Communion in the Hand?

[rookieonedge]

Very few Catholics have read the Liturgy Constitution (dated Dec. 4, 1963), so they don’t know what it actually mandated. It certainly did not madate or sanction what convert to the TLM Michael Davies describes as “the virtual destruction of the traditional Roman Rite of the Mass or of the sanctuaries in which it was celebrated.”

The Liturgy Constitution contains precise stipulations such as the continuation of the Latin Mass ruling out the “least possibility of any drastic remodeling” this form.

“The Latin language was to be preserved in the Latin rites (Article 36), and steps were to be taken to ensure that the faithful could sing or say together in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them (Article 54).”

“The treasury of sacred music was to be preserved and fostered with great care (Article 114), and Gregorian chant was to be given pride of place in liturgical services (Article 116). There were to be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required them (Article 23).”

The above quotes were taken from the booklet The Cathollc Sanctuary by Michael Davies. He considered the so-called reform to be strikingly similar to the Protestant Reformation.

I believe that the innovations are at the root of a lack of reverence towards the Eucharist. A post above mentioned that only approximately 25% of Catholics attend Sunday Mass, whereas before the innovations (not required by Vat. II) about 75% attended weekly Mass.

---

Christus vincit; Christus regnat; Christus imperat.

“In those respects in which the soul is unlike God, it is also unlike itself.” (St. Bernard)

 

[DonLeon]

May I put my two cents in and remind everyone that all twelve apostles received the body of Christ in their hands at the last supper? And also the first Christians at the agape also
received the body of Christ in their hands.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Layman]

We are not on a par with the apostles.

At least one person has said on this thread that at a seder meal the presider would have placed a morsel direct in the mouth of those present.

Reviving a practice that seems to have been dropped a very long time ago, that looks less reverent, for … well … what? good reason is strange, at minimum.

What was the purpose of those promoting the changes after Vat. II?

To get more people into Mass?
Doesn’t seem to have worked. It has been argued that the opposite has occurred.

Didactic (to educate people)?
Seems Catholics are less well educated about their religion than before.

To make more priests?
The opposite seems to have occurred.

To make more saints?
I don’t know of any saints associated with the O.F., but I’m prepared to be corrected.

To convert pagans?
Dunno about this one. I have read that Catholics in South America are being converted to Protestantism, but that may be unrelated to the rite used there.

If seminaries are in trouble …
and Protestants aren’t being converted by the changes made …
and notions that:
contraception
and tolerance of homosexuality
and not going to confession regularly
and receiving communion in a state of mortal sin are OK, are held by many Catholics …
I think it a good idea to at least make good provision for the TLM and the penny or Boston Cathecism(?) and preach a few hard truths about sin and damnation.

Just heard our local priests are having to take on another parish. The good father remarked on the extra workload involved, at Mass. [From memory]: Saw a report on here that the ancient diocese of Armagh in Ireland is trouble re: vocations. I think that’s traditionally the prime(?) diocese in Ireland, so that’s a sad development, also.

Time to try something else, I think, and I don’t think more innovation is it.

I think it was Einstein who said that a definition of madness is to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

The TLM and associated disciplines have the history. They work. Why not give them a go?

PS: I’m prepared to admit I’m probably wrong about CITH leading to more dropped hosts. I thought there’d be a greater chance of a ‘fumble’.

Still think particles dropping on the ground and adhering to sweaty hands are more likely.
Also if the priest purifies his hands who don’t the laity have to?
Also a much less reverent posture.
Also easier to keep the Host for later.
And why EMCs if the congregation is not in the hundreds?

If this is meant to be an improvement, I don’t see how.

 

[DonLeon]

We are not on a par with the apostles.

At least one person has said on this thread that at a seder meal the presider would have placed a morsel direct in the mouth of those present.

Reviving a practice that seems to have been dropped a very long time ago, that looks less reverent, for … well … what? good reason is strange, at minimum.

What was the purpose of those promoting the changes after Vat. II?

To get more people into Mass?
Doesn’t seem to have worked. It has been argued that the opposite has occurred.

Didactic (to educate people)?
Seems Catholics are less well educated about their religion than before.

To make more priests?
The opposite seems to have occurred.

To make more saints?
I don’t know of any saints associated with the O.F., but I’m prepared to be corrected.

To convert pagans?
Dunno about this one. I have read that Catholics in South America are being converted to Protestantism, but that may be unrelated to the rite used there.

