Communion in the Hand?

[Iowa_Mike]

Here is 2 of 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa Mike
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.

There is a wealth of information out there on liturgical abuse…check it out. If it doesn’t make you sick nothing will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa Mike
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 lived in Europe and Asia for 25 years. I moved back in 2002…I didn’t see any such movement at all. During that time I lived in Ireland, England The Netherlands twice, Wales, and travelled extensively. When I left it was still getting worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa Mike
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.

Reasonable people can disagree…You should go back and study the reasons communion in the hand was twice banned.

I think we may disagree but we don’t have to be disagreeable.

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.

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.

Communion in the hand is not disrespectful in and of itself. Only the person receiving can be disrespectul, regardless of whether they’re receiving by hand or tongue.

Cheers

 

[DavidPalm]

Communion in the hand is not disrespectful in and of itself. Only the person receiving can be disrespectul, regardless of whether they’re receiving by hand or tongue.

True, reception in the hand can be done reverently on an individual basis. But over the centuries and in the aggregate, it has been found to lead to less reverence and abuse. The shepherds are discovering this yet again and, like Iowa Mike, I believe it will eventually be banned again.

 

[Auntie_M]

If the person giving the sacrament on the other end happens to be someone of the opposite sex who is attractive would it not be best to receive in the hand to prevent sinning?

Abbadon…hummm interesting that you would choose that name. Are you a “traveling man”?

 

[Layman]

Cause and effect?:

• EMCs mean the priest’s function is diminished, if a lay woman can give out communion, what’s special about it or the ministrative role?;
• Altar girls means fewer or no boy servers (an old MC told me this. When the girls come in the boys move out);
• Fewer boy altar servers means fewer priestly vocations;
• Communion in the hand means: I am good enough to handle the host; and can stand rather than kneel in the house of God, therefore my pride is increased and the role of the priest is further diminished, by comparison;
• The diminishing of the priest’s role means fewer men will want to do it; to preside over an effeminised rite and be badgered by assertive parishioners who think they’re the ‘priesthood of the baptised’ or whatever it’s called;
• No priest means no Mass and therefore, no church. Time to get your car MOT’d; you’re going to be needing it to get to Mass.

I’ve read God sends you the clergy you deserve. I feel sorry for traditional Catholics in liberal parishes with emollient priests and assertive laity; I have an idea the next ten-twenty years are going to be tough.

Pope Benedict might help shorten the time it takes for the real ‘renewal’ of our faith, if he gets his way; may God scatter his enemies like chaff before the flail and guide his flock safely into the Heavenly fold!

 

[diggerdomer]

*]EMCs mean the priest’s function is diminished, if a lay woman can give out communion, what’s special about it or the ministrative role?

What’s special is that only the priest can consecrate the bread/wine.

*]Altar girls means fewer or no boy servers (an old MC told me this. When the girls come in the boys move out)

This is an opinion. Or do you have some evidence for the claim?

*]Fewer boy altar servers means fewer priestly vocations

Can you back this claim up with any statistics or research? Or is it just your opinion (which is fine and valuable…but still an opinion)

*]Communion in the hand means: I am good enough to handle the host; and can stand rather than kneel in the house of God, therefore my pride is increased and the role of the priest is further diminished, by comparison

It might mean that to you, but that’s your issue. I see it as following what Jesus said in the Gospels, “take and eat” not “kneel and stick out your tongue.” We’re free to receive communion in many postures, that’s fine with me. You seem to disagree with the Church on this though?

*]
The diminishing of the priest’s role means fewer men will want to do it; to preside over an effeminised rite and be badgered by assertive parishioners who think they’re the ‘priesthood of the baptised’ or whatever it’s called;

Hmmm…not sure what you’re saying here but it sure seems to be a sore spot for you. By our baptism we are indeed all “priests” in a certain sense…that’s part of the Sacrament. We are anointed into Christ as “priest, prophet, and king.” That’s what the Church teaches; we all have a “priestly” role to exercise. This does not detract from or diminish the ordained ministry, it’s just a fact of the Catholic faith.

*]No priest means no Mass and therefore, no church. Time to get your car MOT’d; you’re going to be needing it to get to Mass.

Yes, no priest means no Mass which would seriously affect the Church. I’m not sure what you mean by the latter part.

