Communion in the Hand?

[Layman]

COTT makes it a bit harder, surely? Plus, a damp host would be more likely to disintegrate. Plus you’d have to get it out of your gob in good time, etc. etc.

COTT cuts down the possibility of abuse. If only a few hosts are saved, or even one, worth the ‘inconvenience’, surely?

**Otherwise: in the hand, in yer pocket, save it as a treat for later. **

I dare say Lois XIV courtiers could have bought their own priest to supply them without any subterfuge.

And lets not forget the jokers, the half-crazed or the ignorant who might not assault a tabernacle, but are happy to show one to their friends (or in one case I observed, their Mum).

Or YouTube

 

[rookieonedge]

I’ve read on this forum that it’s in the Bible that women’s voices are not to be heard in the synagogue, nor are they to go bare-headed there. St. Paul, I think.

Regardless, high pitched voices; women’s, children’s, are taken less seriously. Who tends to dominate a room in a social gathering? The tallest man with the deepest voice.

Women compete with each other on their appearance: “Look at so-and-so, what is she wearing …?”

They also use their appearance to attract men. That doesn’t belong in a church. [Sarcasm:] Unless all these young ladies nowadays just want to get as complete a tan as possible, by wearing as little as possible? Even at night? Figure-hugging clothes, so as to … I dunno … do acrobatics?

In the old days most men wore hats; they showed respect by doffing them to their betters, to women and to Christ in the church.

Found this via a quick search on Google:

incommunion.org/forest-flier/nancysessays/st-paul-and-women/ (it’s Protestant, I think)

*1 Corinthians 11:3-16 Paul writes: “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” He goes on to say that “any woman who prays or prophesies” should keep her head covered, whereas a man should never cover his head, “since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. (For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.)”

In 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, Paul gives us the famous injunction, “… women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.” This theme is taken up again in 1 Timothy 2:11-15, where women are instructed to dress modestly and to keep silent in church: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”*

You must remember that St. Paul wrote at a time when slavery and male domination were prevalent, or cultural norms. These were not dealt with at the time because the gospel had to be preached and doctrines of the faith understood. However, we live in times in which slavery and male suppression of women are no longer tolerated. God created men and women as equal although they partake in different roles, all for the glory of God.

Your grievances against women’s “high-pitched voices” and unfitting public appearance sound shallow at best. Or was it a flashback of medieval times? (Of course skimpy clothing should not be endured at any time. Many churches have the familiar sign posted in the foyer: No shorts or halter tops allowed).

 

[LilyM]

COTT makes it a bit harder, surely? Plus, a damp host would be more likely to disintegrate. Plus you’d have to get it out of your gob in good time, etc. etc.

COTT cuts down the possibility of abuse. If only a few hosts are saved, or even one, worth the ‘inconvenience’, surely?

**Otherwise: in the hand, in yer pocket, save it as a treat for later. **

I dare say Lois XIV courtiers could have bought their own priest to supply them without any subterfuge.

And lets not forget the jokers, the half-crazed or the ignorant who might not assault a tabernacle, but are happy to show one to their friends (or in one case I observed, their Mum).

Or YouTube

I bet those same jokers, half-crazed and ignorant are happy to ‘chew and show’ after having received on the tongue too y’know.

As for ‘buying priests’ - a valid consecration surely couldn’t be obtained from a priest who has such a sacreligious intent as to allow the consecrated Hosts to be used in Black Masses!

And if it were valid, ‘buying’ them would be simony - a blessed object that is sold loses its blessing, a sacrament performed for monetary consideration is invalid. How much more so a consecrated Host that is sold!

 

[Layman]

To: Rookieonedge

It’s in the Bible, and it’s explicit. Do it, or don’t. Modernising our worship has led to crowd-pleasing at the expense of solemnity and reverence, in my opinion.

If the current trend continues, it’ll be interesting to see what an average O.F. Mass looks like in another 40 years, and compare it to a TLM. Assuming you can easily get to a Mass, by that time.

To: LilyM.

As I understand it, for a consecration to be valid, the priest has to intend it to be so at that time. That’s all. Or he could just nick ones consecrated by a fellow priest in the parish. And give them freely. I vaguely recall reading about Satanists having a priest on tap, and a rich and powerful one could find a ‘fallen’ priest in due course; ‘like calls to like’.

