Communion in the Hand?

[Cluny]

I will receive Communion in my hand only in one of the following three cases:

1. Byzantine Liturgy of St. James, as this is required by rubric (though I’ve never seen this actually done).
2. Liturgy of Ss Addai and Mari, for the same reason. This is the traditional way Assyrians receive Communion, first purifying their hands in the smoke of the censer.
3. At an outdoor mega mass, should conditions indicate it would be safer.

In any of these cases, I would not move from the spot until I had made sure I had swallowed the Precious Body of Christ and inspected my hand for pearls (as we call them in the East).

 

[Ockham]

and the point is?

It seems you consider all those who don’t share your opinion to be lacking in logic or the ability to make a point. You can disagree all you like but don’t keep asserting every contrary argument to be faulty.

Take another look at this experiment: wdtprs.com/blog/2009/03/hand-in-glove-02-another-communion-in-the-hand-experiment/

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I am not going to debate the issue of reverence, because to begin with, I am not so naive as to think that it is universal. But then, neither am I so naive as to think that lack of reverence is universal.

The lack of catechesis is going to take a very long time. When about 21% of those 18 - 30 are attending Mass on a regular basis, that leaves 79% not doing so, and I have no better idea how to capture them than about anyone else.

However, the issue of reverence by the priest is self correcting, and has been doing so for some time. The priests who are called the John Paul 2 priests, those who as young men answered the call to vocation in the late 80’s, the 90’s +, are almost overwhelmingly on a different page than the priests who were ordained prior to Vaticn 2, or subsequently up until about the mid 1980’s. And the reverence of the priest will go far to correct the less than reverent attitude that has occured among many in the pew - it is called leadership.

I do, however, find more reverence than some would have us to believe. I have not traveled everywhere, nor even necessarily to a lot of places, but I have been struck by the reverence I have found in the places I have traveled - Oregon, Montana, North Dakota, Utah for example.

And I have found Communion in the hand to be reverently done everywhere I have been to Mass. If one is of the opinion that Communion in the hand is per se irreverant, or per se less reverant than on the tongue, then that person can pick the bone with the Pope, as the Pope does not agree with them. Maybe it is just that I don’t find that personal opinions which are based generally on no facts or very few facts to be persuasive. When the issue moves from a factual one to an emotional one, I choose to stay out of the conversation, as it is no longer a matter of conversing.

I do not suggest that it is herein, nor do I suggest that you are emotional rather than factual about it. I simply point out that too often we emote from our limited experience base to a universal, and that is not a reliable way to a universal.

I have had too many “conversations” with people who are something short of ballistic over an issue; when pressed they admit that they have no personal experience of the issue, but because of what they were told, they “know” it is widespread (whatever the issue). In fact, too often what they “know” is merely urban legend blown large; no one can ascertain who actually saw whatever incident, in a specific location (take for example, clown Masses - I have no doubt they may have occured, but nowhere near the level of insidents implied).

I’m not on this forum to argue. You can say that the Pope thinks communion in the hand is OK…if he really thought so he would be doing so. He is not. Instead, as the Christ’s representative on earth, he has chosen to give communion on the tongue. You can dismiss this if you want but it is profound.

Your statement that you don’t think I am emotional about this issue is not factual. I would describe my objection to the treatment of Our Lord’s Divine Body, Blook, Soul and Divinity as passionate not emotional. I have seen what I have seen, my supporting citations are sound and, as a result, my arguments are sound. You don’t want to argue reverence and it is a good thing you don’t because there is no way in the world you can succeed with the position that communion in the hand is as reverent as communion on the tongue.

Communion in the hand is an indult. It was first done in the Netherlands (where Iived for a number of years). I was done in total disobediance from the norm. It spread first to the surrounding countries and finally to the U.S. The Church, in my humble opinion, caved in and made it an indult; one the Holy Father chooses not to follow.

