Communion in the Hand?

[PJM]

=LilyM;4990483]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.

Dear friend in Christ,

And your basis for this most unique position is exactly what?

 

[LilyM]

Dear friend in Christ,

And your basis for this most unique position is exactly what?

Palmas and I are discussing, from his much earlier posts, the fact that in the early centuries of the Church, according to him, distribution was in the hand ONLY because only part of the Eucharistic bread was consumed at the liturgy. Part being reserved for each recepient to take home. He says it couldn’t have been done any other way under those circumstances, I’m saying it could easily have been.

Current practice in the Orthodox liturgies I’ve attended is to distribute communion via intinction and then after liturgy to distribute antidoron (blessed but not consecrated) bread to the members of the congregation. Surely it’s equally feasible to distribute CONSECRATED bread, if this were going to be done, after liturgy as is currently done with the antidoron.

 

[turtleoompa]

I receive on the tongue because it feels more reverent to me. You know the consecrated host by way of the priest to my tongue. My hands do not touch something that is so holy. My hands are something outside my body and may be unclean. Although my husband explained that maybe Jesus handed the bread to the apostles hands at the last supper. So why not in the hand. I told him the apostles were priests. He receives on the tongue now out of reverence. It is just a preference.

 

[PJM]

=LilyM;4990542]Palmas and I are discussing, from his much earlier posts, the fact that in the early centuries of the Church, according to him, distribution was in the hand ONLY because only part of the Eucharistic bread was consumed at the liturgy. Part being reserved for each recepient to take home. He says it couldn’t have been done any other way under those circumstances, I’m saying it could easily have been.

Current practice in the Orthodox liturgies I’ve attended is to distribute communion via intinction and then after liturgy to distribute antidoron (blessed but not consecrated) bread to the members of the congregation. Surely it’s equally feasible to distribute CONSECRATED bread, if this were going to be done, after liturgy as is currently done with the antidoron.

A interesting thought that makes me uneasy.

If this were done in order to “share Holy Communion” with others who could not be there, I might agree. If on the other hand, it was being taken, not to the sick, or those who could not attend the Liturgy, and was to be consumed later as Old Testament “Common Bread”
(1Sam. ch.6) I would argue that people were literally giving their lifes to participate and perpetuate this Solom practice, and it is inconceivible to me that such would be the case.

I would in lieu if specific evidence to the contrary, advise one to take the greatest care how we offer our opinions on this matter.

Keep in mind friend, there are wolfs out their who would love an opportunity to lessen the meaning and signifiance of Jesus in Holy Eucharist.

Love and prayers, thanks for the responce!

 

[savienu]

Ockam, I agree with you. But, what’s an NO parishioner to do? With no altar railing to kneel on, the (almost always shorter) priest or EMHC is reaching up to my tongue and that is kinda gross. I can’t kneel, because the Bishops have told us that we should bow deeply and then receive standing. And, I don’t want to call attention to myself and disrupt the line.

Practical advice. I need practical advice.

Just FYI- I know this was several pages ago, and I’m not quite caught up, canon law allows the reception of the Eucharist kneeling. I had this confirmed by my Bishop just this week. As long as you can get up and down pretty quickly, it really doesn’t disrupt the flow of the line either.

 

[LilyM]

I would in lieu if specific evidence to the contrary, advise one to take the greatest care how we offer our opinions on this matter.

Keep in mind friend, there are wolfs out their who would love an opportunity to lessen the meaning and signifiance of Jesus in Holy Eucharist.

Love and prayers, thanks for the responce!

It’s entirely a moot point - historical - such practices are strictly forbidden today. But they happened.

And I’m certain palmas at least is not one who would want to lessen the Eucharist’s meaning and significance - quite the opposite.

 

[palmas85]

: Communion in the Hand? {/QUOTE]

---

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,

Thanks. I actually know that there are NO Vatican II Documents that advocate, propose or in any way support a return to receiving in the hand. However, when I saw in the article that our young friend had posted that just such an outright deception was being put forth, I had to say something. For too long I have heard this exact same sort of nonsense and outright lying going on in defense of the custom.

And notice, that when I put forth the reasons that the early Church did receive in the hand, they were ignored, brushed aside said not to matter and were in fact irrelevant, It seems that in these matters the truth about certain things doesn’t matter in the least. Sometimes I am nearly speechless at how apparently educated and thinking people can totally ignore and disregard the truth in order to support a position that they want to defend.

 

[jpy15026]

Let’s see what the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, our Vicar of Christ, had to say about this back in June:

Snippet from:
Vatican**: Receiving Eucharist kneeling will be norm at papal liturgies**

VATICAN CITY (CNS) – Jun-26-2008
Receiving the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling before the pope will become the norm at papal liturgies, said the Vatican’s liturgist.

While current norms allow the faithful to receive the Eucharist in the hand while standing, Pope Benedict XVI has indicated a preference for the more** traditional **practice, said Msgr. Guido Marini, master of papal liturgical ceremonies.

Kneeling and receiving Communion on the tongue highlights “the truth of the real presence (of Christ) in the Eucharist, helps the devotion of the faithful and introduces the sense of mystery more easily,” he said in a June 26 interview with the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

Pastorally speaking, he said “it is urgent to highlight and recover” these aspects of the sacredness and mystery of the Eucharist in modern times.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803381.htm
.

 

[savienu]

Good point. I tend to get too passionate about this subject. As a post-Vatican II Catholic, my discovery of the Church prior to the ‘reforms’ has been enlightening, rewarding, and antagonizing all at once. I feel as though so much of the beauty of the Church I love has been cloaked and hidden from me. Yesterday I attended my first high Mass. It was absolutely awe inspiring. I’ve never left a NO Mass feeling that way.

I agree. I was born in 1984. A friend of mine, who’s an Eastern Rite Catholic, tried to receive his first holy communion on the tongue, as that was what he was accustomed to, in my Latin Rite Church. The “teacher” SLAMMED his hands together and said, “This IS HOW YOU DO IT!” He said he was so scared the next day with the real thing because of that he was literally shaking. So, I agree with you it was never presented as an option. It was presented as “this is how you do it, only old fogies receive on the tongue,” (when someone finally asked why some receive on the tongue.)

Needless to say, I feel cheated, and I am ANGRY. I am angry that I was robbed of good Catholic teaching, and reverence. I am angry that I left the Church for so many years because I didn’t know my faith. And I weep when I see the difference between the EF and the as commonly practiced (i.e. not in latin or ad orientum) Novus Ordo.

 

[palmas85]

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.

That is a possibility I suppose, and I won’t say it could not have happened that way. The references that I have studied on this issue though are all pretty much in agreement that pieces of the Host were consumed by the family from the loaf given to the patriarch., although in some Churches the whole family did approach. The Blood was then distributed and the remainder Host taken home.

However, I can see nothing wrong with your scenario and agree that it very well could have happened that way, at least in some Churches. That would also explain in part why the eastern Liturgies still receive via intinction and more so why they started doing so in the first place.

Not being of the Eastern tradition and having never received from the Chalice, I often overlook the fact that the consumption of the Precious Blood was more common in the early Church, although it is not mentioned as often in writings of the time.

 

[LilyM]

I agree. I was born in 1984. A friend of mine, who’s an Eastern Rite Catholic, tried to receive his first holy communion on the tongue, as that was what he was accustomed to, in my Latin Rite Church. The “teacher” SLAMMED his hands together and said, “This IS HOW YOU DO IT!” He said he was so scared the next day with the real thing because of that he was literally shaking. So, I agree with you it was never presented as an option. It was presented as “this is how you do it, only old fogies receive on the tongue,” (when someone finally asked why some receive on the tongue.)

Needless to say, I feel cheated, and I am ANGRY. I am angry that I was robbed of good Catholic teaching, and reverence. I am angry that I left the Church for so many years because I didn’t know my faith. And I weep when I see the difference between the EF and the as commonly practiced (i.e. not in latin or ad orientum) Novus Ordo.

I don’t blame you, but my own experience is that it has both been presented to children as an option and shown in the practice of weekly Mass to be an option - not just for ‘old fogeys’ either.

 

[savienu]

I don’t blame you, but in my own experience is that it has always both been presented and shown in congregations to be an option - not just for ‘old fogeys’ either.

Then perhaps it has gotten better. Actually, I know it HAS gotten better in my area at least, because the parish that shallowed up my mine (it closed late 90s) has 2 of the most orthodox priests I have met in a while. In the 90s, in my parish though, I’m lucky I learned about the Real Presence, at all. However, it is not an “option” to receive on the tongue- it is STILL the norm to receive on the tongue, and even the CA apologists have confirmed this. We have the OPTION to receive in the hand, but it is not the norm to do so.

Not to mention there are MANY MORE things I was robbed of, based on the year I was born in. Like never even hearing about the TLM until last year, for example.

 

[savienu]

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.

Actually, when bishops are voting on something at an ecumenical council, from what I understand, it is BINDING. So no, I don’t for a second believe that the majority of Bishops, if asked to voted on ABC at V2, would have said ‘yes.’ The bishops, when speaking together on faith and morals CAN NOT ERR. It’s not just the Pope protected by the charism of infallibility, it’s ALL the bishops when SPEAKING TOGETHER. That is Church teaching.

 

[LilyM]

Actually, when bishops are voting on something at an ecumenical council, from what I understand, it is BINDING. So no, I don’t for a second believe that the majority of Bishops, if asked to voted on ABC at V2, would have said ‘yes.’ The bishops, when speaking together on faith and morals CAN NOT ERR. It’s not just the Pope protected by the charism of infallibility, it’s ALL the bishops when SPEAKING TOGETHER. That is Church teaching.

I wasn’t referring to them voting during Vatican 2 - infallible Magisterium from the world’s bishops is not only exercised in the form of an Ecumenical Council, surely.

Be that as it may, modes of reception of communion are NOT matters of faith and morals, but matters of discipline. The mere fact that the discipline was voted on doesn’t transform it into dogma.

Thus as a discipline it is every bit as alterable as the discipline on priestly celibacy. This is shown by the fact that the discplines in regard to Communion have (clearly) been altered several times in the past, prior even to Vatican 2.

No Pope would be permitted - by the Holy Spirit - to tamper with the mode of reception IF it were a matter of faith and morals, or binding teaching. Just as the Bishops weren’t permitted - by the Holy Spirit - to tamper with teaching on ABC by allowing its use.

 

[savienu]

I wasn’t referring to them voting during Vatican 2 - infallible Magisterium from the world’s bishops is not only exercised in the form of an Ecumenical Council, surely.

Be that as it may, modes of reception and communion are NOT matters of faith and morals, but matters of discipline. Every bit as alterable as the discipline on priestly celibacy. This is shown by the fact that the discplines in this regard have (clearly) been altered several times in the past, prior even to Vatican 2. So they can be altered in future.

No Pope would be permitted - by the Holy Spirit - to tamper with the mode of reception IF it were a matter of faith and morals, or binding teaching. Just as the Bishops weren’t permitted - by the Holy Spirit - to tamper with teaching on ABC by allowing its use.

Pope Paul VI said reception on the tongue was at the level of a dogma, as Ockham has quoted multiple times now. Receiving on the hand is a novelty, and as faithful Catholics, we are right to be suspicious of novelties. And, since you acknowledge it ISN’T a matter of faith and morals, wouldn’t that mean we can conscientiously object?

 

[Walking_Home]

uote:
Originally Posted by Walking_Home View Post
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.

---

Do you mean our current Pope Benedict XVI–who by example is promoting the return of communion on the tongue, kneeling.

By the way – you were the one that brought in the following deceptive article to “defend” communion in the hand—and when questioned on the Vatican II “decreeing” the return to hand communion you posted another link as an answer to Palmas. A link that had no such mention of Vatican II “decreeing” the return to hand communion —so it may bid you well not to accuse others of “thinking they are more Catholic than the Pope”.

jloughnan.tripod.com/commhand.htm

Why do we? - Receive Communion in the hand, standing?
by Paul Stenhouse, M.S.C., Ph.D

“For pastoral reasons the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council decreed that we should return to the earlier custom of receiving Holy Communion in the hand, and use the older form of words.”

 

[LilyM]

Pope Paul VI said reception on the tongue was at the level of a dogma, as Ockham has quoted multiple times now. Receiving on the hand is a novelty, and as faithful Catholics, we are right to be suspicious of novelties. And, since you acknowledge it ISN’T a matter of faith and morals, wouldn’t that mean we can conscientiously object?

Pope Paul may have said that it was ‘at the level’ of a dogma. He didn’t say it was an actual dogma. Allow me to elaborate.

There is such a concept as disciplinary infallibility, and we are indeed bound to the disciplines of the Church as the Church imposes them - and changes them - from time to time - as much as we are to eternal dogmas. That is NOT to say that change to those disciplines is impermissible or inappropriate.

Christ’s teaching itself was a novelty in His day, much of it. And He spoke of ‘treasures both new and old’, so He certainly seems to have not rejected novelty simply because it was new.

The Church’s proclamations during the centuries of truths such as Christ’s divinity (to counter the widespread Arian heresy) and Papal Infallibility itself, certainly seemed to many at the time like not only novelties but inappropriate and invalid exercises of the Magisterium.

People flat out rejected them AS novelties, in so many words - and even left the Church because of these ‘novelties’. And they were very wrong to do so. So no, it’s not especially becoming of a Catholic to reject novel ideas simply because they are new.

What do you mean by ‘conscientiously object’? Certainly you have every right to receive on the tongue if you so wish. I would fight alongside you for your right to do so if it would help. You surely wouldn’t suggest, nor would I, that I could seriously object to the discipline of receiving on the tongue, no? And castigate priests who distribute by that way and people who receive that way? Suggest that the Church in its infinite wisdom was wrong to allow the practice?

There’s objection and objection. And all disciplines require the same level of assent from the faithful, not just those that you like. Remember that the Popes have permitted it and continue to permit it - their action in doing so speaks far louder than words.

 

[m134e5]

I understand the need for respect obviously, but how is Communion in the Hand disrespectful?

For centuries, Catholics received communion on the tongue- kneeling at an altar rail. During the years following the second Vatican council, many people took it upon themselves to start receiving communion in the hand, rather than having the priest give the Eucharist to them on the tongue as had been done for centuries. Some tried to sell this practice as an attempt to follow more closely the practices of the early church (considering I don’t know of anyone calling for a restoration of public confessions, I’m not sure the “get back to the practices of the early Church” argument was the real motive). I tend to think the real motive was that people did not have enough respect for the priesthood (and this includes many clergy themselves)- they objected to the notion that the clergy have authority from God that the laity do not have.

The Pope didn’t wake up one day and look at all the devout, obedient Catholics out there and decide to allow them to receive communion in the hand on a whim (or let girls serve at the altar, lay people distribute communion, or women stop covering their heads in church). This practice (as well as the others I mentioned just now) began as acts of disobedience. Some of them (like women covering their heads) fell out of practice and were dropped from the laws of the Church. Others still go against the norm, and are only allowed because the Vatican has given special permission for these practices to be done in certain places.

I don’t think everyone who receives communion in the hand is being disrespectful, but I believe the practice was restarted after Vatican II with disrespectful intentions. There’s something to be said for obeying one’s parents- and that includes obeying the Church.