If seminaries are in trouble …
and Protestants aren’t being converted by the changes made …
and notions that:
contraception
and tolerance of homosexuality
and not going to confession regularly
and receiving communion in a state of mortal sin are OK, are held by many Catholics …
I think it a good idea to at least make good provision for the TLM and the penny or Boston Cathecism(?) and preach a few hard truths about sin and damnation.

Just heard our local priests are having to take on another parish. The good father remarked on the extra workload involved, at Mass. [From memory]: Saw a report on here that the ancient diocese of Armagh in Ireland is trouble re: vocations. I think that’s traditionally the prime(?) diocese in Ireland, so that’s a sad development, also.

Time to try something else, I think, and I don’t think more innovation is it.

I think it was Einstein who said that a definition of madness is to keep doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

The TLM and associated disciplines have the history. They work. Why not give them a go?

PS: I’m prepared to admit I’m probably wrong about CITH leading to more dropped hosts. I thought there’d be a greater chance of a ‘fumble’.

Still think particles dropping on the ground and adhering to sweaty hands are more likely.
Also if the priest purifies his hands who don’t the laity have to?
Also a much less reverent posture.
Also easier to keep the Host for later.
And why EMCs if the congregation is not in the hundreds?

If this is meant to be an improvement, I don’t see how.

Layman:

I agree with a lot of what you say regarding the results of Vatican II. When Pope John XXIII “opened” the windows, I think he let in a tornado that did an awful lot of damage.
I’m from the old school and a traditionalist and want the Tridentine mass back. I felt much closer to God and felt the piety of the moment at the Tridentine mass. The Novus Ordo
mass is too much like a Protestant worship service, to me.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Newbie2]

Yet Benedict gives only kneeling, on the tongue, at this Masses. If he thought it was equal to receiving in the hand, why not allow it at his Masses?

So somehow receiving in the hand is “less” valid or provides “less” grace than on the tongue? It’s his decision. If he feels it prudent to require it at all masses around the world, he’ll do so.

I don’t think Communion in the hand will be forbidden in the near future. Perhaps Benedict is showing “by example” what “may” be the preferred method. BUT even though Benedict gives communion on the tongue, we cannot read his mind and “infer” every member of the clergy is to distribute Communion on the tongue.

The argument of which is better, to receive the Eucharist on the tongue, or in the hand, goes in circles. We have the opportunity to receive the Host either way, so why argue about it???

Yeah. 37 pages on a practice that’s allowable.

(Now I feel guilty for wasting my time participating in this thread )

 

[PaulinVA]

Okay, after talking in circles and everyone getting their say, I have a final question, similar to what I asked, oh, about a dozen pages ago.

Doesn’t this seem like an issue that the ordained need to resolve?

Even if we tried, the laity could not make Communion of the Tongue widespread in America, by creating a groundswell of people in the NO parishes receiving that way.

So, we can discuss this all we want. Individuals can make decisions for themselves. But we can’t change the way every Catholic in America receives.

 

[savienu]

Okay, after talking in circles and everyone getting their say, I have a final question, similar to what I asked, oh, about a dozen pages ago.

Doesn’t this seem like an issue that the ordained need to resolve?

Even if we tried, the laity could not make Communion of the Tongue widespread in America, by creating a groundswell of people in the NO parishes receiving that way.

So, we can discuss this all we want. Individuals can make decisions for themselves. But we can’t change the way every Catholic in America receives.

I think both could happen. Certainly, the clergy need to address the issue, but if we DID create a groundswell of people, as well as educate the next generation that receiving on the tongue is the way to go, then I think we COULD change the way at least the majority of America receives.

 

[diggerdomer]

Doesn’t this seem like an issue that the ordained need to resolve?

They have. Both practices are acceptable and valid. It’s up to each individual to be reverent no matter which way they choose.

 

[Auntie_M]

To: Auntie M.

““More opportunity for abuse equals more abuse” ? Well, what is it when there is more opportunity for judging…does that equal more judging? Bad Catechesis? is that your judgement?”

I don’t know what you’re getting at, there. I said “More opportunity for abuse likely means more abuse.”

In the hand, in the mouth, either way the host can be taken in a casual manner. IF the one taking the host is casual about their faiths, it really doesn’t matter which way it is taken. then does it? Just because it is taken in the mouth, doesn’t make the one taking any holier. Abuse can and is in both the OF and the EF.

CITH makes it easier to 1) Take the host and abuse it later 2) Let some particles from it fall on the ground 3) Drop it entirely 4) Receive it into a dirty hand, 4) Is outwardly less reverent than receiving kneeling, on the tongue. 5) Is one more novelty in a rite now rife with them.

