Communion in the Hand?

[diggerdomer]

Do you get it digger?

Our Church is not in good shape. Our numbers are down, priests down, seminarians, down, belief in transubstantiation down, etc, etc. The "spirit of Vatican II’ has not produced good fruit. All these Protestant reforms have weakend our Church. I’m not sure what your attraction to Communion in hand is, perhaps you are an EMHC and don’t want to lose your prominence in your parish. Whatever the motivation, this practice has to stop.

My attraction is simply that it’s Church teaching. I have no preference of whether anyone receives on the tongue or hand.

 

[Auntie_M]

I would like to offer a suggestion…

Those of you who are so passionate about the tongue, go to your parish, talk to your priest, ask his permission to allow you to start a class on the “correct” way of doing things.

I really think that would have more impact on the issue than we ever could here.

And you’d be offering a service in your parish. Our priests are always looking for someone to help and take some of the burden off them. This would be kinda like a “new twist” on our RCIA classes. What’ll think? would anyone be willing to donate some of their time to get this “corrected”.

Let us all know how it goes, please.

 

[elts1956]

If it’s in the GIRM (which is part of the universal law of the Church) how can it be an indult? My understanding is that an indult is a special favor, that’s an exception to or special case of a law, granted for a determinate period of time.

The option to receive communion in the hand is in Church Law, not a specific exemption or exception to Church law.

Would you please specify which Church Law? Thanks.

 

[elts1956]

If it’s in the GIRM (which is part of the universal law of the Church) how can it be an indult? My understanding is that an indult is a special favor, that’s an exception to or special case of a law, granted for a determinate period of time.

The option to receive communion in the hand is in Church Law, not a specific exemption or exception to Church law.

I would like to offer a suggestion…

Those of you who are so passionate about the tongue, go to your parish, talk to your priest, ask his permission to allow you to start a class on the “correct” way of doing things.

I really think that would have more impact on the issue than we ever could here.

And you’d be offering a service in your parish. Our priests are always looking for someone to help and take some of the burden off them. This would be kinda like a “new twist” on our RCIA classes. What’ll think? would anyone be willing to donate some of their time to get this “corrected”.

Let us all know how it goes, please.

I think if enough people in each Parish would specify Communion on the tongue (if that is how they want to receive it.) by receiving the Host on the tongue, a lot of people may get the picture, or wonder what in the heck the tongue receivers are doing. At least it will get their attention.

My parish priest has told me we can receive either in the hand, or on the tongue. No argument.

 

[diggerdomer]

Would you please specify which Church Law? Thanks.

The GIRM, as I said. General Instruction of the Roman Missal. Let me know if I can clarify further. Thanks.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

If it’s in the GIRM (which is part of the universal law of the Church) how can it be an indult? My understanding is that an indult is a special favor, that’s an exception to or special case of a law, granted for a determinate period of time.

The option to receive communion in the hand is in Church Law, not a specific exemption or exception to Church law.

Diggerman,

Look it up…sorry been gone so I’m slow in responding.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[diggerdomer]

Diggerman,

Look it up…sorry been gone so I’m slow in responding.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

No apologies needed.

I did look it up. I referred to Canon Law (the most recent edition, with commentary, published by the Canon Law Society of America). It’s a really huge green book. If you need a more specific citation let me know.

If you have something you’d like me to look up specifically, or something you’re referring to, please share. I have never come across anything, in all the reading I’ve done, that even hints that communion in the hand, today, is a an indult.

Thank you.

 

[baddog]

Well, there is a lot people will say but I can point out four things:

First it was a general part of the destruction of piety that occured in the past few decades, and so people see it in bad company and implemented illicitly at first and so clear evidence of it for bad motivations and misunderstood Church teachings.

Communion in the hand we can regard as something exceptional, i.e. to only be implemented for exceptional reasons and not as a good standard itself, and in this time exceptions have been made into standards to destroy standards – this is bad practice, very bad.

Second, all things being equal, receiving on the tongue is superior for a number of reasons and we are in need of superior reverence and legislation that way.

Third, it conflicts with Western tradition of reverence regarding the Eucharist and the priesthood, it conflicts with ‘the sacred’. The more you understand the concept of ‘the sacred’ and reservation from the profane and emphasis of the sacred the more you have troubles with Communion in the Hand as a -standard-.

Fourth, of course there is the problem of theft, dropping of particles, etc. this is a very very real problem, extremely real and the potential for hideous sacrilege regarding this should make one tremble to hold the Lord in one’s hand.

Now, all this being out there but even setting aside in thought only for a moment, if I as a Christian brother ask you as my friend to only receive on the tongue, because many people will be very happy (and no good reason not to), why not oblige?

