Communion in the Hand?

[damooster]

I’m watching the EWTN’s Daily Mass (DVR) and they just showed an up close incident where the Host popped off the tongue of the guy receiving it, landed on the paten, the Father grabbed it and tried to give the same Host, but it fell out again, so he had to grab another one.

Not trying to make a point or anything, just ironic that this happened as I’m monitoring this thread.

 

[Stromboli]

Would intravenous be ok?

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

Are you calling the early church “protestant?” I was always of the belief that it is the Catholic Church.

 

[Stromboli]

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*.

OK

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:

I totally agree that showing the greatest possible reverence for our Lord is extremely important. I would hope every Catholic Christian agrees with that. What the Church does not say however is that it’s more reverent to receive in their mouths rather than our hands.

• 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).*
  If the Church felt their need for such ablutions I’m sure She would make them mandatory even today. As far as receiving in hand I was taught just as you described. In the end I just follow the Church.

SourGrape;4908067:

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

And if the Church felt the need for that today I am sure She would order it and I would comply without question.

 

[Stromboli]

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.

I would think that is high on this lists of why people receive in hand. That’s not at all easy to discount like some people would suggest.

 

[Ockham]

The early Church recognized the error of her ways and corrected the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. Protestants (Luther, and the rest) trumpeted the same argument you are making. The Bugnini mass was an attempt to satisfy their demands. Fifty years later the Lutheran Church is no closer to ending their protesting than prior to V2.

 

[Stromboli]

The early Church recognized the error of her ways and corrected the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. Protestants (Luther, and the rest) trumpeted the same argument you are making. The Bugnini mass was an attempt to satisfy their demands. Fifty years later the Lutheran Church is no closer to ending their protesting than prior to V2.

That’s simply not true. More opinion offered as fact.

 

[palmas85]

It was brought up earlier that in 2000 the then Cardinal Ratzinger said in an interview concerning reception in the hand:,

I wouldn’t want to be fussy about that. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion

Strange that now, nine years later **AND ** as the leader of the Catholic Church, this same man, requires that those receiving from him do so kneeling and on the tongue.

Interestingly enough, not one of the pro communion in the hands type have tried to explain this action and in fact, have ignored it subsequently.

But I will give my view of it. The Holy Father is leading by example. He feels that a deeper sense of reverence is needed than what is being observed and practiced now by many of those who receive in the hand. And I think he would be one to know if that was the case. What other possible reason could there be? That he instituted the practice because he is the Pope and he has the power to do so for no good reason?

No, I think he has a very good reason and he is showing us what needs to be done.

I would imagine that more than a few progressives rue the day that the Holy Father ws elected Pope.

 

[Ockham]

That’s simply not true. More opinion offered as fact.

Got a source for that statement?

www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

 

[elts1956]

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

It is my understanding that after Vatican II, there was no general approval from Rome to be able to receive Communion in the hand. This ritual was to be conserved and given only to specific areas that received permission directly from the Vatican. (an induit?) However, for some reason, most Bishops? gave permission in their diocese for parishoners to receive in the hand. So many parishes did this, the Vatican may have approved (grudgingly?) to let this ritual be accepted.

I believe now Pope Bendict XVI is trying to slowly reverse this practice.

I could be completely wrong on this, but this is what I remember from somewhere???

 

[DavidPalm]

The early Church recognized the error of her ways and corrected the practice of Holy Communion in the hand.

I would not call it her “error” but rather, like our Lord, she grew in wisdom and found that this manner of receiving Holy Communion suffered from some very significant defects. And from the East to the West she did away with it.

This is one of the great divides between traditionalists and non-traditionalists. Non-traditionalists extrapolate from our current situation of extremely lax discipline that all of these permitted things must be perfectly fine, simply because they’re permitted. Traditionalists recognize the situation for what it is, a time of extremely lax discipline and harken back to more stable times and to the accumulated wisdom of the ages.

In this particular instance, there are very good reasons why the early practice of receiving in the hand was dropped in every single communion which can trace its origins to the Apostles, from East to West and why it was only dissidents likes the Protestant revolutionaries and groups like Call to Action which have tried to resurrect it. Pope Paul VI laid out seven excellent reasons, none of which Stromboli has acknowledged.

 

[Stromboli]

I would not call it her “error” but rather, like our Lord, she grew in wisdom and found that this manner of receiving Holy Communion suffered from some very significant defects. And from the East to the West she did away with it.

This is one of the great divides between traditionalists and non-traditionalists. Non-traditionalists extrapolate from our current situation of extremely lax discipline that all of these permitted things must be perfectly fine, simply because they’re permitted. Traditionalists recognize the situation for what it is, a time of extremely lax discipline and harken back to more stable times and to the accumulated wisdom of the ages.

In this particular instance, there are very good reasons why the early practice of receiving in the hand was dropped in every single communion which can trace its origins to the Apostles, from East to West and why it was only dissidents likes the Protestant revolutionaries and groups like Call to Action which have tried to resurrect it. Pope Paul VI laid out seven excellent reasons, none of which Stromboli has acknowledged.

The Church “grew in wisdom?” How could that be? Is the Church not the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on Earth? How does that “grow in wisdom?”