“Abuse can and is in both the OF and the EF”

Where is it in the EF?

Good book to read…“Holier than the Pope”"

Are you being sarcastic here?

 

[DannyDonellan]

I received my first Holy Communion in 1987 and even today I can still recall that special day as we all knelt in a row along the altar rail to receive the Body of Christ upon our tongues. The idea of any member of the congregation stretching out their hand to receive Holy Communion would have been slightly shocking in our parish. This was the case right up until 1993 when I left the Church and stopped attending Mass.
When I came back to the Church in 2005 after regaining my faith, I noticed a few changes in our local parish, one of which was receiving Holy Communion in the hand. I think I must be the only person under the age 60 in that parish who still receives Communion on my tongue. It kind of makes me a wee bit sad to see some people go up to receive the Body of Christ and take Him in their hand like a cookie and wander down the aisle chewing it like gum. I find it disrespectful and I feel unworthy to touch the precious Body of Christ our Lord. I’m 30 years old now and still never touched Holy Communion with my hands. So I reckon I’ll just keep receiving Communion upon my tongue as I was taught and pray others will too.
The Saints down the centuries received Holy Communion in that manner, as also did previous generations. So what makes our generation so special that they will not do the same?
Receiving Holy Communion on the tongue does not make us holier or somehow a better Catholic than some one who receives in the hand. I guess I just don’t see the point of changing something that didn’t need to be changed, if it aint broke don’t fix it.

 

[Deblette]

None of us are worthy to touch the body of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. What started as an exception for a very small group to receive the Eucharist in the hand turned into a runaway by the United States Bishops. Like so many changes that there was no basis for or need for, this one only has led to a lack of reverence, respect and belief in the true presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament.

Saying you think it is “neat” to touch God as your basis is just too sweet. Jesus cries at how little his body thinks of him. No one should be receiving in the hand any more than t hey should be standing when they received. If Jesus Christ appeared in front of any of us in his flesh, his divinity, we would have our faces on the floor before we even thought about it. Why would we not kneel as we received him into our bodies? Why would we think we could handle his flesh?

These changes are just a couple of many that have occurred over the last 40-50 years and as they come, the beliefs and committments and knowledge of Catholics have continued to be watered down. The majority of Catholics go to Mass on Sunday and consider they have fulfilled their obligation as a Catholic. No wonder.

Things will return to the way they had been. It is only a matter of time. I can’t wait. Heck, at this point, I would be happy if people had enough respect for Christ in the tabernacle and their fellow worshipers to shut up before and after Mass.

 

[Auntie_M]

To: Auntie M.

““More opportunity for abuse equals more abuse” ? Well, what is it when there is more opportunity for judging…does that equal more judging? Bad Catechesis? is that your judgement?”

I don’t know what you’re getting at, there. I said “More opportunity for abuse likely means more abuse.”

In the hand, in the mouth, either way the host can be taken in a casual manner. IF the one taking the host is casual about their faiths, it really doesn’t matter which way it is taken. then does it? Just because it is taken in the mouth, doesn’t make the one taking any holier. Abuse can and is in both the OF and the EF.

CITH makes it easier to 1) Take the host and abuse it later 2) Let some particles from it fall on the ground 3) Drop it entirely 4) Receive it into a dirty hand, 4) Is outwardly less reverent than receiving kneeling, on the tongue. 5) Is one more novelty in a rite now rife with them.

“Abuse can and is in both the OF and the EF”

Where is it in the EF?

Good book to read…“Holier than the Pope”"

Are you being sarcastic here?

No, I am not being scarastic. So let me rephrase "more opportunity for judging (likely) means more judging.

The book I referred to , (I am sorry I forgot the author’s name) is a VERY good read, much better than anything Michael Davies ever wrote.

Obedience is the #1 abuse in the traditional circuit. I do miss a time when obedience was the number 1 thing in all family units and church life. When children had honor and respect for their parents, their elders, and their priests. They obeyed, and yes blindly, but our world was a much better and safer place to live.

Children didn’t rise up against parents, you never heard of parents being slaughtered by their own. You could find the 10 commandents everywhere, and a gentleman’s handshake was his word.

And, please remember, Jesus ate with dirty hands. The meal started by consecrating the food but then eaten with dirty hands.

Too much emphasis is placed on the “right way” as thought to be the “right way” and not enough love between each other. Which is the greatest commandment.