A rich man can also hire a priest as his personal chaplain, for his personal chapel, and take it from there.

Just to continue this slightly-strange meander: A priest could believe in Jesus, while believing the Devil is more powerful. Thus his consecration would be valid, wouldn’t it?

Anyway, my main point is: Communion in the hand is part of an assortment of changes made to our rite that decrease external reverence, thus likely decreasing internal reverence in worshippers and thus the graces they are likely to gain.

If nothing else, these changes make for a noisier and more distracting Mass.

I invite anyone who doubts this to go to a few Sunday Latin High Masses and then compare them, objectively, to a few Novus Ordos. If you were transported from 1960 to 2000 and wanted to go Mass, you’d get a bit of a shock.

The changes made are, to my mind, almost comical in their collective irreverence. When I try to think how they could be more irreverent, I think of rock music, clowns, dancing and gibbering*, only to realise they have happened in some Masses already.

Here’s how it’ll probably work out: That which has Christ in it will thrive, and that which doesn’t, won’t. Some parishes will close, some will be taken over by different orders, some will thrive, ‘white flight’ and demographics notwithstanding.

For any religious movement to survive the next generation has to take it up, and so on. That’s the impression I get from Protestant sects. A charismatic leader starts one up, the children of the first batch of followers may or may not take it up, and if it’s unworthy, it dies out.

• i.e. Charismatic masses, or do they only do that at separate services?

 

[603304529]

“But you can’t judge someone’s internal disposition from their outside disposition!”, squeal the libs.

sticks fingers in ears and hums there is no crisis in the Church.

 

[rookieonedge]

To: Rookieonedge

It’s in the Bible, and it’s explicit. Do it, or don’t. Modernising our worship has led to crowd-pleasing at the expense of solemnity and reverence, in my opinion.

If the current trend continues, it’ll be interesting to see what an average O.F. Mass looks like in another 40 years, and compare it to a TLM. Assuming you can easily get to a Mass, by that time.

• i.e. Charismatic masses, or do they only do that at separate services?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I prefer the TLM and would like to see it promulgated to a greater extent.

As for St. Paul’s admonitions about women, I still think we can’t interpret those passages except in context, or we will sound like the Protestant fundamentalists who read Scripture out of context and fall into error.

Strangely enough, it was through the charismatic movement that I returned to the Catholic faith just before it lost its luster. There was some good that came of it, but I guess it was meant for only a short period of time to rejuvenate elements of the Church. I remember Christians (both non-Catholic and Catholic) worshipped and praised in unity (for awhile) probably much llike the early Church. They read their bibles and received clarity from the Holy Spirit. They witnessed about God working DIRECTLY in their lives.

I guess there is a thread for charismatics, so I’d better not go on with this, especially, in as much, as I’ve gone back to the traditionalist way of worship.

 

[Cracker_Mom]

Let’s cut to the nub of the matter (I hope):

Which is the better Mass, the one more likely to convert sinners, inspire vocations, make Saints and get grants of graces for the Faithful:

A Mass where:

• The priest faces the tabernacle, the East (where the sun rises), and the Host;
• The congregation likewise;
• The congregation is mainly quiet throughout, and silent for a long stretch;
• There only lay people in the sanctuary are male;
• The only lay people in the sanctuary are vested, and only say standard responses;
• The language is ancient, historical and extinct and thus with no profane associations, likewise the singing;
• The music is often provided by a pipe organ; not often heard in worldly music, especially its low bass notes;
• Because the laity are quiet by the rubrics, and the priest says a lot quietly, this influences the laity to make an effort to hush themselves and family members throughout the Mass;
• Communion is kneeling, on the tongue (see, we’re still on-topic );
• Only the priest or deacon touches the Host with his hand;
• Enthusiastic women cover their heads with a mantilla, making their age and beauty hard to guess from behind, thus being less distracting.

