject to attacks from the devil and have a fallen nature.

if vii liturgical deform was of the Holy Spirit, then why has the GIRM been modified so frequently? why has B16 reconciled with SSPX? why has he liberated the traditional mass? why does he most likely celebrate the traditional mass privately? read his books–especially before becoming pope–you will find his opinon of vii litrugical pratice is very negative.

even the translation of the mass has been a disaster. catechisis is worse now then prior to vii. as far as i can tell, it failed miserably to build up the christian church–which was the whole point of vii.

didn’t you hear about how 52% of catholic voted for the obama?

 

[Lepanto]

For the first 3 centuries Communion in the Hand was the norm of the Church, so it is obviously not a sin.

Please read item #9 here:

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[una_fides]

Una fides, Please do not take offense in what I am going to say. But you have not been a RC real long have You. Just asking, How long have you been RC if you don’t mind me asking.

I take no offense; however, what you are asking is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why is it pertinent to the topic of discussion at all how long I’ve been Catholic? I was Catholic when I was baptized as an infant, beyond that, whether I was a convert from a few days ago (which I’m not) or practicing Catholic my entire life, that doesn’t change the fact that liturgical abuses are taking place on a large scale, and that there are serious problems with Communion in the hand that no one on here has been able to answer yet.

Might I ask you the same? How long have you been a RC? How long have you been in good standing with the Church? I would also like to ask, how much research have you done on the matter of liturgical abuse? Would you even know how to spot it if you saw it? Are you familiar with the GIRM and its norms for Mass as well as the rulings put out by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments?

How many Novus Ordo masses have you attended in your life and in how many different parishes? Regarding Church doctrine, to what extent have you studied the dogmas of the Church? Have you read the Council of Trent or Pope Pius X’s documents condemning modernism? How much research have you actually put into this? It seems to me you may very well be oblivious to the state of the Church and what is taking place.

You don’t have to answer any of my questions, if you do not want to. But hopefully you get my point. I too have meant no disrespect or offense with my comments. I just think you might need to do more research on this matter. And I don’t like how you are trying to call into question anything about me personally, which this conversation is not about. If you can’t possibly handle the evidence or answer the points raised, then just admit that rather than trying feebly to discredit a messenger.

 

[una_fides]

For the first 3 centuries Communion in the Hand was the norm of the Church, so it is obviously not a sin.

It was not the norm nor can that be proven. No one is saying that it is a sin to receive Communion on the hand. (At least I haven’t seen anyone on here that’s said so…) It’s licit, but it should not continue to be due to many serious problems with it described on here already.

 

[PJM]

**If the bishop **is making liturgical decisions that are within canon law and in obedience to the Pope, that isn’t an abuse. He’s the chief liturgist for his diocese, and he is bound by current discipline, not past discipline. A bishop must always take the experience of his flock seriously into account, out of the pre-eminent perogative of charity’s demands if nothing else, but he isn’t bound by their opinions. …

As for those times when bishops are not in obedience to the Holy See or canon law, duty requires Catholics to object, regardless of what anyone’s state in life is.

IOW, I think we are in agreement.

My dear friends in Christ,

That is a BIG, a HUGE If?

Not one of the following bishop forced innovations was **pre-**approved by the fathers of Vatican II, and the reigning Pope at the time.

NOT ONE!

Altars replaced by “tables”

Walk-around altars

Removal of the reservation Tabernacle to???

Altar girls

Lay Lectors

Removal of the Communion Rail

Holy Communion under both species

Holy Communion in the hand

(very) “ordinary” ministers of Holy Communion

Why? Prevailing phylosophy and theology was “if we can’t get THEM to convert to our way; we’ll change to their way.”

To be fair, AFTER ALL OF THESE ABUSES HAD BECOME COMMON PRACTICE, “papal indults” were requested, and fearing that The Church would not be able to return the “geni” to the bottle of Faithful, and Obedient God-Cethered Worship, Rome caputulated.

Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI are trying to reverse decades of abuse. Let us pray :byzsoc:

Cupability is lessened today because of the indults.

 

[Rush_Catholic]

My dear friends in Christ,

That is a BIG, a HUGE If?

Not one of the following bishop forced innovations was **pre-**approved by the fathers of Vatican II, and the reigning Pope at the time.

NOT ONE!

Altars replaced by “tables”

Walk-around altars

Removal of the reservation Tabernacle to???

Altar girls

Lay Lectors

Removal of the Communion Rail

Holy Communion under both species

Holy Communion in the hand

(very) “ordinary” ministers of Holy Communion

Why? Prevailing phylosophy and theology was “if we can’t get THEM to convert to our way; we’ll change to their way.”