With respect to masses in costume, check out the Barney Mass in California or the Holloween mass also in California. These aren’t fabrications and you can find them on YouTube. There is all manner of irreverenct liturgical innovations that found their way into the Novus Ordo…dancing, plays, horrible music, etc. The Novus Ordo could be very reverent but it isn’t in today’s form. I’ve outline many personally observed irreverent practices today in the Novus Order…I’ve seen these practices repeated in every NO mass I have attended, in one degree or another. You have seen none. Maybe that’s and area we should explore.

I respectfully disagree that the issue of communion in the hand is selft correcting. As long as liberal lay elements hold sway over liturgy, this will continue to be a problem and probably get worse.

I’ve been all over the world to Novus Ordo masses…and the irreverence is everywhere. Are their reverent Catholics at these services, of course. Most feel helpless to make changes.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[joey46]

For many years I only took Communion on the tongue. I did not feel worthy to take it in my hand. But as I aged I became more concentrated on the words of Jesus and reading the Bible. I feel now that how we take Communion is not the point. The way we feel when we are receiving the Body of Christ is more important. Heightened awareness of Jesus coming into our souls with His Body and Blood is more important than HOW He enters us. Please do not focus on the trivial, see only the big picture of what is happening in the true spirit of the moment you are receiving Communion.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

For many years I only took Communion on the tongue. I did not feel worthy to take it in my hand. But as I aged I became more concentrated on the words of Jesus and reading the Bible. I feel now that how we take Communion is not the point. The way we feel when we are receiving the Body of Christ is more important. Heightened awareness of Jesus coming into our souls with His Body and Blood is more important than HOW He enters us. Please do not focus on the trivial, see only the big picture of what is happening in the true spirit of the moment you are receiving Communion.

Joey,

I agree with your feelings regarding receiving Jesus in Eucharist. But I’m sorry you think desecration of the Precious Species is trivial, I don’t. I think that it is sacraligious for even crumb or drop of Our Lords Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity to find it’s way to the floor. You apparently aren’t bothered by that prospect.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[joey46]

Mike,
You have totally misunderstood what I have written. I do not recall ever in my many years of taking Communion, by tongue or in the hand, crumbs falling from the Host. I have watched when the Priest hands me the Body of Christ and never, not once did I see crumbs fall from the Host. You are sadly misguided if you are so concerned about crumbs when you are accepting the most Precious of Precious. Think about what is happening when you accept Communion not what might happen to offend the Lord God. He only wants you to realize this Gift. I am sorry you think I do not care about such things as the ‘desecration of the Precious Species.’ I am sorry that you are so concerned about what might, could or maybe will happen that you forget what the Precious Species is.
May God Bless you always so that you may appreciate what He has done for us.
Please let us not dwell on these things that we feel so strongly about when we could be discussing our joys of being Catholics and children of God.

 

[bpbasilphx]

There were three reasons why in the early chuch they got away from communion in both species.

**Where did you get that idea?

The Eastern Churches (both in union with Rome and not) never stopped Communion in both kinds.

And it never stopped in the West until the early Middle Ages.

The reasons are too complex, but none of them are related to the reasons you gave to support your historically erroneous statement.**

 

[Layman]

**Communion on the tongue, kneeling, is the most humble way to communicate. It’s in your spiritual interest to do it that way. **

Also less opportunity for accidents or palming the host. Saw a little kid show his mother the host as he was sitting down, at a Mass I went to, not too long ago.

I have a sense the Devil is having a good laugh at what people are now doing in what was previously Christ’s fortress:

• Priest with his back to the tabernacle;
• Lay women speaking in the synagogue;
• Women with uncovered heads (and sometimes other parts) in the temple;
• Folk band playing sentimental music, instead of a cantor and schola;
• The unordained standing beside the one supposed to be acting ‘In persona Christi’’, giving out communion;
• Priest stepping out of the sanctuary during mass;
• Charismatic jabbering(? Not sure if this is actually done at a Mass);
• The tabernacle sidelined;
• The Mass itself drastically altered, giving a sense of impermanence;
• Host received like a piece of bread into unclean hands;
• Statues being removed;
• Banal hymns referencing ‘me’ and ‘I’ instead of ‘us’ and ‘we’;
• Topical: emptying water fonts in Lent; one less sacramental for the oppressed;

Also:

• Few if any exorcists available;
• The rite of exorcism altered (thankfully the old one is still allowed, I understand);
• Rite of extreme unction changed (in 1972, 'though I think the Motu Proprio allows the old form)
• Prayer to St. Michael removed;
• Asperges removed.

