Communion in the Hand?

[Auntie_M]

Well, possibly because they read this stuff. And the general view then becomes slightly schismatic:“I have special knowledge of things”, etc. Sort of like the occult where you feel empowered by “hidden knowledge.” Taking a statement from the Vatican is just too easy.
I used to visit a Catholic lady in a nursing home & a woman from one of the Pius X groups would be there handing out tracts to the patients.The tract supposedly showed before & after photos of Pope Paul claiming he had been kidnapped & an imposter pope was taking his place.Guess when things don’t go your way you have to come up with some story. The simple truth just doesn’t have enough drama.

You are so right…never thought of it that way…

something like Jesus said, “believe in me and you’ll have life everlasting”

Yeah, no fireworks going off in the sky, nothing really special about believing in someone, You’re so right…Way to simple .

 

[baddog]

Communion may be received either in the hand or on the tongue. Around the year A.D. 390, Cyril of Jerusalem indicated that the early Church practiced Communion in the hand when he instructed his audience: “Approaching, therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers open; but make thy left hand as if a throne for thy right, which is on the eve of receiving the King. And having hallowed thy palm, receive the body of Christ, saying after it, ‘Amen.’ Then after thou hast with carefulness hallowed thine eyes by the touch of the holy body, partake thereof; giving heed lest thou lose any of it; for what thou losest is a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if anyone gave thee gold dust, wouldst thou not with all precaution keep it fast, being on thy guard against losing any of it, and suffering loss?” ( Catechetical Lectures 23:22).

 

[baddog]

During the first four centuries, as Communion time drew near, the cantor at the Mass would call out Sancta Sanctis, “Holy Things to the holy,” and the faithful would approach the altar, bowed but standing.

At that time the universal custom in the Church was to receive the Sacred Species in the hand.

Thus St Ambrose (339-397 A.D.) Bishop of Milan, asked the Emperor Theodosius how he dared to receive Holy Communion with his hand dripping with the blood of the innocent, after the massacre of Thessalonica. St Augustine (354-430 A.D.) whom St Ambrose himself baptised, writes of a Bishop who used to receive Communion in the hand from a priest who in his turn received Communion in his hand from the Bishop. St Basil (330-379 A.D.) writes of a priest who places portion of the Eucharist in the hands of a communicant who then puts it in his mouth with his own hand. St John Chrysostom (345-407 A.D.) speaks of the importance of the faithful approaching Holy Communion with clean hands, because of the sacredness of what they are going to touch. St John Damascene (675-750 A.D.) required his Catholics to put their hands in the form of a cross, receiving the Sacrament in the palm of the right hand, supported by the left.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

During the first four centuries, as Communion time drew near, the cantor at the Mass would call out Sancta Sanctis, “Holy Things to the holy,” and the faithful would approach the altar, bowed but standing.

At that time the universal custom in the Church was to receive the Sacred Species in the hand.

Thus St Ambrose (339-397 A.D.) Bishop of Milan, asked the Emperor Theodosius how he dared to receive Holy Communion with his hand dripping with the blood of the innocent, after the massacre of Thessalonica. St Augustine (354-430 A.D.) whom St Ambrose himself baptised, writes of a Bishop who used to receive Communion in the hand from a priest who in his turn received Communion in his hand from the Bishop. St Basil (330-379 A.D.) writes of a priest who places portion of the Eucharist in the hands of a communicant who then puts it in his mouth with his own hand. St John Chrysostom (345-407 A.D.) speaks of the importance of the faithful approaching Holy Communion with clean hands, because of the sacredness of what they are going to touch. St John Damascene (675-750 A.D.) required his Catholics to put their hands in the form of a cross, receiving the Sacrament in the palm of the right hand, supported by the left.

Let me guess, you did not find this info. in the “Remnant”?

 

[jpy15026]

Snippets from:
Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion; The Congregation for Divine Worship on May 29, 1969

• In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, **this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, **not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great Sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body.
  

  *From the responses received it is thus clear that by far **the greater number of bishops **feel that the present discipline **should not be changed at all,** indeed that if it were changed, this would be **offensive **to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.
  
  *After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule"  the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, **the Supreme Pontiff judged **that the long received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful **should** **not be changed**

  *If the contrary usage, namely, of placing Holy Communion in the hand, has already developed in any place, in order to help the episcopal conference fulfill their pastoral office in today’s often difficult situation, the Apostolic See entrusts to the conferences the **duty **and function of judging particular circumstances, if any. They may make this judgment provided that any danger is avoided of insufficient reverence or false opinions of the Holy Eucharist arising in the minds of the faithful and that any other improprieties be carefully removed.
  