To be fair, AFTER ALL OF THESE ABUSES HAD BECOME COMMON PRACTICE, “papal indults” were requested, and fearing that The Church would not be able to return the “geni” to the bottle of Faithful, and Obedient God-Cethered Worship, Rome caputulated.

Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI are trying to reverse decades of abuse. Let us pray :byzsoc:

Cupability is lessened today because of the indults.

Amen!

 

[Rush_Catholic]

My dear friends in Christ,

That is a BIG, a HUGE If?

Not one of the following bishop forced innovations was **pre-**approved by the fathers of Vatican II, and the reigning Pope at the time.

NOT ONE!

Altars replaced by “tables”

Walk-around altars

Removal of the reservation Tabernacle to???

Altar girls

Lay Lectors

Removal of the Communion Rail

Holy Communion under both species

Holy Communion in the hand

(very) “ordinary” ministers of Holy Communion

Why? Prevailing phylosophy and theology was “if we can’t get THEM to convert to our way; we’ll change to their way.”

To be fair, AFTER ALL OF THESE ABUSES HAD BECOME COMMON PRACTICE, “papal indults” were requested, and fearing that The Church would not be able to return the “geni” to the bottle of Faithful, and Obedient God-Cethered Worship, Rome caputulated.

Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI are trying to reverse decades of abuse. Let us pray :byzsoc:

Cupability is lessened today because of the indults.

Ordaining Women!
“Halloween Masses”
“Clown Masses”

 

[rinnie]

I take no offense; however, what you are asking is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Why is it pertinent to the topic of discussion at all how long I’ve been Catholic? I was Catholic when I was baptized as an infant, beyond that, whether I was a convert from a few days ago (which I’m not) or practicing Catholic my entire life, that doesn’t change the fact that liturgical abuses are taking place on a large scale, and that there are serious problems with Communion in the hand that no one on here has been able to answer yet.

Might I ask you the same? How long have you been a RC? How long have you been in good standing with the Church? I would also like to ask, how much research have you done on the matter of liturgical abuse? Would you even know how to spot it if you saw it? Are you familiar with the GIRM and its norms for Mass as well as the rulings put out by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments?

How many Novus Ordo masses have you attended in your life and in how many different parishes? Regarding Church doctrine, to what extent have you studied the dogmas of the Church? Have you read the Council of Trent or Pope Pius X’s documents condemning modernism? How much research have you actually put into this? It seems to me you may very well be oblivious to the state of the Church and what is taking place.

You don’t have to answer any of my questions, if you do not want to. But hopefully you get my point. I too have meant no disrespect or offense with my comments. I just think you might need to do more research on this matter. And I don’t like how you are trying to call into question anything about me personally, which this conversation is not about. If you can’t possibly handle the evidence or answer the points raised, then just admit that rather than trying feebly to discredit a messenger.

No offense taken. I have been a Roman Catholic since the day I way born. well almost. My Mother would not leave the house until I was baptised. I can honestly say I have not missed mass one Sunday (unless sick) until I have reached the age of 19. Then married I may have missed 2 times since my age now 47.

I was baptised, communion, confirmed and married at the same Church. I just changed about 10 years ago. This church is smaller and closer to home. I have never seen nor heard of what you are saying.

So forgive me for having my doubts. You would too, I would hope. I feel like I have to pick between a person on the internet who I have never met vs my Church of 47 years So forgive me if I am taking sides.

If you love your Church the way I do you can understand. It is just I was always taught to never talk about a Priest to pray for him. To have faith in your Church and believe that the reason you go there is to be with God.

On the lighter side from your PM I can see things that you seem to concern yourself with, I see as normal. Like at lent we do not have Holy Water.

I am just at a point that okay I am guilty I have not seen it, nor heard of it. What do you want from me. Do not get me wrong on this site, yes, But never in life. So there you have it. I do not know you, but I know that in 47 years I have visited many Churchs had two main Churchs and have never heard of or seen this. What would you do if you were me?

 

[LilyM]

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?

Interesting argument. Might I point out that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, who are every bit as radically separated from the teachings of Rome, DON’T practice Communion in the Hand?

What about the ‘not-in-full-communion’ (at least not until yesterday) SSPX? The sedevacantist SSPV? And there are other ‘offshoots’ of Roman Catholicism that deny the dogma of Papal Infallibility, for example - I think it’s called ‘Old Catholics’. They for the most part cling to traditional practices, including Communion in the Hand.

It’s nowhere near as simple as saying ‘CITH = dissent from Rome and denial of Catholic dogma’.

 

[nbjayme]

What in the world has denial of infallibility got to do with the SSPX??? There is a scope of infallibility power of the Pope. The SSPX does not deny Papal Infallibility.

