Communion in the Hand?

[Iowa_Mike]

DavidPalm;4966424:

“Obediently”? So this was presented to them as a matter of obedience? Obedience to whom? I believe we have the answer to your question right there. Yes, it was presented to them as a matter of obedience and in that the faithful were misled. The Pope had said exactly the opposite: (QUOTE)

You have perhaps read very quickly and so have mis-read what I wrote.

I did not say that the people changed to CITH out of obedience, but that they had received on the tongue for many years out of obedience.

Receiving in the hand certainly was not proposed as a ‘must do’. It was presented as a choice, which the majority glady adopted.

Receiving in the hand was certainly not presented to me as a choice. jI went throught the transition and it was presented as a fait accompli…period. Today many priests refuse communion on the tongue.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[DavidPalm]

You have perhaps read very quickly and so have mis-read what I wrote. I did not say that the people changed to CITH out of obedience, but that they had received on the tongue for many years out of obedience.

Yes, I see that have misread you. I apologize.

Receiving in the hand certainly was not proposed as a ‘must do’. It was presented as a choice, which the majority glady adopted.

With this I would disagree. I do not think that in the majority of places it was presented as an option, but as “the way it is now”, with which the people went along neither gladly nor unhappily but just because the majority went along with all of the changes that were pressed upon them. Beyond the anecdotal evidence as presented by people like Iowa Mike, I would buttress this point with very concrete evidence: the physical removal of the altar rail to eliminate any possibility of the faithful kneeling and to make it as inconvenient as possible to receive on the tongue.

Also, I wonder if you would interact with the evidence I cited that the practice was introduced by dissident groups and also the clear direction from Rome that the traditional practice be retained due to its superiority?

 

[mullenpm]

Mike, I find your comment that some priests today refuse to give Holy Communion on the tongue very hard to believe.

I grew up in the Church before V2 and have NEVER received Holy Communion in my hand. It was not a “fait accompli” as you say it was.

Also, I have never encountered a priest who would not give me Holy Communion on my tongue. In fact, I find that fewer and fewer people are taking the Host in their hand today.

I believe people are understanding, by the example of our Holy Father, that receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue is the way to go.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Mike, I find your comment that some priests today refuse to give Holy Communion on the tongue very hard to believe.

I grew up in the Church before V2 and have NEVER received Holy Communion in my hand. It was not a “fait accompli” as you say it was.

Also, I have never encountered a priest who would not give me Holy Communion on my tongue. In fact, I find that fewer and fewer people are taking the Host in their hand today.

I believe people are understanding, by the example of our Holy Father, that receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue is the way to go.

Your fortunate. Our priest has said he doesn’t want anyont receiving on the tongue period. My niece was denied communion on the tongue and a friend was denied communion period because she knelt down to receive.

While I prefer communion on the tongue I don’t support kneeling in a line of folks trying to receive in the hand. It is disruptive and I think, in this case, this is probably the reason she was denied.

It is happening.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[DavidPalm]

Mike, I find your comment that some priests today refuse to give Holy Communion on the tongue very hard to believe.

For the most part is has not been a problem to receive kneeling, on the tongue, even if we’re the only ones doing it. My wife and I have been refused on one occasion, however.

 

[mullenpm]

Mike, I am sorry for the experiences you have encountered with respect to receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue. Why don’t you write a letter to your Bishop and ask his opinion of your priest refusing to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue. I believe your priest is in error.

I do agree, though, that kneeling to receive while in a communion line would be disruptive.

But, do you watch the Daily Mass on EWTN. If so, have you noticed how many people are now kneeling to receive. The Brothers started to kneel right after the New Year. Before that time there was only one man who knelt every day to receive.

Now, four or five people also kneel every day to receive. Very few people take the Host in their hand, with a possible exception recently to a group of young people who were on a pilgramage. They all took in their hand and it looked, to me, to be very objectional.

I am hopeful that this practice will soon stop.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

For the most part is has not been a problem to receive kneeling, on the tongue, even if we’re the only ones doing it. My wife and I have been refused on one occasion, however.

That’s what I’m talkin’ about!

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Mike, I am sorry for the experiences you have encountered with respect to receiving the Holy Eucharist on the tongue. Why don’t you write a letter to your Bishop and ask his opinion of your priest refusing to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue. I believe your priest is in error.

I do agree, though, that kneeling to receive while in a communion line would be disruptive.

But, do you watch the Daily Mass on EWTN. If so, have you noticed how many people are now kneeling to receive. The Brothers started to kneel right after the New Year. Before that time there was only one man who knelt every day to receive.

Now, four or five people also kneel every day to receive. Very few people take the Host in their hand, with a possible exception recently to a group of young people who were on a pilgramage. They all took in their hand and it looked, to me, to be very objectional.