Or a Mass where:

• The priest faces the congregation, with his back to the tabernacle (is this why many are moved?);
• The congregation faces the priest, he is the obvious focus;
• The congregation has to join in all the time, thus leading to more general noise (hacking, coughing, whispering, kids kicking off);
• Lay women can read sacred scripture, bare-headed, in the sanctuary, in their naturally high-pitched voices;
• Lay people in the sanctuary, unvested;
• Lay people distributing communion;
• Communion standing tall, and into a hand that might have been sneezed in, or worse;
• The language used is also used outside Mass, in mundane (worldly) situations;
• Women can go bareheaded in the pews and in the sanctuary, so other women can ‘assess’ them and men can 'give ‘em the once-over’, even if they’d rather not; it’s instinctive and automatic;
• Singing is in the common language, sometimes with folk (mundane) instruments, sometimes with folky (mundane) hymns?

I find it hard to understand how the second style of Mass can be considered as good as the first.

OK, I attend the Latin Mass,and sing in the schola, but sometimes the stuff folks obsess over makes us all look a bit rigid & weird.(Not to mention misogynist.)
Folk music drives me right up the wall, too.But here we go again with the women wearing veils, women in the sanctuary,women reading scripture,women with high-pitched voices,etc., etc.
Only a very few women at our Latin Mass wear any sort of head covering & it certainly doesn’t cover up any physical assets beyond some of the hair nor hide the age of the wearer.
We have noisy babies & toddlers, too.Kids make noise.And we tend to have more of them in traditional Catholic families.
But, I prefer kneeling to receive Our Lord, too.

 

[Layman]

I put it to you that ‘every little helps’. The more of the reverent elements above the better the Mass. The more of the irreverent ones, the likelihood of it being worse. I used to be a bit of a gambler; probability affects every outcome.

You can say that this Mass or that Mass is a good one despite one or more novelties, but if most of the Masses in the world have some or all of the novelties, that is overall Not A Good Thing, in my opinion. The probability of people getting distracted or getting too casual with it is increased.

I’m not questioning validity, unless the priest uses invalid matter or messes with the words of consecration.

I’m questioning, well, the wisdom of allowing all these novelties; some are forbidden, I understand,but done anyway, some are allowed, but not approved, but are done anyway.

Don’t forget, the Mass of Paul VI was/is, I understand, meant to be done ad-orientem, with chant, and Latin preferably, I think(?). That sort of Mass is almost as rare as, I dunno, the Sarum Rite(?) these days.

 

[malphono]

Don’t forget, the Mass of Paul VI was/is, I understand, meant to be done ad-orientem, with chant, and Latin preferably, I think(?). That sort of Mass is almost as rare as, I dunno, the Sarum Rite(?) these days.

Yes, the rubrics of the OF presume ad orientem, etc. And yes, to experience it done that way (often it’s called the “reform of the reform” for obvious reasons) is rather rare but it does exist, although I have personally never seen it. I believe that there’s an oratory (“The Oratory”?) in London that does it. Also at the Oratory in Toronto, S John Cantius in Chicago, etc. From what I’ve heard it’s quite nice, though I doubt it’s the equal of the EF. OTOH, if the only choice were between a true “reform of the reform” and the usual OF … well, you can guess where to find me.

 

[malphono]

OK, I attend the Latin Mass,and sing in the schola, but sometimes the stuff folks obsess over makes us all look a bit rigid & weird.(Not to mention misogynist.)
Folk music drives me right up the wall, too.But here we go again with the women wearing veils, women in the sanctuary,women reading scripture,women with high-pitched voices,etc., etc.
Only a very few women at our Latin Mass wear any sort of head covering & it certainly doesn’t cover up any physical assets beyond some of the hair nor hide the age of the wearer.
We have noisy babies & toddlers, too.Kids make noise.And we tend to have more of them in traditional Catholic families.
But, I prefer kneeling to receive Our Lord, too.

Good for you that you assist at the EF and sing in the schola, despite the things certain people obsess about.

Personally, I love the EF and am thrilled that to be able to assist at again it after 40+ l-o-n-g years. I really wish that those people would just drop the excess baggage and just appreciate the glories of the liturgy for what they are.

Unfortunately, there’s often a lot of needless baggage carried under the guise of the EF. Many think women should be wrapped up in what amounts to a burka. Why? Even though I’m a male, I don’t remember any “cult of the mantilla” in pre-conciliar days. Some women wore a chapel veil. Some wore a hat. Is it not possible for fashion to be fashion and the EF to be the EF, the same way it was for 400+ years? Far too many want to go back in time to 1961 (some so they can avoid the 1962 Missal of Bl PP John XXIII). Well, that’s not possible. The world has changed and we have what we have. Is it not possible to have the EF in the present day, as it was for 400+ years?

