Communion in the Hand?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nsper7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ceil-1 said:
Perhaps I could have said it more charitably?
Click to expand...
No, you were charitable enough. Pick up any serious, scholarly biography of past Popes. You’ll find candid analyses of their strengths and their weaknesses. There are even whole books about the “bad Popes”. It’s really not that big a deal to discern, based on the preponderance of evidence, that a particular occupant of the Chair of Peter had certain even significant weaknesses. We tell our “separated brethren” all the time that the Popes aren’t impeccable, just infallible under certain circumstances.

Seemingly the only time the matter of raising criticisms is rejected is when it comes to the post-conciliar Popes. They seem to be immune from any sort of negative analysis or criticism, no matter how just. Doesn’t change the facts, but it is weird and a slightly creepy phenomenon.
Auntie_M said:
It had nothing to do with being more reverent. Back then. (way before Vat. 11 or Pius V or X), they chose to “follow” Jesus’ instruction. At the last supper, Jesus never gave the bread “on the tongue”, he handed it to his apostles.
Click to expand...
So, you were there? 😉 Anyway, they were bishops and the Church hadn’t yet faced the widespread problems that arose from Communion in the hand, so the argument limps.
Auntie_M said:
If Jesus was ok with handing it to his apostles, then we should be also. This has been a molehill made into a mountain.
Click to expand...
If even one incident of the desecration of the Eucharist can be prevented by the universal discipline of Holy Communion received only on the tongue, then it is a very big deal. Just that one reason alone ought to be sufficient for any devout Catholic. Sometimes I wonder if those who really balk at this really do want to have a certain “control” over the Eucharist.

Auntie, I have urged various folks here several times to go back and read Pope Paul VI’s reasoning on this. Apparently you haven’t done so, but I respectfully ask that you do and then get back to us. I think he answers you more than sufficiently.
 
DavidPalm said:
No, you were charitable enough. Pick up any serious, scholarly biography of past Popes. You’ll find candid analyses of their strengths and their weaknesses. There are even whole books about the “bad Popes”. It’s really not that big a deal to discern, based on the preponderance of evidence, that a particular occupant of the Chair of Peter had certain even significant weaknesses. We tell our “separated brethren” all the time that the Popes aren’t impeccable, just infallible under certain circumstances.

Seemingly the only time the matter of raising criticisms is rejected is when it comes to the post-conciliar Popes. They seem to be immune from any sort of negative analysis or criticism, no matter how just. Doesn’t change the facts, but it is weird and a slightly creepy phenomenon.

So, you were there? 😉 Anyway, they were bishops and the Church hadn’t yet faced the widespread problems that arose from Communion in the hand, so the argument limps.

If even one incident of the desecration of the Eucharist can be prevented by the universal discipline of Holy Communion received only on the tongue, then it is a very big deal. Just that one reason alone ought to be sufficient for any devout Catholic. Sometimes I wonder if those who really balk at this really do want to have a certain “control” over the Eucharist.

Auntie, I have urged various folks here several times to go back and read Pope Paul VI’s reasoning on this. Apparently you haven’t done so, but I respectfully ask that you do and then get back to us. I think he answers you more than sufficiently.
Click to expand...
Why are you the reluctant traditionalist. I am proud to called a rad-trad, taditionalist, what-ever, the truth is I’m on the right side.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike
 
Auntie_M said:
I think if all would go back a really read church history, you will find that communion in the hand was the original way. Only when it was discovered that some were not eating the host right then but taking it home and at times even descrating it, that communion on the tongue was begun. This way the priest could see the host being eaten.
It had nothing to do with being more reverent. Back then. (way before Vat. 11 or Pius V or X), they chose to “follow” Jesus’ instruction. At the last supper, Jesus never gave the bread “on the tongue”, he handed it to his apostles.

If Jesus was ok with handing it to his apostles, then we should be also. This has been a molehill made into a mountain. Do you think Jesus is “happy” that there is soooo much confusion and arguing about his body and blood.