I am hopeful that this practice will soon stop.

I’m already parish’s ‘hair shirt’. Father is liberal and simply won’t talk about these kind of issues because he believes they were set aside by Vatican II.

Too bad. I hope the practice will stop soon too.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[malphono]

With this I would disagree. I do not think that in the majority of places it was presented as an option, but as “the way it is now”, with which the people went along neither gladly nor unhappily but just because the majority went along with all of the changes that were pressed upon them. Beyond the anecdotal evidence as presented by people like Iowa Mike, I would buttress this point with very concrete evidence: the physical removal of the altar rail to eliminate any possibility of the faithful kneeling and to make it as inconvenient as possible to receive on the tongue.

Quite so. When so many altar rails were unceremoniously destroyed, it left little choice. Even if people knew they had an option (most, of course, did not: they did what they were told, which was usually “this is the ‘new way’ etc” without the word “option” ever having been used), most would not want to disrupt the flow of communicants or draw attention to themselves (in other words, embarrass themselves or create a scene).

Also, I wonder if you would interact with the evidence I cited that the practice was introduced by dissident groups and also the clear direction from Rome that the traditional practice be retained due to its superiority?

The evidence is indeed there. Unfortunately, two of the four post-conciliar Pontiffs had many nice words about the traditional practice, but neither one took any action. The third didn’t reign long enough to have an effect on anything, but at least the fourth is leading by example. A step in the right direction.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Here is an answer from a wonderful TLM priest, Father Donald Kloster.

Why Communion on the tongue?

Thanks a bunch. This is great and I managed to bring in the other three parts so I can distribute them to family and friends.

Beautiful.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[JDSinSA]

Thanks a bunch. This is great and I managed to bring in the other three parts so I can distribute them to family and friends.

Beautiful.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Awesome!

 

[newguy40]

A very interesting discussion and I just want to share my mites worth…

I had been away from the Church for 25 years (I am 49 YO). For many reasons, I started to attend Mass again shortly after last Christmas. (Of course, I did not take communion). I assure you that I have been keenly observing how communion was taken at my new church. I have to say there was only the single priest and one altar(person/boy – sorry I am old and only remember altar boys as the name of choice). Absolutely, no one took the bread by mouth. After 3 mos of weekly attendance I am yet to see any members take communion by mouth. And, I attend a 7:00 AM Mass with many many attendees clearly old enough to have been raised in the church before V2. There are no rails either. I suppose it may be somewhere on the altar but I am yet to see the device used to catch a fallen wafer and held by the altarperson.

I am happy to say that at my church’s special lenten reconciliation yesterday, I confessed and am now eligible to take the eucharist this Sunday! I am very happy. While I would prefer to take communion in my mouth, I think I’ll stick with the hand for now.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

A very interesting discussion and I just want to share my mites worth…

I had been away from the Church for 25 years (I am 49 YO). For many reasons, I started to attend Mass again shortly after last Christmas. (Of course, I did not take communion). I assure you that I have been keenly observing how communion was taken at my new church. I have to say there was only the single priest and one altar(person/boy – sorry I am old and only remember altar boys as the name of choice). Absolutely, no one took the bread by mouth. After 3 mos of weekly attendance I am yet to see any members take communion by mouth. And, I attend a 7:00 AM Mass with many many attendees clearly old enough to have been raised in the church before V2. There are no rails either. I suppose it may be somewhere on the altar but I am yet to see the device used to catch a fallen wafer and held by the altarperson.

I am happy to say that at my church’s special lenten reconciliation yesterday, I confessed and am now eligible to take the eucharist this Sunday! I am very happy. While I would prefer to take communion in my mouth, I think I’ll stick with the hand for now.

Congratulations and welcome back to Mother Church!

A paten is not used when communion is done by hand. Just go back and read all the posts and then make a decision for yourself.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[diggerdomer]

No disrespect is intended and I certainly do not intend to insult or offend anyone, especially among the very Traditional, but why is the Communion in the Hand issue so big? Having been an Anglican/Episcopalian for a little while before becoming Catholic (or being in the process of becoming Catholic), maybe my views are clouded in Communion in the Hand is the norm in most Anglican parishes (or at least the ones I have been in).

I understand the need for respect obviously, but how is Communion in the Hand disrespectful? In terms of avoiding dropping the Blessed Sacrament, it would seem Communion in the Hand is the better way.

Thanks for the great question. This is so important. I think you’re right to observe that this question for whatever reasons had been pretty obsessive in the Roman Catholic church. Communion in the hand is relatively recent…one generation vs. the practice of not receiving in the hand which has been around for a few centuries (though not since the beginning)…so many Catholics view this change as a degradation and/or sign of disrespect (they are unaware of early Church practices, and may not fully consider what happened at the Last Supper). Personally I don’t see it as disrespect. I mean, Jesus said “take and eat” not “stick out your tongue and eat” (something I learned in 3rd grade from the wonderful nun teaching us).

