Communion in the hand

[MarcusAndreas]

The Synod of Trullo was rejected by the Pope. (Sergius I)

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2518297/posts

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinisext_Council

books.google.com/books?id=WlpPjOlVzQwC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=Synod+of+Trullo±+Sergius&source=bl&ots=uG1Dt9uhHn&sig=-Fk–GeXbcEomba2XZbYb_v05BM&hl=en&ei=reewTa6rEYvQgAeesu2PDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Synod%20of%20Trullo%20-%20Sergius&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=PP0pAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=Synod+of+Trullo±+sergius&source=bl&ots=htoQlR3jYe&sig=3VNk3R2mzrYB08xIyBTg_FFIfKo&hl=en&ei=5eewTfOBGc70gAeb1OyIDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Synod%20of%20Trullo%20-%20sergius&f=false

I’m aware it is not an ecumenical council, but it still is important in the development of eastern canon law.

 

[wild_thing]

I think whether we receive in the hand or on the tongue is way less important than believing in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ and being in a state fit to receive Him.

With so many Catholics thinking the Eucharist is just a symbol and so many more of them being on birth control, having pre-marital sex, ignoring the Sunday obligation when they want to, etc. etc., the issue of HOW they receive It seems minor compared to SHOULD they receive It.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

We are not here to pass judgment on other people or to decide who should or should not receive the Eucharist. Stay on the subject of the OP.

Thank You

 

[InquisitorMax]

Changes:

1. 
   *]From the 2nd century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus.
   *]As of the 2nd century, a number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups, e.g. Ariamism and Ebionitiam argued that Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticiam held views which argued that Christ was a spiritual being that only appeared to have a physical body. The resulting tensions lead to schisms within the church in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, and ecuminical councils were convened in the 4th and 5th centuries to deal with the issues. Eventually in 451 the Hypostatic union was decreed, namely that Jesus is both fully divine and fully human.
   *]In 325 the First Council of Nicaea defined the persons of the Godhead and their relationship with one another - decisions which were re-ratified at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. The language used was that the one God exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); in particular it was affirmed that the Son was homoousios (of same substance) as the Father. The Nicene Creed declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus.
   *]In 431, the First Council of Ephesus was initially called to address the views of Nestorius on Mariology, but the problems soon extended to Christology, and schisms followed.
   *]The Council of Ephesus debated hypostasis (co-existing natures) versus Monophysitism (only one nature) versus Miaphysitiam (two natures united as one) versus Nestorianism (disunion of two natures).
   
   And that was in the first 400 years of the Church! Need I go on?

1. 
   What the heck does any of that have to do with Roman Catholics, in the 1970s, deciding to do something illicit and which is no improvement on the previous practice? In fact, it has many demerits.
   
   I mean, what will it take before people realise that the way Mass is being said is a slowly-developing scandal in itself. Half-naked dancing in the sanctuary, maybe?
   
   Our behaviour is ludicrous compared to previous centuries. When will we realise that Protestant and Pagan-style worship has nothing to offer informed Catholicism? We have God manifiest in our temples; they worship their own ideas.
   
   Read the old Testament. God hammered the Jews time and again when they started to get creative with His worship.

 

[Theophilus777]

For me it’s not a case of hands or tongue being more holy.

It is the action of being fed.
Of Jesus coming from the hands of the priest directly onto my tongue.
… I am simply receiving our Lord with no ‘taking’ involved. (What I mean by the word ‘taking’ is that, even though we receive Jesus into our hands, we still must take some action in order to transfer Him into our mouths. I hope my meaning’s clear …)

I feel that it is a more humble way of receiving. Almost humiliating – here I am an adult yet I am being fed as if I am an infant.

Since my conversion I’ve been more and more aware of how the physical things in our liturgy affect and teach me. One of those things that affect me are the postures we assume for different parts of the Mass, such as kneeling during the Canon/Prayer of Consecration.
Receiving on the tongue, especially while kneeling before our God, helps me a great deal.

(I think that after Easter I’ll talk to our pastor to tell him that I’d like to go back to kneeling as I used to a few months ago.)

This is the best answer I’ve seen to date on this subject. Your response certainly gives me much pause for reflection.

 

[JReducation]

What the heck does any of that have to do with Roman Catholics, in the 1970s, deciding to do something illicit and which is no improvement on the previous practice? In fact, it has many demerits.