So I ask please my Christian brothers and sisters, as a favor to your other brothers and sisters, to receive on the tongue and make a commitment only to do so.

[edit]

P.S. I will add that in terms of dropping, holding in the hand is -clearly- more dangerous so I don’t understand your statement at all. Also, we do not find Protestant practices generally as good sources of examples for us to follow.

The only time I ever saw the Host dropped was when it was received on the tongue.

 

[elts1956]

The only time I ever saw the Host dropped was when it was received on the tongue.

No paten, huh?

Okay, this is what I “remember reading somewhere.” After/during VAT. II the Pope ? passed an induit to some countries so they could receive communion in the hand. This was not to be a common place practice.

BUT some/many Bishops/Cardinals? ran with the ball and stated the Host could be received in the hand in their dioceses. By the time the news got back to Rome, there were so many dioceses in the US that okayed Communion in the hand, the Pope threw up his hands and caved rather than argue about it. We would probably have to go back to the source, Vatican II to see if this is what happened.

That is what I read.

 

[diggerdomer]

No paten, huh?

Okay, this is what I “remember reading somewhere.” After/during VAT. II the Pope ? passed an induit to some countries so they could receive communion in the hand. This was not to be a common place practice.

BUT some/many Bishops/Cardinals? ran with the ball and stated the Host could be received in the hand in their dioceses. By the time the news got back to Rome, there were so many dioceses in the US that okayed Communion in the hand, the Pope threw up his hands and caved rather than argue about it. We would probably have to go back to the source, Vatican II to see if this is what happened.

That is what I read.

I keep hearing from a number of people that “I’ve read somewhere…” there’s an indult. I’ve never been able to find it. If anyone reading this knows of a current applicable indult, please let us know. Thanks.

 

[elts1956]

I keep hearing from a number of people that “I’ve read somewhere…” there’s an indult. I’ve never been able to find it. If anyone reading this knows of a current applicable indult, please let us know. Thanks.

I can’t find anything either.

 

[Ockham]

Pope Benedict XVI said there is a tyranny of relativism in this modern day and we’re seeing it clearly in this thread (and others). Digger’s argument is that the Church allows Communion in hand therefore it is proper and right. I’m not sure which fallacy this is but I know a flawed argument when I see one. The same argument could have been applied to slavery and now used to support abortion.

Communion in hand violates centuries of Church teaching. I have provided many quotes to support this statement. Communion in hand was a hallmark of the Protestant revolt. It goes against the lavabo and all other reverenece the priest performs during Mass. This was not an organic development but a sudden change inflicted upon parishioners during those crazy post V2 years.

The Catholic Church is in decline. Why any supposed Cathoic would defend any modernist change that has contributed to our decline is mind boggling. It begs the question as to what the true motivation of these modernists is really about.

 

[jpy15026]

I can’t find anything either.

• In 1965, Cardinal Suenans, Archbishop of Belgium, introduced the practice of receiving communion in the hand to his diocese. Pope Paul VI addressed this flagrant act of disobedience in 1969 with the release of his encyclical Memoriale Domini. Pope Paul VI explains in his encyclical why communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church and enumerates the many **dangers **attached to receiving communion in the hand. Communion on the tongue is the **preferred **norm of the Church because it “more effectively ensures that communion is distributed with the required reverence, decorum, and dignity; that there is less danger of disrespect for the Eucharistic elements…[and so] caution is exercised which the Church has always counseled regarding the particles of the consecrated bread”[11].
  In addition to Pope Paul VI’s concern for the safety of the Eucharistic elements, by receiving communion directly on the tongue one also recognizes and gives reverence to the **consecrated **hands of the priests (“because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated”[Aquinas, S.T.,VIII,Q.82, Art.13]).
  Pope Paul VI’s abundant praise for communion on the tongue is withheld when he turns to speak of communion on the hand; his tone changes to one of caution and worry: “A change in so important a matter that has its basis in an ancient and honored tradition does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering communion.
  In particular, these dangers are both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist .Paul VI is concerned that the changing of this discipline will cause a weakening of faith. So great was his concern over the question that he polled his entire episcopate. The results were overwhelming: 1,233 bishops opposed such a measure compared to 567 in favor. Having examined the issue at length and having consulted the counsel of the bishops, the pontiff decided “not to change the long-accepted manner of administering communion to the faithful”[18]. He then urges the faithful “to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed” [19]. Paul VI closes his encyclical by permitting communion in the hand not as a preferred practice but only in "special circumstances”[20]. The widespread extension of this practice, then, attests to the failure of the clergy and laity to heed the counsels and intentions of the Church on this matter.