I know Mother Theresa and others have commented strongly on it, but it seems that today, it is a valid way to receive the Blessed Sacrament, regardless of how the custom may have started. To me, it seems like the issue of Communion in the Hand versus on the Tongue is just a way to promote unnecessary (and apparently vicious) division.

In some ways I would agree with you. The Church clearly teaches that either posture is acceptable, and neither posture should be denied, so those who differ from this teaching are putting themselves above the Church, imho (actually not just imho, but in fact I guess)

Cheers

 

[keyboardrob]

I’ve always received Holy Communion on the tongue. I never saw a good reason to change that practice, but that’s just me. Others have a right to do differently. I would agree with the statement in an earlier post that sometimes discussion on this matter leads to unnecessary divisions amongst us.

Another observation after 38 years of watching reception of Holy Communion from the organ bench- I’ve seen as much reverence amongst those who receive in the hand as I have seen from those receiving the Eucharistic Lord on the tongue. The opposite- no reverence at all- can be seen as well in both modes of reception. There’s a hymn we sing at Notre Dame called “Make of Our Hands a Throne” with the message that not only our hands, but our very selves should be a fitting throne when we receive the King of Kings in the Eucharist. Therefore, who are any of us to say what’s right or wrong when it comes to the mode of receiving Holy Communion? It’s a matter of preparing one’s entire self for reception and not just a matter of hand or tongue.

 

[otjm]

I’m not on this forum to argue. You can say that the Pope thinks communion in the hand is OK…if he really thought so he would be doing so.

Are you calling him a liar? I simply quoted what he has said;you are the one who is saying he doesn’t believe this.

He is not. Instead, as the Christ’s representative on earth, he has chosen to give communion on the tongue. You can dismiss this if you want but it is profound.

No, it is not profound. The norm (as I have said) is on the tongue. There is no particular reason, when the norm is on the tongue, for him to do otherwise. That is why receiving in the hand is an indult. I would not expect him to normally do otherwise than the norm. And there have been reported instances of his distribution in the hand.

Your statement that you don’t think I am emotional about this issue is not factual. I would describe my objection to the treatment of Our Lord’s Divine Body, Blook, Soul and Divinity as passionate not emotional. I have seen what I have seen, my supporting citations are sound and, as a result, my arguments are sound. You don’t want to argue reverence and it is a good thing you don’t because there is no way in the world you can succeed with the position that communion in the hand is as reverent as communion on the tongue.

So the Pope is a liar?

Communion in the hand is an indult. It was first done in the Netherlands (where Iived for a number of years). I was done in total disobediance from the norm. It spread first to the surrounding countries and finally to the U.S. The Church, in my humble opinion, caved in and made it an indult; one the Holy Father chooses not to follow.

It is your analysis that they “caved in”. They allow it, and he has said that because it is allowed, those who follow the norm are not to criticize those who follow the indult.

With respect to masses in costume, check out the Barney Mass in California or the Holloween mass also in California. These aren’t fabrications and you can find them on YouTube. There is all manner of irreverenct liturgical innovations that found their way into the Novus Ordo…dancing, plays, horrible music, etc. The Novus Ordo could be very reverent but it isn’t in today’s form. I’ve outline many personally observed irreverent practices today in the Novus Order…I’ve seen these practices repeated in every NO mass I have attended, in one degree or another. You have seen none. Maybe that’s and area we should explore.

I have once seen what was purported to be liturgical dance. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry. In 63 years, once is not what I would call frequent. I have never seen a clown Mass or a Halloween Mass; that they may have occured in singular instances is not my point; they are not regular; and much of what is reported is done in a way to make it appear that it is a regular event. Long before Vatican 2, there were Black (as in satanic)Masses. I would not be the least bit surprised if there were not occasional practices such as this either, but they are extremely limited. Neither they nor clown Masses have an realtionship to Communion in the hand.

I respectfully disagree that the issue of communion in the hand is selft correcting. As long as liberal lay elements hold sway over liturgy, this will continue to be a problem and probably get worse.

and as I have pointed out, there has been a slow and steady move towards more reverence in the Mass both nationally and within Europe. part of that is simply the dying off of the priests who were so enamoured with their own liturgical experimentation. Change takes time, particularly as it relates to correcting abuses. If you are in an area that has abuses (as opposed to simply things you do not like), I am truly sorry; everyone has the right to have the Mass said reverently.