But let’s say the Church did “grow in wisdom.” Wouldn’t that process be continuous as controlled by Gos? Maybe the Church continued to “grow in wisdom” when She offered the current indult to receive in hand? If not would that mean the Church was actually “withering in wisdom?” Is that possible?

 

[DavidPalm]

The Church “grew in wisdom?” How could that be? Is the Church not the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on Earth? How does that “grow in wisdom?”

She did so as our Lord Himself did in His human nature.

But let’s say the Church did “grow in wisdom.” Wouldn’t that process be continuous as controlled by Gos? Maybe the Church continued to “grow in wisdom” when She offered the current indult to receive in hand? If not would that mean the Church was actually “withering in wisdom?” Is that possible?

I would respectfully ask you start interacting with the facts that have been presented here. This novelty was only reintroduced by revolutionaries, not by the pious motivations of faithful Catholics. Do you call capitulating to rebellious children wisdom?

Pope Paul VI gave seven good reasons why the traditional practice was to be retained (see them above in this thread.) He explicitly said that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue was the fruit of the Church’s great understanding of and reverence for the mystery of the Eucharist. He stated that:

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.

You call turning back the clock to a practice less informed by the Church’s piety and reverence wisdom?

The practice has demonstrably caused, at the very least, a great increase in the desecration of the Eucharist at the hands of those who spirited the Sacred Host away. You call this wisdom?

I’ll say it one more time. Pope Paul VI gave excellent reasons why the traditional practice of the whole Church was to be retained. Indeed, he stated explicitly that “This method of distributing holy communion must be retained”. Can you please tell us why you find his reasons non-persuasive? It is not enough to say that he permitted the alternative. Both he and his successor are on record as suggesting that they were too lax in their discipline. Please interact with the principles that he laid out.

 

[nomie]

Interestingly enough, not one of the pro communion in the hands type have tried to explain this action and in fact, have ignored it subsequently.

I know I am jumping in late but wanted to share what my RCIA leader shared with our class. This topic came up & she says this is to minimize the chance of someone taking home a “souvenir” from the Vatican.

 

[palmas85]

I know I am jumping in late but wanted to share what my RCIA leader shared with our class. This topic came up & she says this is to minimize the chance of someone taking home a “souvenir” from the Vatican.

I think it is just a tad deeper than that.

 

[nomie]

That’s cool. I am not here to change anyone’s mind. A question was asked so I gave an answer.

Below is an article which may shed some light on the Vatican’s view. I think there is info in it for each side of the debate.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802805.htm

 

[elts1956]

The Church “grew in wisdom?” How could that be? Is the Church not the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ on Earth? How does that “grow in wisdom?”

But let’s say the Church did “grow in wisdom.” Wouldn’t that process be continuous as controlled by Gos? Maybe the Church continued to “grow in wisdom” when She offered the current indult to receive in hand? If not would that mean the Church was actually “withering in wisdom?” Is that possible?

Could it be at all possible that at the appropriate times Christ’s ministers are more vulnerable to the whisper of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Stromboli]

It is my understanding that after Vatican II, there was no general approval from Rome to be able to receive Communion in the hand. This ritual was to be conserved and given only to specific areas that received permission directly from the Vatican. (an induit?) However, for some reason, most Bishops? gave permission in their diocese for parishoners to receive in the hand. So many parishes did this, the Vatican may have approved (grudgingly?) to let this ritual be accepted.

I believe now Pope Bendict XVI is trying to slowly reverse this practice.

I could be completely wrong on this, but this is what I remember from somewhere???

Communion in hand in the USA is every bit as “viable” as communion in the mouth.

 

[Stromboli]

Got a source for that statement?

www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

How about one for your own personal opinion?

 

[Stromboli]

She did so as our Lord Himself did in His human nature.

I would respectfully ask you start interacting with the facts that have been presented here. This novelty was only reintroduced by revolutionaries, not by the pious motivations of faithful Catholics. Do you call capitulating to rebellious children wisdom?

Pope Paul VI gave seven good reasons why the traditional practice was to be retained (see them above in this thread.) He explicitly said that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue was the fruit of the Church’s great understanding of and reverence for the mystery of the Eucharist. He stated that:

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.

You call turning back the clock to a practice less informed by the Church’s piety and reverence wisdom?

The practice has demonstrably caused, at the very least, a great increase in the desecration of the Eucharist at the hands of those who spirited the Sacred Host away. You call this wisdom?

I’ll say it one more time. Pope Paul VI gave excellent reasons why the traditional practice of the whole Church was to be retained. Indeed, he stated explicitly that “This method of distributing holy communion must be retained”. Can you please tell us why you find his reasons non-persuasive? It is not enough to say that he permitted the alternative. Both he and his successor are on record as suggesting that they were too lax in their discipline. Please interact with the principles that he laid out.

Why couldn’t the current indult allowing CIH also be a product of this “grew in wisdom?” you speak of?

 

[DavidPalm]

Why couldn’t the current indult allowing CIH also be a product of this “grew in wisdom?” you speak of?

I’ve already answered that in detail. You have not yet started to interact with the reasons given by Pope Paul VI in support of the practice. You’re not really interested in having a productive discussion on this, are you?