  * The **Holy See** will **weigh** the **individual** cases with care, remembering the bonds which exist between the several local Churches among themselves and with the **entire **Church, in order to promote the common good and **edification** and the **increase** of faith and **piety** which flow from mutual good example.

.

 

[palmas85]

During the first four centuries, as Communion time drew near, the cantor at the Mass would call out Sancta Sanctis, “Holy Things to the holy,” and the faithful would approach the altar, bowed but standing.

At that time the universal custom in the Church was to receive the Sacred Species in the hand.

Thus St Ambrose (339-397 A.D.) Bishop of Milan, asked the Emperor Theodosius how he dared to receive Holy Communion with his hand dripping with the blood of the innocent, after the massacre of Thessalonica. St Augustine (354-430 A.D.) whom St Ambrose himself baptised, writes of a Bishop who used to receive Communion in the hand from a priest who in his turn received Communion in his hand from the Bishop. St Basil (330-379 A.D.) writes of a priest who places portion of the Eucharist in the hands of a communicant who then puts it in his mouth with his own hand. St John Chrysostom (345-407 A.D.) speaks of the importance of the faithful approaching Holy Communion with clean hands, because of the sacredness of what they are going to touch. St John Damascene (675-750 A.D.) required his Catholics to put their hands in the form of a cross, receiving the Sacrament in the palm of the right hand, supported by the left.

Indeed it was.

It was also the universal practice to receive a substantial size loaf and not what we receive today. The reason for that,was that you consumed a small bit there at Mass and then took the rest home for consumption during the week… Usually the Host was to be wrapped in a white cloth for this purpose.

So receiving in the hand made perfect sense in those days and in fact, I really can’t imagine doing it any other way, given the circumstances.

So tell me, how often do you carry the Sacred Species home for consumption during the week? If you are not doing so then you cannot claim to be following the example of the early Church in this matter.

 

[baddog]

Indeed it was.

It was also the universal practice to receive a substantial size loaf and not what we receive today. The reason for that,was that you consumed a small bit there at Mass and then took the rest home for consumption during the week… Usually the Host was to be wrapped in a white cloth for this purpose.

So receiving in the hand made perfect sense in those days and in fact, I really can’t imagine doing it any other way, given the circumstances.

So tell me, how often do you carry the Sacred Species home for consumption during the week? If you are not doing so then you cannot claim to be following the example of the early Church in this matter.

And why not? The argument is not what we carry home but is receiving the Host in the hand. Obviously, the early Church had no problem with it.

 

[baddog]

Let me guess, you did not find this info. in the “Remnant”?

Actually, I found it here.

jloughnan.tripod.com/commhand.htm

 

[palmas85]

And why not? The argument is not what we carry home but is receiving the Host in the hand. Obviously, the early Church had no problem with it.

The Church had no problem with it because there was really no other way to do it. As I said, it was a practical reasonable and wholly proper way to receive given the circumstances. Those circumstancers however no longer exist.

But as time dragged on and the size of the Host diminished, people started to lose reverence in many cases and to use the Host for rather unsavory purposes in others… Private home exhibitions and in many cases charging admission to enter, being used as a good luck amulet or as a charm to ward of sickness or get a lover back or even in Black Masses or other nefarious schemes.

No, the Church went to receiving on the tongue for a very good and very practical reason.

To me it makes no sense at all to return to a practice that was historically problematic unless through necesity, ie: using larger Hosts and taking them home with you.

Which as stated earlier is the reason the early Church did it in the first place.

 

[palmas85]

Actually, I found it here.

jloughnan.tripod.com/commhand.htm

After reading this article, I have one question. Just where in the Vatican II documents are the instructions alluded to in the article that directed us to return to the practice of receiving in the hand?. I like to think that I am pretty familiar with those documents, and I don’t recall ever seeing such a directive or anything remotely close to it.

Please help us out and point us as to where it is.

 

[ConservativeOne]

Nsper -
I have a Catholic friend who doesn’t see a problem with this - but has vascillated from modern back to some very traditional ways. Their argument was that Our Lord said, “take and eat.” - the operative word being “take”. But after all, the apostles would be the first priests. (I don’t know where the tradition of on-the-tongue began.)

I’m not acquainted with Anglican traditions but I will ask something you will be more informed on. Does the Anglican priest (minister??) wash his fingers just before and after distribution of Holy Communion? In the Catholic Church, there is a prayer…the “Lavabo…” (I wash), etc. (I hope someone will confirm for us. Further, he similarly does so immediately after distribution of Holy Communion, which is why the altar boys bring the priest cruets and small towel. And the priest’s hands are consecrated!

First, our hands may be clean/washed - but not consecrated, and we don’t wash our fingers (as the priest does) immediately before reception of Holy Communion. If even the most minute particles remain afterwards on our hands…??? It’s a matter of respect. Further, I’ve heard of a case where someone was seen leaving a Church with the Host in their hands. While these cases may be few, I believe that the utmost care must be taken - not to violate the Blessed Sacrament or allow the opportunity for this.