I mean, what will it take before people realise that the way Mass is being said is a slowly-developing scandal in itself. Half-naked dancing in the sanctuary, maybe?

Our behaviour is ludicrous compared to previous centuries. When will we realise that Protestant and Pagan-style worship has nothing to offer informed Catholicism? We have God manifiest in our temples; they worship their own ideas.

Read the old Testament. God hammered the Jews time and again when they started to get creative with His worship.

We have to be very careful. We can disagree with what the Church allows and we do not have to make use of indults. That’s why they are called indults. However, we do not have the right to unilaterally and summarily condemn what she allows. That is placing ourselves as an authority over those who have the right and authority to bind and unbind.

It is also important to separate abuse from indult. One of the worse misquotations that I have seen to date is when people misquote Cardinal Ratzinger’s statements about “fabricated mass and banal.” He is quoted as if he had made this statement about the entire Ordinary Form. His own actions prove that this was not the case. He was referring to things being done that were fabrications and banal, not to the form itself. He tries very hard to correct this in Summorum Pontificum when he tells us that both forms of the mass are holy and must be treated equally. We see it in his actions. He always celebrates the Ordinary Form for the world. He does it without fabrications and without inserting what may be considered banal.

Tonight, he will celebrate the Easer Vigil, the most important liturgical celebration on the Christian calendar. If he really believed that the Ordinary Form and the indults are banal and fabricated, he would not use it to celebrate and proclaim the resurrection of the Lord.

He has already explained why he distributes communion on the tongue. It has already been explained why the indult was issued. The Church seeks to protect and bring in those who are in precarious situations. If she can do so without committing a sin, she will. That’s her role as Mother. What may have started as a violation of the rules was remedied by an indult. Therefore, from that point forward, the violation ceases to exist. It’s not a violation if there is an exception made to the rule. Only those who used CITH prior to the indult were in violation of the rule, up to that point. The indult is an act of a mother who tries to find a way to keep her children safe.

If communion in the hand were a sacrilege, there would have been no indult. It would not be possible. The Holy Spirit would not allow it.

Is CITH the best practice? Obviously, the Church believes that it is not. Is it a sinful practice? That Church also believes that it is not.

Speaking as one who receives on the tongue, I see no issue with those who make use of the indult. It is not my place to make laws for the Church or to tell the Church what she should or should not legislate. As our Holy Father Francis said, “we are sons of the Church, not her fathers.”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Jennykay]

I watched the Easter Vigil from Saint Peter’s late this afternoon. Indeed, those
who received from the Pope knelt and received on the tongue. However I noticed
that when the cameras showed other people receiving from the many other priests
who were distributing the Host among the large congregation, people received standing
and either in the hand or on the tongue and there appeared to be no problem with
that. If in the Vatican, the Pope wanted communion to be only received on the
tongue I feel certain that is what would happen.
There are two ways to receive. I feel so blessed as a convert to the Catholic church
to be able to receive. I do not worry about which approved method those
around me use. I try not to spend my time in Mass distracted by such things.

May we all enjoy a Happy and Blessed Easter!

 

[JReducation]

I watched the Easter Vigil from Saint Peter’s late this afternoon. Indeed, those
who received from the Pope knelt and received on the tongue. However I noticed
that when the cameras showed other people receiving from the many other priests
who were distributing the Host among the large congregation, people received standing
and either in the hand or on the tongue and there appeared to be no problem with
that. If in the Vatican, the Pope wanted communion to be only received on the
tongue I feel certain that is what would happen.
There are two ways to receive. I feel so blessed as a convert to the Catholic church
to be able to receive. I do not worry about which approved method those
around me use. I try not to spend my time in Mass distracted by such things.

May we all enjoy a Happy and Blessed Easter!

The problem is that the Pope’s explanation for distributing communion on the tongue is taken out of context. He is not on a program to stop CITH. He allows it at his masses, not only in St. Peter’s but everywhere he goes. His rule is that you receive from him, on the tongue. He does not hold to that when he is in a very intimate setting such as a chapter of a religious order. In that situation, he’s alone with them. It’s not a big mass like the ones at St. Peter’s or when he travels on his apostolic visits.