 

[Layman]

I was an N.O. kid in the 70’s, stopped going to Mass in the '80s, came back in the 00’s, to find CITH and EMCs.

One pious lady lay lector even gave a little sermonette at my local church, 'though even the quite-liberal clergy in attendance gave her some funny looks when she did that. Didn’t happen again, as far as I know.

What’s curious is that you can’t hear an pre-1962 Latin Mass at all, while folk Masses and other novelties are fairly common, I hear. A Pius V Mass would be interesting. It would surely still be valid?

Why did/does the TLM seem to be a threat or a problem while Youth/Folk Masses are tolerated, even encouraged?

Is it the case the ‘some people’ think the TLM might encourage schism or ‘trouble’, even though it has a far longer pedigree?

Ain’t as if it’s hard to do. Read this interesting article.

PS: As for women in a burka, I would love to go to a Mass hooded, like a monk. Would cut distraction way down. As a man, I have to go bare-headed, but hey!, if there’re no rules about this anymore, I could, couldn’t I? I mean, seriously?

[Sarcasm] Oh Brave New World, that has such possibilities in it!

 

[PaulAndrew83]

A lot has been written on this subject here. To be quite frank all of the defenses of the modern practice of Communion in the Hand are all dealing with every issue but the one of importance.

The fact of the matter is that the problem isn’t where you receive, be it in the hand or the mouth, it is the characteristic lack of awareness of the average modern catholic to the existence of fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. If you receive on the Hand and purify your hands afterwards then its ok.

What is another issue is the fact that Priests who ignore the purifications after distribution of Holy Communion because they consciously or unconsciously think “WHATS THE POINT?”. I personally find it galling to watch a Priest give out Communion in the Hand and then make a big deal and an effort to clean the paten and his fingers.

As for those who think that they can ignore the fragments or that do not understand that this is the major issue of the subject well it won’t be long before the Church does something about it. The rumblings are already coming from the Vatican.

Paul

 

[Ockham]

Paul, I have similar concerns over the contradictions in CITH and EMHC. Why does the priest say the labio prayer only to then allow lay persons to pick up Jesus and offer Him to another person’s hand? Why does the Church consecrate the priest’s hands if anyone can touch a consecrated host? Why do we show reverence to the Blessed Sacrament only to treat it so casually afterwards?

 

[diggerdomer]

A lot has been written on this subject here. To be quite frank all of the defenses of the modern practice of Communion in the Hand are all dealing with every issue but the one of importance.

The fact of the matter is that the problem isn’t where you receive, be it in the hand or the mouth, it is the characteristic lack of awareness of the average modern catholic to the existence of fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. If you receive on the Hand and purify your hands afterwards then its ok.

What is another issue is the fact that Priests who ignore the purifications after distribution of Holy Communion because they consciously or unconsciously think “WHATS THE POINT?”. I personally find it galling to watch a Priest give out Communion in the Hand and then make a big deal and an effort to clean the paten and his fingers.

As for those who think that they can ignore the fragments or that do not understand that this is the major issue of the subject well it won’t be long before the Church does something about it. The rumblings are already coming from the Vatican.

Paul

I disagree.

Do you have any Magisterial teaching that emphasizes the importance of “fragments” as you describe?

Jesus is not in the crumbs. Sorry.

You’re right in one respect, “the problem isn’t where you receive, be it in the hand or the mouth”–that much I agree with. The problem imho is that people don’t understand or appreciate that they are receiving the true body and blood of Christ. Tongue or hand is irrelevant.

 

[elts1956]

I disagree.

Do you have any Magisterial teaching that emphasizes the importance of “fragments” as you describe?

Jesus is not in the crumbs. Sorry.

You’re right in one respect, “the problem isn’t where you receive, be it in the hand or the mouth”–that much I agree with. The problem imho is that people don’t understand or appreciate that they are receiving the true body and blood of Christ. Tongue or hand is irrelevant.