I really think not.
Click to expand...
Wow, an eyewitness.👍

Of course you aren’t, even thoughyou try to sound as if you were, so I’ll ask, just how do you know how he gave it to them?:hmmm: You weren’t there.

The fact is that in those times, in small family and communal groups, the Presider, who would have been Jesus in this case, typically placed a small morsel of each of the prescribed foods in the mouth of each of the Passover meal attendees before they consumed the meal. This was done to demonstrate the receivers total dependence upon God for sustinence and for life itself. It is quite likely, that Jesus did this exact same thing. Not saying that He did, but it is quite possible that He did so.

Had you done a study on the Seder meals of the period you just might have discovered that interesting little tidbit that devotees of receiving in the hand totally ignore.

And yes, communion in the early Church was in the hand because what was received was a substantial loaf brought by the people themselves. A small bit was consumed and the rest taken home for consumption during the week. A valid legitimate reason to so receive.

What valid reason is there now?
 
Just look at that article on the front page of that college professor. Now, it would be a lot harder if you had to kneel down and then receive communion right there.
 
Iowa_Mike said:
Why are you the reluctant traditionalist. I am proud to called a rad-trad, taditionalist, what-ever, the truth is I’m on the right side.
Click to expand...
Now that’s an essay I have been meaning to write for quite a while, but just don’t get around to it. In a nutshell, when my wife and I converted to the Catholic Faith we were ignorant enough that we just went along with the passel of post-conciliar novelties that are pretty much stock and trade, even in orthodox circles. It was with great reluctance that I came to see that not everything that was considered “great” even by some really devout, sincere, orthodox Catholics was really so great. And despite my love of apologetics and my big mouth, temperamentally I’m pretty conciliatory, so when the debate moves from a stimulating intellectual exercise to hard feelings and strained relationships I wish very much not to be in the position we’re in. But as you say, the truth is the truth, so I do indeed consider myself a traditionalist and I’m certainly not ashamed of it.

Hope that helps. 👍
 
DavidPalm said:
Now that’s an essay I have been meaning to write for quite a while, but just don’t get around to it. In a nutshell, when my wife and I converted to the Catholic Faith we were ignorant enough that we just went along with the passel of post-conciliar novelties that are pretty much stock and trade, even in orthodox circles. It was with great reluctance that I came to see that not everything that was considered “great” even by some really devout, sincere, orthodox Catholics was really so great. And despite my love of apologetics and my big mouth, temperamentally I’m pretty conciliatory, so when the debate moves from a stimulating intellectual exercise to hard feelings and strained relationships I wish very much not to be in the position we’re in. But as you say, the truth is the truth, so I do indeed consider myself a traditionalist and I’m certainly not ashamed of it.

Hope that helps. 👍
Click to expand...
Brother,

You have been written into my good book. This is my Church too! I’m tired of the more liberal folks getting their nickers in a twist every time I object to some new innovation. For example, our parish emptied the Holy Water fonts for Lent. When I point out that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacrements sent a letter explaining that the fonts are only to be emptied during the Tridumm (Holy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday) they act like I threw a bucket of boiling water on them. Of course they ignore me.

I will be sending a letter (after Lent to minimize any scandle) to the pastor and will formally ask him not to repeat the practice. I intend to copy the DRE and the chairperson of the liturgy committee.

If they don’t like it…oh well!

Serviam,

Iowa Mike
 
Good for you Mike. As Catholics we have a duty to correct false teachings or practices within our parishes. Maybe if people had spoken up about the sale of indulgences earlier than Luther did we wouldn’t have lost so many of our brothers and sisters.
 
Ockham said:
Good for you Mike. As Catholics we have a duty to correct false teachings or practices within our parishes. Maybe if people had spoken up about the sale of indulgences earlier than Luther did we wouldn’t have lost so many of our brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!

God Bless,

Iowa Mike
 
I’m much more concerned about the lack of kneeling to receive Holy Communion.Whether received in hand or on the tongue, at least we could be kneeling reverently before Our Lord.
 