Again, an indult is not a law. No one has to receive in the hand. I only do it at a community mass, because we have a custom of CITH that’s several hundred years old. But when I attend a parish mass with the laity, I receive on the tongue. Before there was an indult, we always received on the tongue if the mass was for the public. When the indult came, some guys took advantage of it and others kept doing what we had done, COTT in public and CITH in conventual mass.

Happy Easter,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[The_Reginator]

I do not worry about which approved method those
around me use. I try not to spend my time in Mass distracted by such things.

May we all enjoy a Happy and Blessed Easter!

You have a Blessed Easter too Jennykay!!
View attachment 10355

 

[InquisitorMax]

What may have started as a violation of the rules was remedied by an indult. Therefore, from that point forward, the violation ceases to exist. It’s not a violation if there is an exception made to the rule. Only those who used CITH prior to the indult were in violation of the rule, up to that point. The indult is an act of a mother who tries to find a way to keep her children safe.

I’m not arguing against this: that CITH can be done. I’m arguing that it should not be done, even if legal. People make the case: “It has an indult, therefore it should be done”. That doesn’t follow.

 

[otjm]

St. Cyril seems to be the only one, those who are pro-CITH, can quote. Was he even in the Roman Church?

Changing over to this practice, after hundreds of years, says a lot about the Roman Catholic Church, today. If the host is holy, why do that? COTT to undignified for ya?

Or perhaps the matter is that until St Cyril made his statement, no one had made a statement as to how people received?

The Gospels tell us Christ said “Take and eat”. Take has a meaning that does not imply opening one’s mouth and having it placed on the tongue; “Be fed” would be closer. I have seen all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and say that, well, what really happened is that He went to each of the Apostles and placed the Eucharist in their mouths. As to any evidence to support it, none.

Does the mean that receiving on the tongue was not the norm at or before Cyril wrote? No, it does not mean that, but there certainly is a dearth of evidence that it was; or for that matter, that it was even practiced at all. We simply have no other evidence of how reception occurred.

so it is far less an issue of dignity of COTT than it may be an issue of what did Christ do, (and thereby teach), wht was the practice of the Early Church, and what does that tell us.

So perhaps changing a practice of several hundred years does tell us something about the Church, but perhaps not what you imply.

When the Magisterium of the Church says, in so many words, that there have been accretions to the Mass over time that need to be looked at more thoroughly, and perhaps removed, there are those among us who take the position that if it (the accretion) occurred, then it absolutely has to be the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore can never be changed. The Magisterium seems to teach otherwise, but that point seems to be too fine…

 

[InquisitorMax]

When the Magisterium of the Church says, in so many words, that there have been accretions to the Mass over time that need to be looked at more thoroughly, and perhaps removed, there are those among us who take the position that if it (the accretion) occurred, then it absolutely has to be the work of the Holy Spirit and therefore can never be changed. The Magisterium seems to teach otherwise, but that point seems to be too fine…

I don’t know what this means. Please explain what you mean.

What’s better about CITH versus the old method?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

I’m not arguing against this: that CITH can be done. I’m arguing that it should not be done, even if legal. People make the case: “It has an indult, therefore it should be done”. That doesn’t follow.

And you can agrue that point all day long if you want. It is not going to change the fact.
So if you really want to do something about it, become a priest, and maybe someday, you can make it to the ‘big chair’ and change things to your liking.

I don’t know what this means. Please explain what you mean.

What’s better about CITH versus the old method?

Not ***“better”, ***just different.
Why does it have to be a matter of better or worse?

This quote puts to words beautifully how I feel about receiving CITH.

From The Sacraments: The Word of God at the Mercy of the Body by
Fr. Louis-Marie Chauvet

“It is in the very nature of the church to confess that the sacraments it celebrates in faith in the name of Jesus Christ have a spiritual efficacy called ‘grace,’ a beautiful term. The most forceful expression of this grace is no doubt that extremely sparing one given us in the diologue of eucharistic communion: to the statement, ‘The body of Christ’, Christians answer, not with the description of their feelings or the difficulties that their intellect might struggle with, but simply with the ‘amen’ of faith. This amen comes from the mouth and the heart, of course, but also from the whole body since it is manifested by the opening of the hands into which the pure gift of God is placed. The gratuitous communication of God with the believers, such is the salient point of the sacraments.”

 

[Sirach2]

InquisitorMax:

St. Cyril seems to be the only one, those who are pro-CITH, can quote. Was he even in the Roman Church?