“It must be remembered that Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church. Communion in the hand is an exception to the law (it is an “indult”) which is not commanded but only allowed if all the conditions outlined by the Vatican are present.”

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comunion.htm

Is the indult above the Law of the Church?

I do not care the huge documents you have in history that talks about Communion in the Hand. Faith is like a mustard seed it grows — and the Church through many heresies and abuses have GROWN WISER and prescribed what ought to be observed.

---

(what’s taking joe benedict from adding links and information on the sticky that says the Pope lifts the excommunication?)

 

[LilyM]

What in the world has denial of infallibility got to do with the SSPX??? There is a scope of infallibility power of the Pope. The SSPX does not deny Papal Infallibility.

“It must be remembered that Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church. Communion in the hand is an exception to the law (it is an “indult”) which is not commanded but only allowed if all the conditions outlined by the Vatican are present.”

catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comunion.htm

Is the indult above the Law of the Church?

I do not care the huge documents you have in history that talks about Communion in the Hand. Faith is like a mustard seed it grows — and the Church through many heresies and abuses have GROWN WISER and prescribed what ought to be observed.

---

(what’s taking joe benedict from adding links and information on the sticky that says the Pope lifts the excommunication?)

I never claimed that the SSPX denied Papal infallibility, although other organisations that give communion exclusively in the hand do.

The SSPX were, until yesterday at least, out of full communion with Rome - disobedient and dissenting in numerous ways. That disobedience and rebellion was NOT caused by CITH.

The SSPX thus provides evidence for my point, which is that there isn’t nearly as much of a correlation between CITH and disobedience/dissent (if indeed any) as its detractors would like us to think!

 

[nbjayme]

Summorum Pontificum already nailed those people who insist on the NEW MASS. The TLM have never been abrogated. The SPPX wants to continue on the Teachings and Mass as handed down to us from generations of Saints. This was the objective of Archibishop Lefebvre — to continue what the Church have brought us.

Therefore, no sane mind should force a Bishop nor Priest to celebrate the NO.

The current lifting tells us there was really no need of that excommunication because there was no rebellion by SSPX against the Church.

You seem to dwell too much in the past that is why you cannot assess the current situation and see the bigger picture.



Is the Indult above the Law of the Church (with regards to communion) ?

 

[LilyM]

Summorum Pontificum already nailed those people who insist on the NEW MASS. The TLM have never been abrogated. The SPPX wants to continue on the Teachings and Mass as handed down to us from generations of Saints. This was the objective of Archibishop Lefebvre — to continue what the Church have brought us.

Therefore, no sane mind should force a Bishop nor Priest to celebrate the NO.

The current lifting tells us there was really no need of that excommunication because there was no rebellion by SSPX against the Church.

You seem to dwell too much in the past that is why you cannot assess the current situation and see the bigger picture.



Is the Indult above the Law of the Church (with regards to communion) ?

Yeah, it nailed them so hard that in many cases priests are not allowed to celebrate the TLM during the Easter Triduum.

The excommunication against Abp Lefebvre has NOT been lifted, nor have the suspensions against the bishops been lifted. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their past behaviour.

All that has happened is that they are no longer excommunicated - news for you - neither are the Orthodox. I suppose there’s never been any rebellion on THEIR part either? And that THEY are totally hunky-dory and fully part of the Church now too?

 

[nbjayme]

Is the Indult above the Law of the Church (with regards to communion) ?

Who are those priests not celebrating the TLM??? Are you telling us the Church have abrogated the TLM at Easter???
Is the Pope now contradicting himself??? Did the Pope say the TLM is abrogated on Easter???

We’ll a Bishop here in the country allowed gays to parade with women clothes on to represent a Woman Saint. Probably this kind of bishop is one that qualifies as “SANE” on your part.

Why were they excommunicated?
Pope Benedict XVI repealed the excommunication and made it in effect from the day it was decreed.

I say, everything now is in God’s hands. I’ll exert more effort for prayers for the good of the Church.

---

IS THE “INDULT” above the “LAW OF THE CHURCH”? (in communion)

 

[LilyM]

Is the Indult above the Law of the Church (with regards to communion) ?

Who are those priests not celebrating the TLM??? Are you telling us the Church have abrogated the TLM at Easter???
Is the Pope now contradicting himself??? Did the Pope say the TLM is abrogated on Easter???

We’ll a Bishop here in the country allowed gays to parade with women clothes on to represent a Woman Saint. Probably this kind of bishop is one that qualifies as “SANE” on your part.

Why were they excommunicated?
Pope Benedict XVI repealed the excommunication and made it in effect from the day it was decreed.