Snippet from:
media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml

Memoriale Domini. catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

 

[Shin]

• In 1965, Cardinal Suenans, Archbishop of Belgium, introduced the practice of receiving communion in the hand to his diocese. Pope Paul VI addressed this flagrant act of disobedience in 1969 with the release of his encyclical Memoriale Domini. Pope Paul VI explains in his encyclical why communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church and enumerates the many **dangers **attached to receiving communion in the hand. Communion on the tongue is the **preferred **norm of the Church because it “more effectively ensures that communion is distributed with the required reverence, decorum, and dignity; that there is less danger of disrespect for the Eucharistic elements…[and so] caution is exercised which the Church has always counseled regarding the particles of the consecrated bread”[11].
  In addition to Pope Paul VI’s concern for the safety of the Eucharistic elements, by receiving communion directly on the tongue one also recognizes and gives reverence to the **consecrated **hands of the priests (“because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated”[Aquinas, S.T.,VIII,Q.82, Art.13]).
  Pope Paul VI’s abundant praise for communion on the tongue is withheld when he turns to speak of communion on the hand; his tone changes to one of caution and worry: “A change in so important a matter that has its basis in an ancient and honored tradition does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering communion.
  In particular, these dangers are both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist .Paul VI is concerned that the changing of this discipline will cause a weakening of faith. So great was his concern over the question that he polled his entire episcopate. The results were overwhelming: 1,233 bishops opposed such a measure compared to 567 in favor. Having examined the issue at length and having consulted the counsel of the bishops, the pontiff decided “not to change the long-accepted manner of administering communion to the faithful”[18]. He then urges the faithful “to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed” [19]. Paul VI closes his encyclical by permitting communion in the hand not as a preferred practice but only in "special circumstances”[20]. The widespread extension of this practice, then, attests to the failure of the clergy and laity to heed the counsels and intentions of the Church on this matter.

Snippet from:
media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml

Memoriale Domini. catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

And this of all things from Paul VI, the innovator of innovators of all people!

 

[Ockham]

Allow me to break this post up a bit for effect.

by receiving communion directly on the tongue one also recognizes and gives reverence to the **consecrated **hands of the priests (“because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated”[Aquinas, S.T.,VIII,Q.82, Art.13]).

Pope Paul VI’s abundant praise for communion on the tongue is withheld when he turns to speak of communion on the hand; his tone changes to one of caution and worry: "**A change in so important a matter that has its basis in an ancient and honored tradition does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering communion. **

In particular, these dangers are both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist .Paul VI is concerned that the changing of this discipline will cause a weakening of faith.

So great was his concern over the question that he polled his entire episcopate. The results were overwhelming:

1,233 bishops opposed such a measure compared to
567 in favor.

Having examined the issue at length and having consulted the counsel of the bishops, the pontiff decided “not to change the long-accepted manner of administering communion to the faithful”[18]. He then urges the faithful “to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed” [19].

Paul VI closes his encyclical by permitting communion in the hand not as a preferred practice but only in "special circumstances"[20]. The widespread extension of this practice, then, attests to the failure of the clergy and laity to heed the counsels and intentions of the Church on this matter.

Snippet from:
media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml

Memoriale Domini. catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

 

[damooster]

No paten, huh?

Okay, this is what I “remember reading somewhere.” After/during VAT. II the Pope ? passed an induit to some countries so they could receive communion in the hand. This was not to be a common place practice.

BUT some/many Bishops/Cardinals? ran with the ball and stated the Host could be received in the hand in their dioceses. By the time the news got back to Rome, there were so many dioceses in the US that okayed Communion in the hand, the Pope threw up his hands and caved rather than argue about it. We would probably have to go back to the source, Vatican II to see if this is what happened.

That is what I read.

Almost accurate.

The following quote can be found from the catholic.com article, “The Ten Most Liturgical Abuses:”

Vatican II never mentioned receiving the host in hand. But when some countries introduced the practice illicitly Pope Paul VI surveyed the world’s bishops to see if it should be allowed where it already existed. Rather than suddenly suppressing reception in the hand, the pope granted an indult intended to let the practice continue for a time in those areas where it already existed. Oddly enough, the bishops of the United States—where the practice did not exist—asked permission of the Holy See to introduce it here. Even more amazingly, they got it.

Still, universal Church law does not permit reception of the Sacrament in the hand, and John Paul II disapproves of the practice. The indult that allowed it specified that reception in the hand “must not be imposed” (CSDW, En réponse, 1969). Absolutely no priest or extraordinary minister of Holy Communion may refuse to administer the Eucharist on the tongue. Your right to determine which lawful manner you use is stated in the GIRM (Appendix for the United States, 240b).