Changing over to this practice, after hundreds of years, says a lot about the Roman Catholic Church, today. If the host is holy, why do that? COTT to undignified for ya?

The Holy See in an apostolic letter stated that both St. Cyril and St. John Chrysostom spoke about the proper method of receiving CITH. I quoted that letter just few posts ago here.

Pope Paul VI granted permission for bishops to minister communion in the hand, as many have stated in multiple threads on the forum. Furthermore, it was not begun as an abuse, contrary to erroroneous opinions.

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP, Letter “En reponse a la demande,” to presidents of those conferences of bishops petitioning the indult for communion in the hand, 29 May 1969: AAS 61 (1969) 546-547; Not 5 (1969) 351-353.
[Note the dates of the petitions, please]

What some advocates for COTT refuse to consider is the “mind of the Church” strictly clarified by the Pope as he gave sanction for this practice. He also gave pastoral guidance concerning catechesis. And we know the petition of the bishops was granted.

There is a twofold purpose here:

1. that none will find in the new rite anything disturbing to personal devotion toward the Eucharist; that this sacrament, the source and cause of unity by its very nature, will not become an occasion of discord between members of the faithful.
   [Unfortunately, this discord is frequently witnessed in this forum alone, as in many other blogs, etc.]
2. This catechesis must succeed in excluding any suggestion that in the mind of the Church there is a lessening of faith in the eucharistic presence. [The Church declares that this method of reception is equally worthy of faith in the Eucharistic presence.]

Colin Donovan concluded this article with these weighty words:

The authority of the Church to permit what in other centuries was freely done and which “by itself” is not contrary to the faith is not in question.
If abuses are widespread they are contrary to the mind of the Church as expressed in the Roman documents, and contrary to the devotion expressed in the early Church when Communion was also received in the hand.
Withdrawing this permission in our time on account of the abuses is certainly something Rome could do. [And after 40 years, the Holy See has NOT seen fit to withdraw permission. What then is the argument from those who oppose Her authority?]
http://origin.ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Not ***“better”, ***just different.
Why does it have to be a matter of better or worse?

Because you don’t change a custom unless there is a sufficient benefit to justify it. You certainly don’t do it just to be “different”.

Summa:

As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that “in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just.”

Now, there is no law that mandates reception of Communion in the Hand, it is just an indult in many places and Communion on the Tongue is still the norm. But should people have started receiving on the hand? No. There was no sufficient reason to compensate for the scandal that it caused (it caused a great harm to people’s faith in the Real Presence and a loss of faith in the consistency of Church practice).

 

[otjm]

I’m not arguing against this: that CITH can be done. I’m arguing that it should not be done, even if legal. People make the case: “It has an indult, therefore it should be done”. That doesn’t follow.

Perhaps people you meet outside this forum make the argument that CITH should be done; I have yet to see anyone make such a statement here (not that I have read them all - but I think you overstate the issue).

As to your argument that it should not be done, you have not made your case. It appears as likely if not more likely that Christ Himself instituted the Eucharist that was, that the Apostles practiced it that way, and that the early Church did so, and the practice appears to have continued for 10 centuries; and by indult, for another 800.

That neither makes it best, nor anywhere near approaching something that should not be done.
You have a personal opinion. Interestingly, Rome does not agree with you, as hard as you may try to push quotes or selectively cite things.

Shy do you have such a hard time letting Rome decide what is appropriate and what is not? Rome has spoken; the matter is decided.

 

[JReducation]

I’m not arguing against this: that CITH can be done. I’m arguing that it should not be done, even if legal. People make the case: “It has an indult, therefore it should be done”. That doesn’t follow.

Actually, both are wrong. In Church law, when there is an indult, the thing that is exempt from the law ceases to be something that should not be done, but it does not become something that should be done. I becomes something that can be done.

When something can be done, those that say that it should not be done are imposing their opinion on those who have been granted the freedom to do it.

Those who are saying that it must be done are imposing their opinion on those who choose not to do it.

Both sides are in violating what Vatican II said about religious freedom. No one has the right to impose on another either to force or impair the free exercise of conscience. In essence, both sides are sinning against justice.

Have a Blessed Easter.

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Thomas_Casey]

The issue has been addressed. Thank you for participating.

THREAD CLOSED