 

[baddog]

The Church had no problem with it because there was really no other way to do it. As I said, it was a practical reasonable and wholly proper way to receive given the circumstances. Those circumstancers however no longer exist.

But as time dragged on and the size of the Host diminished, people started to lose reverence in many cases and to use the Host for rather unsavory purposes in others… Private home exhibitions and in many cases charging admission to enter, being used as a good luck amulet or as a charm to ward of sickness or get a lover back or even in Black Masses or other nefarious schemes.

No, the Church went to receiving on the tongue for a very good and very practical reason.

To me it makes no sense at all to return to a practice that was historically problematic unless through necesity, ie: using larger Hosts and taking them home with you.

Which as stated earlier is the reason the early Church did it in the first place.

And how does receiving the Host on the tongue solve all of this? I’m sure if I was so inclined I could hold the host on my tongue and spit it out practically whole in my hand and do with it so whatever.

 

[PJM]

=Little Dove;4981697]James 3:5-8 The tongue…is a small member, yet it makes great pretensions. See how tiny the spark is that sets a huge forest ablaze! The tongue is such a flame. It exists among our members as a whole universe of malice. The tongue defiles the entire body. Its flames encircle our course from birth, and its fire is kindled by hell. Every form of life, four-footed or winged crawling or swimming can be tamed and has been tamed by mankind; the tongue no man can tame. It is a restless evil full of deadly poison.

What is the sin of sacrilege? To receive the Eucharist in mortal sin. For myself, my sins are not of murder, or stealing or beating, the sins that can readily be accomplished by the hands. But, what comes out of my mouth sometimes, can make me run very quickly to confession. Really, what is essential is the state of my soul when I receive Jesus, isn’t it? If I am in mortal sin, it doesn’t matter if I receive on my tongue or my hand, it is a Communion to the damnation of my soul, either way, unless I confess it.

**Very profound and beautifully done.

However I must disagree on a point that you did not attempt to make.**

Certainly, lesser or greater sacriledge is not of real significance when one receives Christ unworthily.The sin is the same.

However how one recieves Christ Worthily is a matter ot be considered.

If in the state of grace, and if aware of what and who one is receiving, then their is no “bad way” to receive one’s God. But clearly there are BETTER WAY’s!

The THEOLOGY of taking Holy Communion (God Himself) in ones hand is an act of Taking NOT receiving Jesus". When one permits Jesus to be placed on ones tohgue (BY A PRIEST OR DEACON ONLY) one does not “take” Jesus, one receives Jesus! That, dear friend in highly signifiant! And deeply profound!

Good receiving Jesus in ones hands with a bow.

Better receiving Jesus on ones tingue FROM a priest and or deacon, with a genuflection if one is pyhsically able to do it.

BEST is the way OUR POPE INSIST it be done, if one is to receive Holy Communion from Him Personaly…

On ones tongue and kneeling.

We cannot agree as to the manner in which Our Lord should be received because the Church has not declared that one way is the only way. Until that happens, there will always be differing thoughts and it seems that that is the way it will remain for awhile.

Actually it is not so much “the Church” as it is a great many of Americas Bishops and priest. Rome has tried in vain to alter the current practice at least since 1980. With mutiple attempts, and little positive effect.

I was taught as a child to receive communion on my tongue, I changed when communion on my hands were allowed and in the past two years have gone back to receiving on the tongue. I was also an EM for about 15 years, and have not served in that capacity for the past 2 years. However, when I used to receive on my hand, one of the Scriptural passages that always came to mind was the one by St. James about the tongue. I sin far more often by my tongue than by my hands. If my tongue hadn’t given offense to the Good Jesus, then I was pretty certain to be in a state of grace when I received Him.

Friend, is that not all the more reason to receive ones God placed on ones tongue.

If you go to a doctor for chest pain, he dosen’t check your feet I can think of no better medicine for “mouth problems” than receiving the GREAT HEALER right where we might need Him most.

{QUOTE]I think the deep devotion to Our Lord in the Eucharist and the desire to see all honor and devotion and adoration be rendered Him in the Eucharist should be channeled into our Thanksgiving meditation and prayer to Him as prayers of reparation to His most Sacred Heart for all

the blasphemies and sins of sacrilege that He receives in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Our love and devotion and ardent desire to see Him honored and adored in the Eucharist will perhaps repair in some way for the abuses He endures in this Sacrament.

This is **God we are speaking about. What makes you and me worthy to take Jesus into our hands? Nothing I can think of. So you might ask, what makes us worthy to take Jesus into our mouths.