Cheers

 

[Layman]

Ah, documentation. Proof. Statistics. I maintain the great weakness of the Western approach to religion is its emphasis on the literary. Protestantism didn’t get going until Bibles became widespread, I believe.

• When the women heavily outnumber men at Mass;
• When the priest starts taking liberties even with the OF rubrics;
• When sacramentals are moved, get run down, removed and not replaced;
• When words like ‘social justice’, ‘ecology’ and ‘inclusivity’ start appearing in sermons or parish literature;
• When your priest or bishop is quite keen on ecumenism, to the extent of having joint services or the like;
• When the number of Masses/priests/churches in your novelty-favouring OF parish then declines;

Then you’ll have some proof.

 

[diggerdomer]

Ah, documentation. Proof. Statistics. I maintain the great weakness of the Western approach to religion is its emphasis on the literary. Protestantism didn’t get going until Bibles became widespread, I believe.

• When the women heavily outnumber men at Mass;
• When the priest starts taking liberties even with the OF rubrics;
• When sacramentals are moved, get run down, removed and not replaced;
• When words like ‘social justice’, ‘ecology’ and ‘inclusivity’ start appearing in sermons or parish literature;
• When your priest or bishop is quite keen on ecumenism, to the extent of having joint services or the like;
• When the number of Masses/priests/churches in your novelty-favouring OF parish then declines;

Then you’ll have some proof.

And this applies to the topic of this thread how? Sorry if I’m being obtuse. Thanks for any clarification.

Cheers

 

[bpbasilphx]

**# Prayer to St. Michael removed;

Asperges removed.**​

**The Prayer to St. Michael was NEVER part of the Mass. It was part of a series that was recited AFTER LOW MASS (never after a Missa Canata or Missa Solemnis, and not even after every Low Mass) called the Leonine Prayers after Pope Leo XIII who directed them to be said in the 19th century.

The Asperges was not really part of Mass, either, but a ceremony before hand. It was ADDED to the Missal of 1970 as an option during the Penetential rite.**

 

[Layman]

The title of the thread is ‘Communion in the hand’. I propose that that is part of a general increase in impious alterations to our worship. The Mass doesn’t exist in a vacumn. What happens to it affects the wider Church.

Bit by bit, year by year, the Mass is morphing into … what, I wonder? A great vehicle of grace, or something aimed more at pleasing current notions of what’s ‘appropriate’?

I stopped going to Mass (the O.F.) in the '80’s. When I came back 20 years later, we had female altar server’s, a priest shortage, EMCs and communion in the hand.

What will happen to the O.F. in another 20 years? At least with the TLM I’m pretty sure I’m getting a good Mass. It’s got the history. Give the O.F. 160 more years to mature and we’ll see how it goes. I don’t have that long, and nor does anyone on this forum.

I want as many graces, and as powerful, as I can get.

The O.F. doesn’t seem to do the trick, but it may just be my prejudice. I think I remember getting annoyed at what my nearest OF church was getting up to even before I started going to TLMs and reading up on Vat. II. I can’t say any more as it may identify the priests and parish involved.

I might go to the London Oratory, where they do it according to the original rubrics. That might be interesting. Too bad it’s one of the few places in the world where one can hear an OF Mass done ad-orientem, in Latin, as I hear Paul VI wanted.

 

[diggerdomer]

The title of the thread is ‘Communion in the hand’. I propose that that is part of a general increase in impious alterations to our worship. The Mass doesn’t exist in a vacumn. What happens to it affects the wider Church.

Bit by bit, year by year, the Mass is morphing into … what, I wonder? A great vehicle of grace, or something aimed more at pleasing current notions of what’s ‘appropriate’?

I stopped going to Mass (the O.F.) in the '80’s. When I came back 20 years later, we had female altar server’s, a priest shortage, EMCs and communion in the hand.

What will happen to the O.F. in another 20 years? At least with the TLM I’m pretty sure I’m getting a good Mass. It’s got the history. Give the O.F. 160 more years to mature and we’ll see how it goes. I don’t have that long, and nor does anyone on this forum.

I want as many graces, and as powerful, as I can get.

The O.F. doesn’t seem to do the trick, but it may just be my prejudice. I think I remember getting annoyed at what my nearest OF church was getting up to even before I started going to TLMs and reading up on Vat. II. I can’t say any more as it may identify the priests and parish involved.