What is there now, in a modern, post-Vat II church, either in the rite of Mass or in the church’s fixtures, to stop a devil walking in and sitting in a pew?

Thankfully the Holy Father is rolling back the changes, or offering alternatives to them. If the pace of change continued as-is it might be very dicey if you’re on your deathbed in a few years and you want a pious priest to give you Extreme Unction. Assuming there’s one nearby (fall in vocations, closure of parishes).

 

[Ockham]

The way **we feel **when we are receiving the Body of Christ is more important.

There’s the “Me” generation in full bloom. It’s not about reverence and care for the Lord, it’s about how we’re feeling that day.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Mike,
You have totally misunderstood what I have written. I do not recall ever in my many years of taking Communion, by tongue or in the hand, crumbs falling from the Host. I have watched when the Priest hands me the Body of Christ and never, not once did I see crumbs fall from the Host. You are sadly misguided if you are so concerned about crumbs when you are accepting the most Precious of Precious. Think about what is happening when you accept Communion not what might happen to offend the Lord God. He only wants you to realize this Gift. I am sorry you think I do not care about such things as the ‘desecration of the Precious Species.’ I am sorry that you are so concerned about what might, could or maybe will happen that you forget what the Precious Species is.
May God Bless you always so that you may appreciate what He has done for us.
Please let us not dwell on these things that we feel so strongly about when we could be discussing our joys of being Catholics and children of God.

Joey,

In all respect you arn’t paying attention. I have covered the subject of handling the Precious Species in detail in several earlier posts on this thread. I’m not going to repeat them here. Let me just if you pay attention you will see the abuses.

I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t lecture me on the Real Presence. It is precisely because I believe so strongly in the Eucharist that I cannot bear the dismissive way it is handled by many at the NO mass that I raise this issue. Read the past posts. There is simply no question that receiption of the Host on the tongue is more reverent and more protective of the Precious Species than in the hand. Go back and read my posts…tell me where I am mistaken.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[DavidPalm]

There is simply no question that receiption of the Host on the tongue is more reverent and more protective of the Precious Species than in the hand. Go back and read my posts…tell me where I am mistaken.

And as I pointed out very early in this thread, Pope Paul VI laid explicitly why, as IowaMike says, “receiption of the Host on the tongue is more reverent and more protective of the Precious Species than in the hand.” In addition, if you read the conditions under which the unfortunate permission was given to allow Communion in the hand in certain regions, you will find that many of those conditions were and are routinely violated. I personally have seen the sacred Host dropped three times and I have two friends who have stopped people from walking away with the Host. There are multiple reports from who have attended the “mega Masses” that were referenced above about numerous Hosts being dropped on the ground and trampled by the crowd. This is a practice absolutely saturated with abuse.

To the individual who thinks that somehow we can leap right over the revolutionary actions of the Protestants and pretend that we’re just reestablishing a pristine custom of the early Church, I would ask with several others on this thread, who was promoting this new practice? Were conservative or traditional Catholics agitating for this change? Certainly not. It was liberals, dissenters, heretics. Alice von Hildebrand notes that, “This practice was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See” (The Sacredness of Tradition). It rapidly spread throughout the world, borne on the wings of organized dissent:

In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it. (“Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View”, St. Catherine Review, May-June 1996)

Ultimately, we must face the fact that the roots of the practice in our present day are sunk deep in an heretical denial of our Lord’s Real Presence:

The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.” Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. . . . But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy. (Jude A. Huntz, “Rethinking Communion in the hand,” Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997)