Digger would the statement given during the Council of Trent do?

therealpresence.org/eucharst/book/dctrine2.htm

Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence
Part Two
“The Most Holy Eucharist Series”
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

1. THE EXTENT OF CHRIST’S PRESENCE
   Having defined what takes place in transubstantiation, the Council of Trent, which met for eighteen years from 1545 to 1563, identifies the extent of this presence. Christ is literally present wherever the physical properties remain of what had been bread and wine. Says Trent, “If anyone denies that in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each of the species and under every portion of either species when it is divided up, let him be anathema.” (Session 13, can.3)
   The key word here is “species”. The Eucharistic species are the physical properties of what used to be bread and wine before transubstantiation - the species are what is sensibly perceptible in the Holy Eucharist. The species are the size, texture, taste and weight of what was formerly bread and wine.
   What does the Church tell us about the species? She infallibly teaches that the entire Christ is entirely present in every particle of the consecrated host and in every drop of what looks and tastes like wine. In the whole Host, Christ is there. Broken in half, Christ is in both parts. Even a single particle contains the whole living Christ. How this needs to be known and believed in our “post‑modern” Christian world!
   We are also told that the whole Christ is fully and equally present in either species, so we do not have to receive under both forms. A single drop in the chalice after consecration contains the whole Christ.

 

[Ockham]

Jesus isn’t in the crumbs? How can He be in one piece of the host and not the other? This doesn’t stand up to common sense. Picking and choosing which part of the host contains the Real Presence is like Protestants picking and choosing which part of Scripture to take literally. Liturgical contradictions such as this directly correlate to a decreased belief in transubstantiation, thus the Church.

 

[Clarck]

Hi,
Thanks for sharing your ideas and views with us. I would like to know more on this.
CSK

alcoholism treatment

 

[diggerdomer]

Digger would the statement given during the Council of Trent do?

therealpresence.org/eucharst/book/dctrine2.htm

Eucharistic Doctrine on the Real Presence
Part Two
“The Most Holy Eucharist Series”
Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

1. THE EXTENT OF CHRIST’S PRESENCE
   Having defined what takes place in transubstantiation, the Council of Trent, which met for eighteen years from 1545 to 1563, identifies the extent of this presence. Christ is literally present wherever the physical properties remain of what had been bread and wine. Says Trent, “If anyone denies that in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each of the species and under every portion of either species when it is divided up, let him be anathema.” (Session 13, can.3)
   The key word here is “species”. The Eucharistic species are the physical properties of what used to be bread and wine before transubstantiation - the species are what is sensibly perceptible in the Holy Eucharist. The species are the size, texture, taste and weight of what was formerly bread and wine.
   What does the Church tell us about the species? She infallibly teaches that the entire Christ is entirely present in every particle of the consecrated host and in every drop of what looks and tastes like wine. In the whole Host, Christ is there. Broken in half, Christ is in both parts. Even a single particle contains the whole living Christ. How this needs to be known and believed in our “post‑modern” Christian world!
   We are also told that the whole Christ is fully and equally present in either species, so we do not have to receive under both forms. A single drop in the chalice after consecration contains the whole Christ.

I have no problem with what Trent teaches. I may or may not agree with what the author you cited thinks.

 

[603304529]

I have no problem with what Trent teaches. I may or may not agree with what the author you cited thinks.

Proposition: diggerdomer is a troll.

If diggerdomer can post some link that I like, that refutes my proposition, I will retract it.

 

[rookieonedge]

Paul, I have similar concerns over the contradictions in CITH and EMHC. Why does the priest say the labio prayer only to then allow lay persons to pick up Jesus and offer Him to another person’s hand? Why does the Church consecrate the priest’s hands if anyone can touch a consecrated host? Why do we show reverence to the Blessed Sacrament only to treat it so casually afterwards?

I agree that there seems to be a contradiction in these protocols of the Mass, and also a divide between what we truly believe is Christ’s Presence and how we act.

As for the Presence of Our Lord in small particles, I agree with those who posted that Jesus is truly present. However, Jesus can remove His presence (having read at least one declared saint who maintains that) when the purpose of someone is to desecrate the Host as in occult practices or as in the recent YouTube videos. After the purification of the vessels is complete, there most likely are still “fragments” remaining, as small as the particles of the atom. I would think that Jesus would remove His presence from these particles and perhaps even those particles larger than sub-atomic ones that fall to the ground or in the sink or on the towels or wherever the cleansing occurs.