I might go to the London Oratory, where they do it according to the original rubrics. That might be interesting. Too bad it’s one of the few places in the world where one can hear an OF Mass done ad-orientem, in Latin, as I hear Paul VI wanted.

Apologies and best wishes; it sure seems that the Roman Catholic Church is not for you.
Peace.

 

[Layman]

I think I read on here that the Catholic Church has about 20 rites. With the Motu Proprio as well, I think I’ll be OK, 'though getting to a TLM in Ireland is a problem. 'Though I could still go to an SSPX if I don’t communicate there, I think.

Still, hopefully they’ll be regularised soon (in Church terms, about two years ), so then, even more to choose from.

It’s going to be a great time to be a Catholic! Fingers crossed!

 

[keyboardrob]

I’m part of one of those 20 other rites spoken of in recent posts. Thank goodness I get to attend an area parish where the Ukranian Rite is celebrated. I can’t always make the 90 mile (one way) trip to my own parish.

When the Tridentine Mass was junked by Vatican II, I was sickened because i feared my own Orthodox mode of worship might be in danger. Maybe it was, but I don’t recall one way or the other. Occasionally I’ve played the organ for Mass at Roman Rite churches. I’m horrified by what occurs- not because of the differences between my Orthodox worship mode and the Roman Rite, but because there seems to be a lack of reverence and wonder for what Divine Liturgy (Mass) really is. Lose that sense of awe and not much is left no matter if one is Orthodox or of the Roman Rite.

For me Holy Eucharist is about complete preparation of oneself to receive the Eucharistic Lord via a reverent celebration of Divine Liturgy (Mass)- not about communion in the hand, tongue, or spoon. If you aren’t well prepared spiritually, mode of reception isn’t significant.

 

[otjm]

Ah, documentation. Proof. Statistics. I maintain the great weakness of the Western approach to religion is its emphasis on the literary. Protestantism didn’t get going until Bibles became widespread, I believe.

• When the women heavily outnumber men at Mass;
• When the priest starts taking liberties even with the OF rubrics;
• When sacramentals are moved, get run down, removed and not replaced;
• When words like ‘social justice’, ‘ecology’ and ‘inclusivity’ start appearing in sermons or parish literature;
• When your priest or bishop is quite keen on ecumenism, to the extent of having joint services or the like;
• When the number of Masses/priests/churches in your novelty-favouring OF parish then declines;

Then you’ll have some proof.

Proof, yes. Proof that it is all due to Communion in the hand? No.

 

[otjm]

Re: Communion in the Hand?

---

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!You seem to miss the point entirley. He is the pope of the universal Church, not the Roman rite as it exists in America. He is not going to use the indult in Rome, as it is a selective indult that applies only top certain countries. He represents all countries, not just Europe and North America. As such, his use of the norm is the normal. It is not a matter of him “choosing”, but him following the norm. You are assuming that he is doing something on a personal opinion basis.

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.
Iowa Mike;4969500:

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.

No, I am not ignoring the obvious; you simply don’t seem to understand what a norm is.

The Church, in my humble opinion, caved in and made it an indult; one the Holy Father chooses not to follow.

That is what the problem is. You have an opinion, humble or not. It is based on ignoring what a norm actually is, and presuming that because he follows the norm, he is making a choice. As leader of the universal Church, it would be extremely surprising were he to not follow the norm. But then, if you don’t understand what a norm actually means, it is understandable that you would not get it.

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.

Iowa Mike

I have not expressed my preference one way of the other about the issue. What I get really tired about is the amount of factually unfounded opinions that pass themselves off as truth, and the lack of understanding of issues that are complex rather than simple. People want simple answers to complex questions. Whether that is because they are too intellectually lazy to deal with complexities, or too confounded by complexities, the net result is that they lay blame at whatever point seems “obvious”, when in fact it is not obvious. They also go from personal experience to universals as if there were no other experiences, and no other alternatives. They also seem to be incapable of separating effect from cause, and presume that symptoms are the causitive factor when they are simply a sign of something else.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Iowa Mike;4969500:

Re: Communion in the Hand?

---

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!