I’ve been all over the world to Novus Ordo masses…and the irreverence is everywhere. Are their reverent Catholics at these services, of course. Most feel helpless to make changes.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I simply diasgree with you that it is everywhere. I ahv seen and participated in reverent Masses. I also am old enough to have participated in Masses pre Vatican 2 that were hardly what one would call reverent. It is not a phenomenon of the OF; it is a phenomenon of the priest.

 

[joey46]

I will.

 

[otjm]

paperwight;4966764:

Today many priests refuse communion on the tongue.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Because the rules are that we not name names, I cannot challenge you to name them. I just have a lingering doubt about that statement. Severl years ago a priest got himself keelhauled by Rome for refusing to distribute Communion to someone who was kneeling when all else stood. I kind of doubt that there are “many” priests who would refuse someone Communion if the communicant made it obvious they wished to receive on the tongue.

Maybe there are. I have yet to find one. Many? Is that 2? And when did this occur - a year ago? 5 years ago? 10? 15? Yesterday? Are we making something that happened some time ago - in years - to be something that is current today - as if I were to go to that parish this coming sunday, I would be refused?

Sorry, I don’t buy that as occuring currently. Particularly as it is something that Rome will step in on (although there are any number of things they won’t step in on).

 

[Shin]

Iowa Mike;4966782:

Because the rules are that we not name names, I cannot challenge you to name them. I just have a lingering doubt about that statement. Severl years ago a priest got himself keelhauled by Rome for refusing to distribute Communion to someone who was kneeling when all else stood. I kind of doubt that there are “many” priests who would refuse someone Communion if the communicant made it obvious they wished to receive on the tongue.

Maybe there are. I have yet to find one. Many? Is that 2? And when did this occur - a year ago? 5 years ago? 10? 15? Yesterday? Are we making something that happened some time ago - in years - to be something that is current today - as if I were to go to that parish this coming sunday, I would be refused?

Sorry, I don’t buy that as occuring currently. Particularly as it is something that Rome will step in on (although there are any number of things they won’t step in on).

Honestly, if you’re not aware of the extent of the lack of discipline in the Church you should just read the St. Joseph foundation’s website or some of the liturgical abuse threads – or just read the newspaper about the latest Catholic priest pushing heresy unreprimanded.

I’ve been refused while kneeling. But then you expect they’re aiming for that when they rip out kneelers and rails, do you not?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Re: Communion in the Hand?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa Mike
I’m not on this forum to argue. You can say that the Pope thinks communion in the hand is OK…if he really thought so he would be doing so.

Are you calling him a liar? I simply quoted what he has said;you are the one who is saying he doesn’t believe this.

Are you trying to be unpleasant or does it come naturally? The pope can follow the indult if he wanted to just like everybody else. Think about it!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iowa Mike
He is not. Instead, as the Christ’s representative on earth, he has chosen to give communion on the tongue. You can dismiss this if you want but it is profound.

No, it is not profound. The norm (as I have said) is on the tongue. There is no particular reason, when the norm is on the tongue, for him to do otherwise. That is why receiving in the hand is an indult. I would not expect him to normally do otherwise than the norm. And there have been reported instances of his distribution in the hand.

See my answer above. The pope has chosen to give on the tongue over the indult…if you can’t see this is a preference well…you are ignoring the obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa Mike
Your statement that you don’t think I am emotional about this issue is not factual. I would describe my objection to the treatment of Our Lord’s Divine Body, Blook, Soul and Divinity as passionate not emotional. I have seen what I have seen, my supporting citations are sound and, as a result, my arguments are sound. You don’t want to argue reverence and it is a good thing you don’t because there is no way in the world you can succeed with the position that communion in the hand is as reverent as communion on the tongue.

So the Pope is a liar?

You’ve said that twice now. I’ll try to explain this one more time. Communion in hand began post Vatican II in the Netherlands and spread from there. Pope Benedict did not put the indult in place. His actions speak to his preference. Undoing the indult will take time. It’s been banned on two prior occasions in the history of the Church and in time it will be banned again… Communion on the tongue has never been banned.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa Mike
Communion in the hand is an indult. It was first done in the Netherlands (where Iived for a number of years). I was done in total disobediance from the norm. It spread first to the surrounding countries and finally to the U.S. The Church, in my humble opinion, caved in and made it an indult; one the Holy Father chooses not to follow.

It is your analysis that they “caved in”. They allow it, and he has said that because it is allowed, those who follow the norm are not to criticize those who follow the indult.

Where O where did you get that. If I’m not mistaken all the invective and emotional statements are coming from people like you who seem to prefer communion on the hand. When the bishops discussed the indult, 70% voted not to issue it because they thought it would reduce reverence, belief and in the Real Presence and make it easier for dissident and cultists to steal the Host. They were right. This is a matter of record, look it up.

This post is over 6000 characters so it is 1 of 2.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike