Communion in the Hand?

[SourGrape]

The following quote goes along with my previous post, although the article goes on later to read about receiving Holy Communion in the hand. From personal experience, my husband and I just feel more comfortable receiving Holy Communion on our tongues rather than in our hands to avoid ever brushing a “pearl” off our hands:

*The Fathers of the Church showed the greatest concern to prevent even the smallest piece of Eucharistic bread from being lost, as St. Cyril of Jerusalem exhorted with highly suggestive words: “Be careful not to lose any part of the Lord’s body. Should you drop anything, it would be as though you had severed a limb from your own body. Pray, tell me, if anyone were to give you gold beads, would you not keep them with the greatest care so as not to lose any of them? Should you not be more careful and vigilant to prevent even the smallest crumb of the Lord’s body from falling to the floor, this being far more precious than gems and gold?”

As early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Tertullian voiced the great anguish and concern of the Church to prevent any fragment of bread from being lost: “We are exceedingly worried to avoid dropping the smallest crumb of bread or spilling the smallest drop of wine.” *

From:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8059&CFID=28788889&CFTOKEN=84300256

 

[Ockham]

We are to receive Christ and keep Him within us. The only viable way to do that is from the priest’s consecrated hands straight into us. When He is place into our unconsecrated hands (even worse coming from an EMHC) we break with sacred and reverent practice. Receiving communion in the hand is a Protestant practice that infiltrated the Church through the “spirit of Vatican II”. It was a mistake and needs to be corrected - brick by brick.

 

[SourGrape]

Just to clarify, Ockham, receiving Holy Communion on the tongue has not been a practice of Holy Mother Church since the very beginning, yet, I think the following information from this aux. bishop is noteworthy:

**Awareness of the greatness of this mystery is shown in the way in which Christ’s Body is given and received. Being aware of the importance of the moment of Holy Communion, the Church in her bimillenary tradition has tried to find a ritual expression to testify to her faith, love and respect in the most perfect possible way. Thus, in the wake of an organic development, by at least as early as the 6th century, the Church began to give the Holy Eucharist directly into the mouth. This is testified in the biography of Pope Gregory the Great, who reigned from 590 to 604, and by an indication of the Pope himself.

The Synod of Cordova, which took place in 839, condemned the sect of the so-called Casians for their refusal to receive Holy Communion directly into the mouth. After this the Synod of Rouen of 878 confirmed the current practice of placing the Body of Christ on the tongue, threatening priests with suspension from their office should they give the Eucharist to lay people by placing it in their hands.

In the West the custom of kneeling and prostrating oneself before receiving the Eucharist was established in monasteries as early as the 6th century (e.g., in the monasteries of St. Colombanus). Later, in the 10th and 11th centuries, this custom became even more widespread.**

Again, from: catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8059&CFID=28788889&CFTOKEN=84300256

 

[DavidPalm]

In addition to those good answers already given, I would point out that although the practice of receiving Holy Communion in the hand was practiced for a time in the early Church, this practice had completely died out in every group that could trace its succession back to the Apostles–Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, etc. It was purposely reintroduced by the Protestant revolutionaries with the express purpose of undermining peoples’ belief in the Real Presence. And in our day it was only introduced by revolutionary groups within the Church for the same reason and in direct disobedience to the Holy See. It is just a revolutionary novelty, not an organic development in the Body of Christ.

Probably the best apologia against receiving Communion in the hand comes from Pope Paul VI in Memoriale Domini. After noting that Holy Communion was received in the hand in the early Church he states:

Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

So his reasons are that receiving on the tongue has these advantages:

1. It involves “greater reverence” and “it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist”
2. It involves “deeper humility”
3. It has “many centuries of-tradition behind it”.
4. It “is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.”
5. It “ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity”
6. “It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species”
7. And “it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended”

As His Holiness very rightly stated:

A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

 

[SourGrape]

Just a bit more from that article to strengthen the point:

**At the end of the patristic age, the practice of receiving Holy Communion directly into the mouth became so widespread as to be almost universal. This organic development can be traced back to the spirituality and Eucharistic devotion of the Fathers of the Church. As early as the first millennium, owing to the highly sacred nature of Eucharistic bread, the Western and Eastern Church in unison and almost instinctively realized the urgency of giving the Eucharist to lay people in their mouth.

The well-known liturgist J. A. Jungmann explained that, thanks to the distribution of Holy Communion directly into the mouth, several problems were sorted out: the necessity for those about to receive the Eucharist to clean their hands, the even more serious problems of preventing fragments of consecrated bread from being lost, and the necessity of purifying the patens of the hands after receiving the sacrament. The cloth and later on the paten were expressions of greater respect for the Eucharist.

1. As John Paul II pointed out in the encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia: “In the wake of this great sense of mystery it becomes clear how the Church’s faith in the Eucharistic mystery has found expression, through the centuries, not only in the exhortation to an attitude of inner devotion, but also in a series of outer gestures.” **

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8059&CFID=28788889&CFTOKEN=84300256

 

[Stromboli]

Good point.

As I said, I am not real strong either way. From the Anglican/Episcopalian tradition, I am used to receiving in the hand, although from so-called ‘cradle Episcopalians’, I have heard stories of some Episcopal parishes that prefer/require reception on the tongue, although that is from way back when (you know, back before the gay Bishop scandal and one had to be both Baptized and Confirmed in the Episcopal Church to receive Communion there).

My greatest concern in this case is avoiding dropping the Blessed Sacrament. In terms of people stealing/desecrating it, well, that is for God to deal with and people will figure out ways to pervert and mistreat God’s blessings (i.e. the Blessed Sacrament).

Good for you

The weird logic used by others astounds me. They feel that only consecrated hands should touch the consecrated host yet it’s OK for their mouths to consume the hosts? Are their mouths somehow more worthy than their hands? How could that be?

 

[Stromboli]

I knew someone would ask that. The only answer I have and you will note my previous answer was not a definitive one, is that from the Priest’s hands to my mouth is the shortest route to consume the Body of Christ.

The Church does not consider route lengths to be a determiner as to how we are to receive communion. Why should we?

 

[Stromboli]

We are to receive Christ and keep Him within us. The only viable way to do that is from the priest’s consecrated hands straight into us. When He is place into our unconsecrated hands (even worse coming from an EMHC) we break with sacred and reverent practice. Receiving communion in the hand is a Protestant practice that infiltrated the Church through the “spirit of Vatican II”. It was a mistake and needs to be corrected - brick by brick.

Incorrect. Communion-in-hand is every bit as “viable” where it is allowed by the Church.

 

[Stromboli]

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Pretty interesting read. The authors have marshaled together a great number of facts…

 

[Ockham]

Good for you

The weird logic used by others astounds me. They feel that only consecrated hands should touch the consecrated host yet it’s OK for their mouths to consume the hosts? Are their mouths somehow more worthy than their hands? How could that be?

Would intravenous be ok?

What would you have done if born a century earlier when the protestant option wasn’t available.

 

[DavidPalm]

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Pretty interesting read. The authors have marshaled together a great number of facts…

Unfortunately, for the most part the authors of that that article are responding to a very specific and (I would agree) erroneous view that it is intrinsically wrong for a lay person to touch the sacred Species. But that’s really not the view of 99% of those traditionalists who are against this practice (I know, I did a scientific survey )

Rather, our reasons are most frequently those given by Pope Paul VI. Stromboli, I would be interested in your interaction with those reasons, rather than with straw men.

 

[Stromboli]

Unfortunately, for the most part the authors of that that article are responding to a very specific and (I would agree) erroneous view that it is intrinsically wrong for a lay person to touch the sacred Species. But that’s really not the view of 99% of those traditionalists who are against this practice (I know, I did a scientific survey )

Rather, our reasons are most frequently those given by Pope Paul VI. Stromboli, I would be interested in your interaction with those reasons, rather than with straw men.

That URL (matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html) is hardly a “strawman.” In fact your comments make me wonder if you are indeed certain what a strawman argument is?

The authors presented a well argued and footnoted response. Certainly at a higher level than anything on this thread although they also had a lot more time and space to work with.

The ridiculous break in logic I see from some on this thread is the notion that it is “intrinsically wrong for a lay person to touch the sacred Species.” (sic) I’ve got news for you – it’s utterly impossible for to receive Holy Communion without touching the Blessed Sacrament – be it with one’s hands on one’s mouth!

These same people view their own hands as somehow inferior to the consecrated hands of the ordained yet they never look at the other side of the equation – how are their mouths somehow more worthy than their inferior hands to receive Holy Communion? Stop and think about that for a moment. In a word, they aren’t and the Church has never suggested they are. That’s where the notion that it’s superior to receive in one’s mouth falls flat on its face.

 

[DavidPalm]

That URL (matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html) is hardly a “strawman.” In fact your comments make me wonder if you are indeed certain what a strawman argument is?

As that text says:

Some real traditionalists will admit that yes, communion in the hand was a common occurrence traditionally and will also admit that liturgical law does allow the practice of receiving Our Lord by communion in the hand, but they just don’t like it being practiced the way that it is. This piece is not really aimed at those who make such admissions.