 

[savienu]

No, I am not being scarastic. So let me rephrase "more opportunity for judging (likely) means more judging.

The book I referred to , (I am sorry I forgot the author’s name) is a VERY good read, much better than anything Michael Davies ever wrote.

Obedience is the #1 abuse in the traditional circuit. I do miss a time when obedience was the number 1 thing in all family units and church life. When children had honor and respect for their parents, their elders, and their priests. They obeyed, and yes blindly, but our world was a much better and safer place to live.

Children didn’t rise up against parents, you never heard of parents being slaughtered by their own. You could find the 10 commandents everywhere, and a gentleman’s handshake was his word.

And, please remember, Jesus ate with dirty hands. The meal started by consecrating the food but then eaten with dirty hands.

Too much emphasis is placed on the “right way” as thought to be the “right way” and not enough love between each other. Which is the greatest commandment.

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to compare OUR HANDS to the hands of our Savior, the hands that were pierced through on the cross?

I am astounded by the comparisons people have made to justify this practice of CITH. It begs the question, if it is just as reverent, then why does it NEED a defense? Communion on the tongue, kneeling, certainly doesn’t need a defense.

 

[Shin]

To make that claim about the hands of Christ at the Last Supper. .

It’s just so awful and wrong. It shows something fundamentally deeper that is wrong.

I will pray for you.

 

[Ockham]

Taken from “A Brief Catechism for Adults”
(olrl.org/Lessons/)
Lesson 22: THE SACRAMENT OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST (Holy Communion)

“I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from Heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from Heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give, is My flesh, for the life of the world.”

“The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us His flesh to eat?”

“Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise Him up in the last day.”

“For My flesh is meat indeed: and My blood is drink indeed. He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood, abideth in Me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, the same also shall live by Me. This is the bread that came down from Heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live forever. These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.” (John 6:48-60)

 

[savienu]

To make that claim about the hands of Christ at the Last Supper. .

It’s just so awful and wrong. It shows something fundamentally deeper that is wrong.

I will pray for you.

Agreed.

 

[brigid12]

The reason I much prefer COTT is that I feel like a baby bird getting nourishment from Him, through the Church He established. It feels to me that I need more humility (and therefore I show more reverence). It also continues in me the notion of being fed the teachings of the Church, without my immense pride getting in the way. I am so glad that the Pope also prefers this way of receiving. It validates my feelings. As long as the Pope has said that recieving CITH is also valid, I don’t mind that some receive that way, as long as He is not offended (meaning that all due reverence is there).

 

[Cracker_Mom]

No, I am not being scarastic. So let me rephrase "more opportunity for judging (likely) means more judging.

The book I referred to , (I am sorry I forgot the author’s name) is a VERY good read, much better than anything Michael Davies ever wrote.

Obedience is the #1 abuse in the traditional circuit. I do miss a time when obedience was the number 1 thing in all family units and church life. When children had honor and respect for their parents, their elders, and their priests. They obeyed, and yes blindly, but our world was a much better and safer place to live.

Children didn’t rise up against parents, you never heard of parents being slaughtered by their own. You could find the 10 commandents everywhere, and a gentleman’s handshake was his word.

And, please remember, Jesus ate with dirty hands. The meal started by consecrating the food but then eaten with dirty hands.

Too much emphasis is placed on the “right way” as thought to be the “right way” and not enough love between each other. Which is the greatest commandment.

Why would Our Lord necessarily eat with dirty hands?

 

[malphono]

Even if we tried, the laity could not make Communion of the Tongue widespread in America, by creating a groundswell of people in the NO parishes receiving that way.

Why not? It’d be an uphill climb, but it could happen. It’s leading by example, and there’s no reason why communion on the tongue could not become widespread in the OF. No, it wouldn’t be a universal practice (at least not until such time as the CITH indult were rescinded), but if the “groundswell” were strong enough, even that parenthetical could happen.

 

[Ockham]

Why not? It’d be an uphill climb, but it could happen. It’s leading by example, and there’s no reason why communion on the tongue could not become widespread in the OF. No, it wouldn’t be a universal practice (at least not until such time as the CITH indult were rescinded), but if the “groundswell” were strong enough, even that parenthetical could happen.

And isn’t this the way we got CITH in the first place? It wasn’t from Vatican II and Pope Paul VI actually spoke against it. Didn’t it come out of Holland, then a special exception to allow it in some places, a few years later it is the way children preparing for their First Communion are taught.