Ockham said:
Good for you Mike. As Catholics we have a duty to correct false teachings or practices within our parishes. Maybe if people had spoken up about the sale of indulgences earlier than Luther did we wouldn’t have lost so many of our brothers and sisters.
Click to expand...
You do have a good point. But when the Pharisees tried to “correct” Jesus about him healing the sick on Sunday or eating with “sinners and tax collectors”, were they right in doing so?

Most of the time, though, it is better to let God do the correcting. I don’t think He has chosen any of us to do it for Him.

Luther did cause alot of good to be done, and also, alot of not so good, but poor Luther died while outside the protection of Holy Mother Church…I wonder if he realized how much his “correcting” caused him.
 
Auntie_M said:
You do have a good point. But when the Pharisees tried to “correct” Jesus about him healing the sick on Sunday or eating with “sinners and tax collectors”, were they right in doing so?

Most of the time, though, it is better to let God do the correcting. I don’t think He has chosen any of us to do it for Him.

Luther did cause alot of good to be done, and also, alot of not so good, but poor Luther died while outside the protection of Holy Mother Church…I wonder if he realized how much his “correcting” caused him.
Click to expand...
When the Pharisees tried to correct Jesus they were using their laws and practices. You should read Matthew 23 where Christ severely chastises the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. In Mark 2:16 Jesus responds to the Pharisees when they complain that he is eating with publicans and sinners by saying, “They that are well have no need of a physician, but they that are sick. For I come not to call the just but sinners.” This is a teaching moment for Jesus because he refudiates their law and practices with this explanation.

When a person, using the Revealed Word of God, brings a sin or bad practice to someone’s attention, it is not the same thing. In fact as Catholics we have an oblilgation to speak out, in a charitable manner, in defense of the faith even to the clergy. Silence is one of the nine ways a person can become an accessory to another persons sin.

As for Luther…only God will judge him but from what I have read by and on him he was not a good person. If Luther would have worked within the Church to correct bad practices instead of becoming a heretic and leading zillions of people astray, I wonder what the world would look like today.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike
 
A Byzantine priest said that in the beginning, the consecrated host was placed in a white handkerchief and taken home by the head of the household, wherein, he distributed it to its members over the course of the week. He made comment of how many crumbs must have been made. Is that not the reason for the current form?

I was told that CIH had to do with the decrease of priests and the need for people to be able to take it to the sick, etc. I don’t like to have extraordinary ministers at Mass, but, we need people to take it to the sick.

I really don’t believe that Vatican II was some conspiracy, but, instruction and proper procedure, as part of the cultural antiestablishment, caused a breakdown in the way things were done. There is a general sloppiness about everything these days. Absolutely everything.

Besides, if he was so wrong, why is Blessed John XXIII incorruptible? That says a lot to me.
 
Ceil-1 said:
A Byzantine priest said that in the beginning, the consecrated host was placed in a white handkerchief and taken home by the head of the household, wherein, he distributed it to its members over the course of the week. He made comment of how many crumbs must have been made. Is that not the reason for the current form?

I was told that CIH had to do with the decrease of priests and the need for people to be able to take it to the sick, etc. I don’t like to have extraordinary ministers at Mass, but, we need people to take it to the sick.

I really don’t believe that Vatican II was some conspiracy, but, instruction and proper procedure, as part of the cultural antiestablishment, caused a breakdown in the way things were done. There is a general sloppiness about everything these days. Absolutely everything.

Besides, if he was so wrong, why is Blessed John XXIII incorruptible? That says a lot to me.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere that originally communion was distributed in the hand. I can’t remember where, sorry. I agree with what you said on Vatican II. The main thing I disagree with about Vatican II were the changes in the mass (even if the mass were done according to Vatican II).
 