I profoundly regret the few times I have received communion in the hand. I will never do it again.

 

[savienu]

Pope Paul may have said that it was ‘at the level’ of a dogma. He didn’t say it was an actual dogma. Allow me to elaborate.

There is such a concept as disciplinary infallibility, and we are indeed bound to the disciplines of the Church as the Church imposes them - and changes them - from time to time - as much as we are to eternal dogmas. That is NOT to say that change to those disciplines is impermissible or inappropriate.

Christ’s teaching itself was a novelty in His day, much of it. And He spoke of ‘treasures both new and old’, so He certainly seems to have not rejected novelty simply because it was new.

The Church’s proclamations during the centuries of truths such as Christ’s divinity (to counter the widespread Arian heresy) and Papal Infallibility itself, certainly seemed to many at the time like not only novelties but inappropriate and invalid exercises of the Magisterium.

People flat out rejected them AS novelties, in so many words - and even left the Church because of these ‘novelties’. And they were very wrong to do so. So no, it’s not especially becoming of a Catholic to reject novel ideas simply because they are new.

What do you mean by ‘conscientiously object’? Certainly you have every right to receive on the tongue if you so wish. I would fight alongside you for your right to do so if it would help. You surely wouldn’t suggest, nor would I, that I could seriously object to the discipline of receiving on the tongue, no? And castigate priests who distribute by that way and people who receive that way? Suggest that the Church in its infinite wisdom was wrong to allow the practice?

There’s objection and objection. And all disciplines require the same level of assent from the faithful, not just those that you like. Remember that the Popes have permitted it and continue to permit it - their action in doing so speaks far louder than words.

Funny you bring up the arian heresy. Belief in it was quite pervasive in the Church for centuries. Look at the life of St. Basil, if you don’t believe me. St. Basil questioned what was being taught. And no, novelties have no place in Catholic life. Jesus was a novelty, yes, and He HANDED US THE FAITH, a fait the church is charged to protect. Organic growth is a lot different than just “let’s just change things and see what happens” which is what happened in “the spirit of vatican II.” Being Catholic doesn’t mean you lose your ability to think and question when there are dark times in the Church. Or are we going to pretend that the Church has never had dark times?

 

[LilyM]

The Pope didn’t wake up one day and look at all the devout, obedient Catholics out there and decide to allow them to receive communion in the hand on a whim (or let girls serve at the altar, lay people distribute communion, or women stop covering their heads in church).

Neither did he wake up one day, look at all the devout obedient Catholics out there and decide to change the language of the Mass from Greek to Latin (which happened to be their vernacular at the time) on a whim either.

Isn’t it just possible that the Pope actually thought about what the people wanted? And, who knows, maybe some priests disobediently said Mass in Latin prior to its approval? We simply don’t know.

Others still go against the norm, and are only allowed because the Vatican has given special permission for these practices to be done in certain places.

‘Certain places’ of course being about 99% of the world. Nice little linguistic trick to make Communion in the Hand look like some marginalised fringe activity.

And of course it was wrong for TLM supporters to go against the then norm when the TLM was ONLY allowed because the Vatican had given special permission for IT to be done in certain places?

I don’t think everyone who receives communion in the hand is being disrespectful, but I believe the practice was restarted after Vatican II with disrespectful intentions. There’s something to be said for obeying one’s parents- and that includes obeying the Church.

Never mind that the Church in its collective wisdom has seen fit to overlook these dubious origins and intentions - if indeed that is how it originated - and that we can now, in perfect obedience, choose to receive in the hand.

Which they haven’t to plenty of other practices by the way - ordination of women, relaxing of the dogmas on contraception and abortion.

Which teachings have been equally widely and publicly disobeyed, and which rulings would have been much more popular moves than allowing Communion in the Hand.

See Popes just aren’t the easily-swayed weaklings you seem to think.