First**, we are not TAKING, we are receiving Jesus,

Second, we are doing this in memory of and Obedience to Jesus. Amen!

Your post was very beautifully done. Thank you!

God Bless!
To Jesus, Through Mary

Love and prayers, Pat

 

[baddog]

After reading this article, I have one question. Just where in the Vatican II documents are the instructions alluded to in the article that directed us to return to the practice of receiving in the hand?. I like to think that I am pretty familiar with those documents, and I don’t recall ever seeing such a directive or anything remotely close to it.

Please help us out and point us as to where it is.

Maybe this will help.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[Walking_Home]

Originally Posted by palmas85 View Post
After reading this article, I have one question. Just where in the Vatican II documents are the instructions alluded to in the article that directed us to return to the practice of receiving in the hand?. I like to think that I am pretty familiar with those documents, and I don’t recall ever seeing such a directive or anything remotely close to it.

Please help us out and point us as to where it is.

Maybe this will help.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

---

Palmas85 request was for you to provide where in the Vatican II documents was the decree to return to communion in the hand. The article you link to above–has no mention of where in the Vatican II documents there is such type of decree for returning to communion in the hand.

 

[Layman]

When there is a very reverent and humble way to receive communion; kneeling, on the tongue, **it makes no sense whatsoever to revert to something less reverent; standing, in the hand. **

It does make sense, to me, however, if you factor in all the other novelties. One sees more pride, less reverence, lay people marching on the altar, noisier, bare churches and Joe and Joanna soap in the sanctuary.

I’m waiting for when a priest consecrates a host openly on the half-naked body of a woman, using some feeble feminist or ecological excuse; you’ll know we’ve reached the nadir then.

Think it couldn’t happen?

I’m pretty sure they didn’t think we’d have the anybody-in-the-sanctuary, rock-band, concelebrated, EMC, communion-in-the-hand Masses we have now, forty years ago.

If Pope Benedict carries the day, that won’t happen. If he doesn’t, and the trend continues as-is …

 

[PJM]

=baddog;4989682]Maybe this will help.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

: Communion in the Hand? {/QUOTE]

---

Originally Posted by palmas85
After reading this article, I have one question. Just where in the Vatican II documents are the instructions alluded to in the article that directed us to return to the practice of receiving in the hand?. I like to think that I am pretty familiar with those documents, and I don’t recall ever seeing such a directive or anything remotely close to it.

Please help us out and point us as to where it is.

Maybe this will help.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

baddog failed to answer your question, and having reviewed his suggested web, I can guess why.

Heres the TRUTH!

The Church Fathers of Vatican II, in a document entitled ***Memoriale Domoni, actually voted DOWN both the option for “Holy Communion in the hand, and also Holy Communion under Both Species”, wich is completely unnecessary except to get Laity in the sanctuary.

On the issue of "Communion in the hand

597 “yes”

1,213 NO!***

On the issue of Communion under both species

835 yes

1,215 NO!

Catecheism of the RCC:

1390 Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. For pastoral reasons this manner of receiving communion has been legitimately established as the most common form in the Latin rite. But “the sign of communion is more complete when given under both kinds, since in that form the sign of the Eucharistic meal appears more clearly.” This is the usual form of receiving communion in the Eastern rites."

Now why would anyone not want us to know this?

Love and prayers,

 

[LilyM]

So receiving in the hand made perfect sense in those days and in fact, I really can’t imagine doing it any other way, given the circumstances.

Really? I can very easily see the priest distributing communion on the tongue (via intinction perhaps, as Orthodox and Eastern Christians often do), and then AFTER the liturgy distributing to people the remaining part that they wished to take home.

 

[LilyM]

The Church Fathers of Vatican II, in a document entitled ***Memoriale Domoni, actually voted DOWN both the option for “Holy Communion in the hand, and also Holy Communion under Both Species”, wich is completely unnecessary except to get Laity in the sanctuary.

On the issue of "Communion in the hand

597 “yes”

1,213 NO!***

On the issue of Communion under both species

835 yes

1,215 NO!

You know, if they’d had a vote just prior to Humanae Vitae the majority (probably a sizeable majority) would’ve voted in favour of permitting artificial contraception too

Morality, thank the Lord, is not determined by majority vote. How much less important is majority vote in disciplinary matters like the method of distribution and reception of Communion.

 

[baddog]

---

Palmas85 request was for you to provide where in the Vatican II documents was the decree to return to communion in the hand. The article you link to above–has no mention of where in the Vatican II documents there is such type of decree for returning to communion in the hand.

Receiving communion in the hand was not approved by the Vatican II Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. The constitution deals with general principles. Paul VI slowly approved specific changes after the council closed in December 1965.
However some thing they are more Catholic than the Pope.