Yes, yes, I know that this isn’t the most important thing in the world, but I wanted to note that I looked into the citation of Mother Theresa in which she allegedly states that Communion in the hand is the thing that makes her most sad in the world. Allegedly this came from a sermon that Fr. George Rutler preached. The most precise citation that floats around on the Internet is as follows (see here for example):

“Good Friday, 1989 in St. Agnes Church, New York City (a precise transcript taken from a tape of his talk available from St. Agnes Church)”

But apparently this is an inaccurate representation of what she said. An individual who himself is very hostile toward the practice of Communion in the hand followed up on this with Fr. George Rutler and received this reply (original source – angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=95088&highlight=&sid=a4943d063aec0bd61a01090875e04830, scroll down to the posting by longwaybacksheep):

On Feb 17 I asked by email Fr George Rutler, “are you the priest who interviewed Blessed Mother Teresa and was told that she detested communion in the hand as an even greater crime than abortion? If so is there any article available on the web that relates this interview?”

He replied, “This has been misquoted. Mother Teresa told me she thought the greatest sadness to her was how people receive communion unworthily. She made clear to me that she was not condemning communion in the hand per se and instructed me to make this very clear. I told her that I’d pray about it and write a clarification to which she responded, “We need it right away. I pray. You write.” I have published this statement many times and people willfully ignore it. This is bad faith. Mother preferred communion on the tongue, as do I, but her point was that the disposition of the heart is what matters, not whether one received on the tongue or in the ancient manner of in the hand. There are fanatics abroad who twist her words.”

There remain two odd aspects to this. First, either Father did or did not use the words “communion in the hand” in his sermon. The citation gives a very specific date and place and claims to be a “precise transcript” of that sermon. So I’d like to find out what he actually said.

Second, Fr. Rutler says that he has “published this statement many times” and yet I find no record of any such clarification originating from him anywhere on the Internet. I find that extremely odd. It’s hardly fair for him to be miffed if he is the source of the original error but doesn’t disseminate the correction where people can actually find it. But perhaps I’ve just missed it.

This is a puzzlement.
 
DavidPalm said:
I get such a kick out of all of the opposite claims about the Last Supper, I just had to write it up: The Last Supper: We weren’t there! 😉
Click to expand...
I was only partly being serious, but of course do not know how things were actually done at the Last Supper because as you rightly point out:we were not there.
Where is there more info. re. how the Passover bread & wine would have been shared in those times? (Assuming or not, that Our Lord chose that manner.)
 
Perhaps we can learn from our eastern-rite brothers.

Last night my parish The National Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak Mi
We have every Wendesday in Lent a member of the East-Rite of the Catholic Church visit our Parish. Last night we had the Maronite rite (Lebenonese) They give communion by Intinction. The priest and deacon dip a regular host in to a small cup of Precious Blood in the Paten. Their is no communion in the hands or cup to be passed so no danger of spilling.
Two Roman Rite parishes in my area do this. The problem (not for me) for is when you intinct all Priest or Deacons can distribute which would be a block for most parsihes.

Hopefully Pope Benedicts comission on communion in the hands will solve this problem.

Tobiashope
Code:
 
tobiashope said:
Perhaps we can learn from our eastern-rite brothers.

Last night my parish The National Shrine of the Little Flower in Royal Oak Mi
We have every Wendesday in Lent a member of the East-Rite of the Catholic Church visit our Parish. Last night we had the Maronite rite (Lebenonese) They give communion by Intinction. The priest and deacon dip a regular host in to a small cup of Precious Blood in the Paten. Their is no communion in the hands or cup to be passed so no danger of spilling.
Two Roman Rite parishes in my area do this. The problem (not for me) for is when you intinct all Priest or Deacons can distribute which would be a block for most parsihes.

Hopefully Pope Benedicts comission on communion in the hands will solve this problem.

Tobiashope
Code:
Click to expand...
I like this, too.We had Intinction for weekday Masses at our old parish.
Again, I really appreciate being able to kneel at the altar to receive Holy Communion-in any manner.
The Maronite liturgy is beautiful.We’ve visited Maronite parishes a few times.Byzantine, too.Really liked the friendliness of the people there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top