 

[baddog]

Dear Auntie,

If you haven’t seen some of the above all I can say is you aren’t watching. I’ve gone to a lot of masses both inside and outside America…there is a huge variation in reverence from place to place. And what I am describing can be seen, to one degree or another, everywhere…just look.

I don’t accept your correction re: veils. Veils were not introduced to stop women from gossiping. The wearing of the veil is scripture based and if you look them up you will find there are many reasons the veil was worn but gossiping is not one I’ve ever seen. Up until Vatican II wearing of the veil was included in the Canon. After Vatican II it was not recinded but was simply left out of the Canon as unnecessary because tradition would carry on. St. Paul wrote and talked on this subject with sufficiency and it is easy to find.

I never argued that communion in the hand was not the original way. I argue that that way was abandoned for the reason you stated as well as some others. Today it is not the most reverent way to receive communion. Just today…I watched as an alter server received the Precious Blood and then, with her right hand, wiped her lips. I happen to know her CCD teacher and gave him a heads up. He said he’d take care of it. Just today I witnessed people approaching communion with their hands at their sides, gazing around etc. Just today I watched people leave the pews and follow behind the priest by just one or two paces (that’s the stampede I’m talking about).

With respect that the NO is as reverent today as it ever was isn’t true. Over the years litugical innovations and abuses have crept into the NO so that today’s NO, if anything, is less reverent today than when it was introduced.

Please don’t feel sorry for the way I feel because I feel great. As I said in my previous post I accept Vatican II and the NO. But Vatican II did not order communion in the hand. This practice was born of disobedience in Holland following Vatican II and spread accordingly; so it began as an innovation and even now it is only an indult. Vatican II did not order the removal of the communion rails. Vatican II did not order the relocation of the Tabernacle. Confession by appointment only was never ordered by Vatican II. Abandoning the tradition of wearing the veil was no ordered by Vatican II. Finally, Vatican II did not order women to abandon the tradition (small t) of wearing the veil. These innovations and as play a big part for the decline in respect, reverence for the mass and belief in the Real Presence, even by some clergy.

I attend both the Tridentine Mass and the NO mass (around Iowa and Nebraska) and I’ve seen what I have seen.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

I don’t think the irreverent attitude of people would be solved by taking the host in the hand or on the tongue. Seems like a moot point to me.

 

[diggerdomer]

Memoriale Domini. catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

Thanks! I had never read that document. It was very helpful.

Note to those who have not read it: it does not simply ban the practice of communion in the hand. It does not call anything going on at the time by any bishops “disobedience” (flagrant or otherwise).

Clearly the door was left open for some to practice communion in the hand, with approval from the Vatican. I’m assuming that the indults people refer to came after this Instruction.

Obviously, a lot else came after as well, because it was under Paul VI (and this same Congregation that issued Memoriale Domini) that in 1973 they (the Church) issued more norms that apply universally. Part of this was the allowance, as a norm, not as an indult, for communion in the hand. See ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWIMCAR.

Of course this in no way abrogated the practice of receiving on the tongue.

And unless anyone knows otherwise, that’s the same universal law that’s endured as has been noted in the current universal GIRM.

Thanks again for pointing out the 1969 document.

 

[baddog]

No paten, huh?

Okay, this is what I “remember reading somewhere.” After/during VAT. II the Pope ? passed an induit to some countries so they could receive communion in the hand. This was not to be a common place practice.

BUT some/many Bishops/Cardinals? ran with the ball and stated the Host could be received in the hand in their dioceses. By the time the news got back to Rome, there were so many dioceses in the US that okayed Communion in the hand, the Pope threw up his hands and caved rather than argue about it. We would probably have to go back to the source, Vatican II to see if this is what happened.

That is what I read.

The paten is no guarantee the Host will not hit the floor. Humans make mistakes. Point is, accidents happen regardless of how the Host is received.
So I think this argument is really weak.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Is there anyone out there???

Is the question that is coming from the Vatican. There are statements coming out of the Vatican and from the Holy Father…

But, no one is listening

Instead, you go to the Una Voce, the Remnant, The Angelus Press. etc etc etc and you’e listening, believing everything coming from them. Why is this??

Well, possibly because they read this stuff. And the general view then becomes slightly schismatic:“I have special knowledge of things”, etc. Sort of like the occult where you feel empowered by “hidden knowledge.” Taking a statement from the Vatican is just too easy.
I used to visit a Catholic lady in a nursing home & a woman from one of the Pius X groups would be there handing out tracts to the patients.The tract supposedly showed before & after photos of Pope Paul claiming he had been kidnapped & an imposter pope was taking his place.Guess when things don’t go your way you have to come up with some story. The simple truth just doesn’t have enough drama.