You seem to miss the point entirley. He is the pope of the universal Church, not the Roman rite as it exists in America. He is not going to use the indult in Rome, as it is a selective indult that applies only top certain countries. He represents all countries, not just Europe and North America. As such, his use of the norm is the normal. It is not a matter of him “choosing”, but him following the norm. You are assuming that he is doing something on a personal opinion basis.

I think you evade. They take communion by the hand in Europe and other countries as well. I should know I’ve lived in many of them. Yet the Pope still chooses to give communion on the tongue when travelling. The norm is the preferred way of giving out communion by the very fact that it is the norm not the indult. The pope could choose to give communion by the hand if he wanted. Other Cathoic Churchs in Italy do just that.
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.

No, I am not ignoring the obvious; you simply don’t seem to understand what a norm is.

Let me explain the indult to you. It is not the norm but the less preferred but authorized alternative to communion on the tongue. The pope could give communion by either method…it is a matter of choice not requirement. You can say that there are reported instances were he gave in the hand and that is probably right…but 99.999999% of the time it is on the tongue. This isn’t up for argument…it is fact. You deny the obvious.

That is what the problem is. You have an opinion, humble or not. It is based on ignoring what a norm actually is, and presuming that because he follows the norm, he is making a choice. As leader of the universal Church, it would be extremely surprising were he to not follow the norm. But then, if you don’t understand what a norm actually means, it is understandable that you would not get it.
I have not expressed my preference one way of the other about the issue. What I get really tired about is the amount of factually unfounded opinions that pass themselves off as truth, and the lack of understanding of issues that are complex rather than simple. People want simple answers to complex questions. Whether that is because they are too intellectually lazy to deal with complexities, or too confounded by complexities, the net result is that they lay blame at whatever point seems “obvious”, when in fact it is not obvious. They also go from personal experience to universals as if there were no other experiences, and no other alternatives. They also seem to be incapable of separating effect from cause, and presume that symptoms are the causitive factor when they are simply a sign of something else.

You are rambling. As I’ve now pointed out to you repeatedly exactly what the norm is. Your contention that he gives on the tongue because it is the norm does not hold water. Read the Catholic papers and journals. Listen to Catholic radio. Listen to reports in the secular press. So you can make all the accusations you like but the facts are on my side…not yours.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Layman]

“Proof that it is all due to Communion in the hand? No.”

Communion in the hand is part of a wider spectrum of impiety. It is the collective, slow, drip-drip introduction of novelties and abuses that are warping our worship.

One small alteration won’t change the garment much. But:

• One big alteration to start us off, then …
• A bit here and a bit there,
• Year by year,
• Over forty years,
• From this or that progressive diocese;
• Seized on by like-minded clerics looking to make our worship more ‘meaningful’, ‘relevant’ and ‘inclusive’;
• Taken up by laity who have fallen for the ego-stroking these new practices subtly promote (look at me, I’m an EMC, giving out communion just like Father) …

And 40 years later you have bare churches which look like auditoriums, wooden altars, anyone and everyone in the sanctuary, clapping in the pews, sing-along hymns and maybe a fudged consecration if you’re really unlucky.

My dark opinion: This is either the result of material wealth, antibiotics and ready availability of food and shelter emboldening people to take liberties, as they don’t feel their mortality any more or the Devil has decided that since outright war and prohibition didn’t work, weakening the Church from within is worth a shot. A few souls here and a few souls there and pretty soon Hell needs a new annexe.

Or both.

 

[Auntie_M]

Is there anyone out there???

Is the question that is coming from the Vatican. There are statements coming out of the Vatican and from the Holy Father…

But, no one is listening

Instead, you go to the Una Voce, the Remnant, The Angelus Press. etc etc etc and you’e listening, believing everything coming from them. Why is this??

But our Holy Father sends out statement after statement concerning some splinter groups
about their statements, not to be going to these meetings…, will lead to a schimatic attitude…

But no one is listening, or believing our Holy Father anymore…

No one is listening…No one is listening…No one is listening
God forgive them, they know not what they do

 

[Ockham]

Auntie M, you should put your chapel veil on. You’re gossiping again.

All signs from the Vatican is that the proper way to receive Communion is on the tongue from a priest.

 

[diggerdomer]

All signs from the Vatican is that the proper way to receive Communion is on the tongue from a priest.

This is from the Vatican:

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter4.shtml#sect4