Nobody, not one single person in this thread who has defended the practice of Communion in the hand, has made a single reference to why the teaching of Pope Paul VI does not apply or why his arguments are not strong. That is very telling.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

And as I pointed out very early in this thread, Pope Paul VI laid explicitly why, as IowaMike says, “receiption of the Host on the tongue is more reverent and more protective of the Precious Species than in the hand.” In addition, if you read the conditions under which the unfortunate permission was given to allow Communion in the hand in certain regions, you will find that many of those conditions were and are routinely violated. I personally have seen the sacred Host dropped three times and I have two friends who have stopped people from walking away with the Host. There are multiple reports from who have attended the “mega Masses” that were referenced above about numerous Hosts being dropped on the ground and trampled by the crowd. This is a practice absolutely saturated with abuse.

To the individual who thinks that somehow we can leap right over the revolutionary actions of the Protestants and pretend that we’re just reestablishing a pristine custom of the early Church, I would ask with several others on this thread, who was promoting this new practice? Were conservative or traditional Catholics agitating for this change? Certainly not. It was liberals, dissenters, heretics. Alice von Hildebrand notes that, “This practice was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See” (The Sacredness of Tradition). It rapidly spread throughout the world, borne on the wings of organized dissent:

In 1976 Call to Action, an influential group of Catholic dissenters (recently condemned in Nebraska by Bishop Bruskewitz), added to their agenda the promotion of communion-in-the-hand. Other publicly-dissenting Catholic groups, already holding wildly disobedient do-it-yourself liturgies, also actively promoted it. (“Communion-in-the-Hand: An Historical View”, St. Catherine Review, May-June 1996)

Ultimately, we must face the fact that the roots of the practice in our present day are sunk deep in an heretical denial of our Lord’s Real Presence:

The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.” Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. . . . But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy. (Jude A. Huntz, “Rethinking Communion in the hand,” Homiletic & Pastoral Review, March 1997)

Nobody, not one single person in this thread who has defended the practice of Communion in the hand, has made a single reference to why the teaching of Pope Paul VI does not apply or why his arguments are not strong. That is very telling.

Wonderful and informative post.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[paperwight]

*.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority.

The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion.*

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

Let’s unpack this a little.

‘the ranks of Christ’s failthful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation)’ :

Are you saying that ‘the ranks of Christ’s faithful’ do not include those who do not receive on the tongue? In other words, are you saying that they do not believe in Transubstantiation, and that they prove this by receiving in the hand? An outrageous suggestion.

‘who never asked for this practice’ :

how do you explain the enthusiastic adoption of CITH, if it is so unwanted? I assure you in the church where I am an EMHC, CITH is 80 - 90 %.
‘Some of that is converts/ First Communicants being told it’s the ‘correct’ way’, perhaps you’ll retort. I don’t know whether they are or are not. But I DO know that the vast majority of people I see in ‘my’ queue are Catholics of long-standing, who would have been taught COTT, and obediently received that way for years, but have made their own decision to change as soon as it was allowed.

 

[DavidPalm]

Let’s unpack this a little.

Sure, lets.

Are you saying that ‘the ranks of Christ’s faithful’ do not include those who do not receive on the tongue? In other words, are you saying that they do not believe in Transubstantiation, and that they prove this by receiving in the hand? An outrageous suggestion.

You’re misreading me. What I said was that it was **introduced ** by those who reject the Church’s teaching and that there was no group of orthodox Catholics agitating for this practice. That is simply an historical fact and I stand by it. That many of the faithful innocently went along with the change out of ignorance or a false sense of obedience, I have no doubt.

how do you explain the enthusiastic adoption of CITH, if it is so unwanted? I assure you in the church where I am an EMHC, CITH is 80 - 90 %.
‘Some of that is converts/ First Communicants being told it’s the ‘correct’ way’, perhaps you’ll retort. I don’t know whether they are or are not. But I DO know that the vast majority of people I see in ‘my’ queue are Catholics of long-standing, who would have been taught COTT, and obediently received that way for years, but have made their own decision to change as soon as it was allowed.