Aside from the fact that it is much more than a matter of what we “just don’t like”, their treatment was focused heavily on simply documenting that this practice did occur in the early Church and that it therefore cannot be intrinsically wrong. It left essentially untouched the seven excellent reasons given by Pope Paul VI himself in support of the traditional practice. As do you.

 

[SourGrape]

The authors presented a well argued and footnoted response. Certainly at a higher level than anything on this thread although they also had a lot more time and space to work with.

Stromboli,

I believe the article I quoted from and posted on here is of “high level.” It does not include all the footnotes, though, since the Aux. Bishop published it in a magazine,* L’Osservatore Romano*.

The point is to show reverance for Our Lord in Holy Communion. In that article I linked, read about how strict the rules were for receiving Holy Communion in the hand:

• In the early Church, men had to wash the palms of their hands before receiving the Eucharist. Also, believers had to take a deep bow and receive Christ’s Body directly in the palm of their right, but not their left, hand. The palm of the right hand was used, so to speak, as a paten or as a corporal (especially for women).

A sermon by St. Caesarius of Arles reads as follows: “All men who desire to receive Holy Communion are to wash their hands. All women are to bring a linen cloth upon which Christ’s Body is to be placed.” *

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8059&CFID=28788889&CFTOKEN=84300256

 

[DavidPalm]

The point is to show reverance for Our Lord in Holy Communion. In that article I linked, read about how strict the rules were for receiving Holy Communion in the hand.

None of which is done in the context of the modern permission. Excellent point!

 

[damooster]

I’m not trying to be silly, but what about people (like myself) who are embarrassed to receive on the tongue?

A few years ago, I cut my tongue up kind of bad when a piece of glass accidentally got in to my food. My tongue is still cut; the wounds never healed, and I’ve been worrying about this since I’ll be receiving Communion for the first time on Easter.

I want to be reverent, but I’m embarrassed. If I understand what is happening when I receive Communion, what difference does it make how I receive it? I’m asking as an honest newbie here, not trying to sound like a jerk.

 

[malphono]

I’m not trying to be silly, but what about people (like myself) who are embarrassed to receive on the tongue?

A few years ago, I cut my tongue up kind of bad when a piece of glass accidentally got in to my food. My tongue is still cut; the wounds never healed, and I’ve been worrying about this since I’ll be receiving Communion for the first time on Easter.

I want to be reverent, but I’m embarrassed. If I understand what is happening when I receive Communion, what difference does it make how I receive it? I’m asking as an honest newbie here, not trying to sound like a jerk.

Nothing to be embarrassed about. I rather doubt the priest will mind, and Jesus certainly will not. Communion on the tongue is common to all liturgical traditions, Eastern and Western, albeit in varying forms.

 

[Ceil-1]

The last time I took Communion on the tongue, it literally popped off my tongue, and landed ten feet away. I nonchalantly scooped it up at proceeded as if nothing ever happened, but, I was mortified.

Now, I only take it on the tongue when there is a paten under me.

I prefer it on the tongue, but, unless the priest knows what he’s doing… I have had to catch it too many times, and, end up brushing my tongue against the poor priest’s fingers too often, (yuck for both involved). Not very pious or respectful that way.

And I won’t even think about taking Communion on the tongue from an EMHC. So, what else can I do? I blame the Church for being wishy-washy about it, and not providing the proper procedure. I think its a symptom of the whole problem of the Church, and, we are, unfortunately, caught in the middle. It bothers me to no end.

 

[malphono]

The last time I took Communion on the tongue, it literally popped off my tongue, and landed ten feet away. I nonchalantly scooped it up at proceeded as if nothing ever happened, but, I was mortified.

Now, I only take it on the tongue when there is a paten under me.

I prefer it on the tongue, but, unless the priest knows what he’s doing… I have had to catch it too many times, and, end up brushing my tongue against the poor priest’s fingers too often, (yuck for both involved). Not very pious or respectful that way.

And I won’t even think about taking Communion on the tongue from an EMHC. So, what else can I do? I blame the Church for being wishy-washy about it, and not providing the proper procedure. I think its a symptom of the whole problem of the Church, and, we are, unfortunately, caught in the middle. It bothers me to no end.

Funny how those things rarely happen in the EF. I recall a few scant incidents in the pre-conciliar age where the Host fell. That’s what the paten (or communion cloth) is for.

 

[Ceil-1]

Exactamente.

And with a plethora of altar servers, it would be a very simple thing to have them use patens. They just don’t want to do it.

The local Friars of the Immaculata do a wonderful OF Mass using Altar railings, and giving on the tongue. They do it the way it was meant to be done, and it is every bit as beautiful as the EF. Why oh why can’t things be done the right way?