I say, everything now is in God’s hands. I’ll exert more effort for prayers for the good of the Church.

---

IS THE “INDULT” above the “LAW OF THE CHURCH”? (in communion)

Read and weep:

“each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so **on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. **” (SP, Article 2)

Are YOU calling BXVI a liar here?

What has happened, it seems, is that priests who prior to SP had an indult to celebrate TLM (such as FSSP or ICKSP members) can continue, in the Easter Triduum as well. No other priest, it would seem from the above, can do so.

And I’d advise you to reread the statement on the SSPX - it mentions Bishops Fellay, Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais and del Gallaretta as having their excommunications lifted. And them alone. NOT Lefebvre, who is still excommunicate. As I said, his views and actions at least have NOT been vindicated.

 

[nbjayme]

Oh LilyM,

I’m weeping… You’re focusing too much on the document but not on the outcome.

"Some commentators, focusing on the words “with the exception of the Easter Triduum,” concluded that the motu proprio excluded the use of the 1962 Good Friday prayers. Others concentrated on the opening phrase, “In Masses celebrated without the people,” understanding it to mean that the 1962 Missal was excluded on Good Friday only in the case of “private masses,” but could be used in Triduum liturgies when congregations are present (which is now the norm for the Easter Triduum). "

jcrelations.net/en/?item=2864

So the Church continued what it has done for many centuries. No POPE nor COUNCIL is above the ‘Deposit of Faith’. Authorities, to reach a solution with the Jews, changed the prayers instead.



With regards to Marcel Lefebvre, the Truth will unfold in due course.

IS THE INDULT ABOVE THE LAW OF THE CHURCH (with regards to communion)?

 

[una_fides]

Interesting argument. Might I point out that the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, who are every bit as radically separated from the teachings of Rome, DON’T practice Communion in the Hand?

What about the ‘not-in-full-communion’ (at least not until yesterday) SSPX? The sedevacantist SSPV? And there are other ‘offshoots’ of Roman Catholicism that deny the dogma of Papal Infallibility, for example - I think it’s called ‘Old Catholics’. They for the most part cling to traditional practices, including Communion in the Hand.

It’s nowhere near as simple as saying ‘CITH = dissent from Rome and denial of Catholic dogma’.

I think you meant to say that they “cling to traditional practices like Communion on the TONGUE.” However, this thinking is a fallacy anyway because the Roman Catholic Church clings to that same tradition as well. It is the law of the Church that Communion on the tongue is the norm! Communion in the hand is only an exception. You are trying to say that the people who promote Communion on the tongue only often come from these groups. Well in response to that I will ask you do any of those groups have any less regard for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Obviously not. The liberals who abhor the dogma of the Real Presence on the other hand are doing everything they can to promote Communion in the hand. The exception to the rule that allows for Communion in the hand in the limited areas that they are in allows them to continue to promote their deceptions in trying to reduce the Real Presence of Christ to that of just a common meal and common food that one picks up with his hands as if it were a potato chip or a piece of pop corn. I never said that CITH is ipso facto the cause of defecting from Rome and schism and heresy; however, it is part of the agenda of those who wish to destroy faith in the Real Presence altogether.

 

[LilyM]

I think you meant to say that they “cling to traditional practices like Communion on the TONGUE.” However, this thinking is a fallacy anyway because the Roman Catholic Church clings to that same tradition as well. It is the law of the Church that Communion on the tongue is the norm! Communion in the hand is only an exception. You are trying to say that the people who promote Communion on the tongue only often come from these groups. Well in response to that I will ask you do any of those groups have any less regard for the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Obviously not. The liberals who abhor the dogma of the Real Presence on the other hand are doing everything they can to promote Communion in the hand. The exception to the rule that allows for Communion in the hand in the limited areas that they are in allows them to continue to promote their deceptions in trying to reduce the Real Presence of Christ to that of just a common meal and common food that one picks up with his hands as if it were a potato chip or a piece of pop corn. I never said that CITH is ipso facto the cause of defecting from Rome and schism and heresy; however, it is part of the agenda of those who wish to destroy faith in the Real Presence altogether.

In that they apparently have little or no regard for the legitimate authority of Christ’s Church through which all graces, including that of the Real Presence, flow to mankind, then no, it doesn’t particularly redeem them that they cling to SOME traditional practices and SOME Catholic beliefs.

‘Who rejects you rejects me,’ after all. Not ‘some forms of rejection are OK/tolerable, others aren’t’.

As for you, njbayme, the indult IS the law of the Church in regards to communion, in those places where it applies. It’s a legitimately permitted way of doing things in certain places. It’s a false dichotomy to say that the indult is somehow in opposition to the law of the church.