“Obediently”? So this was presented to them as a matter of obedience? Obedience to whom? I believe we have the answer to your question right there. Yes, it was presented to them as a matter of obedience and in that the faithful were misled. The Pope had said exactly the opposite:

This method of distributing holy communion [on the tongue] 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. (Memoriale Domini)

So, how many of the faithful who were told that they should now receive in the hand were told that the Pope said explicitly that Communion on the tongue “must be retained” and that:

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.” 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.” . . .

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, how many of the faithful gave “informed consent” and how many were basically duped into a probably innocent but false obedience?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Let’s unpack this a little.

‘the ranks of Christ’s failthful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation)’ :

Are you saying that ‘the ranks of Christ’s faithful’ do not include those who do not receive on the tongue? In other words, are you saying that they do not believe in Transubstantiation, and that they prove this by receiving in the hand? An outrageous suggestion.

‘who never asked for this practice’ :

how do you explain the enthusiastic adoption of CITH, if it is so unwanted? I assure you in the church where I am an EMHC, CITH is 80 - 90 %.
‘Some of that is converts/ First Communicants being told it’s the ‘correct’ way’, perhaps you’ll retort. I don’t know whether they are or are not. But I DO know that the vast majority of people I see in ‘my’ queue are Catholics of long-standing, who would have been taught COTT, and obediently received that way for years, but have made their own decision to change as soon as it was allowed.

I would suggest that people were given no choice. I was there when communion in hand began following Vatican II. No one was given a choice. It was simply done…

Keep in mind that communion in the hand began again after Vatican II in disobediance to the norm of receiving on the tongue and spread from there. In my opinion the Church caved when it issued an indult and did so only because the practice had become so wide spread.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[joey46]

Joey,

In all respect you arn’t paying attention. I have covered the subject of handling the Precious Species in detail in several earlier posts on this thread. I’m not going to repeat them here. Let me just if you pay attention you will see the abuses.

I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t lecture me on the Real Presence. It is precisely because I believe so strongly in the Eucharist that I cannot bear the dismissive way it is handled by many at the NO mass that I raise this issue. Read the past posts. There is simply no question that receiption of the Host on the tongue is more reverent and more protective of the Precious Species than in the hand. Go back and read my posts…tell me where I am mistaken.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

Dear Mike,

You are not wrong. I never meant to say you were wrong. Whoever believes in God The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit and believes as strongly as you do are Blessed everyday. I never meant to cause such a fuss about all of this. To me we are all right in our thinking of the many blessings of our most holy church! God Bless you.

Joey

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Dear Mike,

You are not wrong. I never meant to say you were wrong. Whoever believes in God The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit and believes as strongly as you do are Blessed everyday. I never meant to cause such a fuss about all of this. To me we are all right in our thinking of the many blessings of our most holy church! God Bless you.

Joey

God Bless you Joey and I urge you to watch for irreverent reception and/or handling of the Precious Species and cleansing of the vessels.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[JDSinSA]

Here is an answer from a wonderful TLM priest, Father Donald Kloster.

Why Communion on the tongue?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Here is an answer from a wonderful TLM priest, Father Donald Kloster.

Why Communion on the tongue?

Thanks a bunch…I’ll watch this a little later and comment…I have to get some work done or my horrible, miserable, domineering, dictating boss (I work for myself) of mine will punish me.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[paperwight]

“Obediently”? So this was presented to them as a matter of obedience? Obedience to whom? I believe we have the answer to your question right there. Yes, it was presented to them as a matter of obedience and in that the faithful were misled. The Pope had said exactly the opposite: (QUOTE)

You have perhaps read very quickly and so have mis-read what I wrote.

I did not say that the people changed to CITH out of obedience, but that they had received on the tongue for many years out of obedience.

Receiving in the hand certainly was not proposed as a ‘must do’. It was presented as a choice, which the majority glady adopted.