Communion in the Hand

[mgsk]

Against the idea that communion in the hand is a novelty, I would quote Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture 23:

“In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hallowed your eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest you lose any portion thereof ; for whatever you lose, is evidently a loss to you as it were from one of your own members.”

However, it is clear that the modern practice has led to abuses and has helped diminish faith in the reality of the Eucharist. We should also remember that communion in the hand is an indult and not the normal practice of the Church. Because of this I believe that bishops should prohibit communion in the hand.

This quote has an interesting history. It doesn’t stop there, and I doubt it was actually preached by St Cyril. It continues:

Then, after you have partaken of the Body of Christ, come forward only for the cup of the Blood. Do not stretch out your hands but bow low as if making an act of obeisance and a profound act of veneration. Say ‘Amen’. and sanctify yourself by partaking of Christ’s Blood also. While the moisture is still on your lips, touch them with your hands and sanctify your eyes, your forehead, and all your other sensory organs…Do not cut yourselves off from Communion; nor deprive yourselves of these sacred and spiritual mysteries, not even if you are defiled by sins.

It contains blatant error.

 

[Dolezal]

This quote has an interesting history. It doesn’t stop there, and I doubt it was actually preached by St Cyril. It continues:

It contains blatant error.

It still is evidence of the practice in the early Church, is it not?

 

[mgsk]

It still is evidence of the practice in the early Church, is it not?

If it wasn’t written by St Cyril, and I doubt it was, then we have no clue who wrote it, when, and for what purpose.

I wouldn’t describe it as evidence for an early practice of CITT.

 

[Faithdancer]

I know, it’s sad the way it came about. Pray for a return to traditional practices!

Including ditching the hand grabbing and people copping an attitude because I might be contagious (or they might be), and bow and smile instead of shaking hands.

Oh, sorry…wrong thread. Sometimes I think its all related somehow, though…

 

[mgsk]

Including ditching the hand grabbing and people copping an attitude because I might be contagious (or they might be), and bow and smile instead of shaking hands.

Oh, sorry…wrong thread. Sometimes I think its all related somehow, though…

Good point. These are also novelties. Even if the Pater Noster Prayer Chain ® is broken, it doesn’t invalidate the Mass. It’s not mandatory, so no one should feel forced to join in.

In other news: what point were you trying to make? Lol.

 

[Dolezal]

If it wasn’t written by St Cyril, and I doubt it was, then we have no clue who wrote it, when, and for what purpose.

I wouldn’t describe it as evidence for an early practice of CITT.

Why should I doubt that it was written in the time of the early Church?

Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England, 24:

“Nevertheless,” said he, “bring me the Eucharist.” Having received It into his hand, he asked, whether they were all in charity with him, and had no complaint against him, nor any quarrel or grudge.

Tertullian, On Idolatry, 7:

A whole day the zeal of faith will direct its pleadings to this quarter: bewailing that a Christian should come from idols into the Church; should come from an adversary workshop into the house of God; should raise to God the Father hands which are the mothers of idols; should pray to God with the hands which, out of doors, are prayed to in opposition to God; should apply to the Lord’s body those hands which confer bodies on demons.

Augustine, Answer to Petilian the Donatist, 23:

To this we may add, that I refer to a man who lived with you, whose birthday you were wont to celebrate with such large assemblies, with whom you joined in the kiss of peace in the sacraments, in whose hands you placed the Eucharist, to whom in turn you extended your hands to receive it from his ministering, whose ears, when they were deaf amid the groanings of all Africa, you dared not offend by free speech; for paying to whom, even indirectly, a most witty compliment, by saying that in the Count he had a god for his companion, some one of your party was extolled to the skies.

 

[Faithdancer]

Good point. These are also novelties. Even if the Pater Noster Prayer Chain ® is broken, it doesn’t invalidate the Mass. It’s not mandatory, so no one should feel forced to join in.

In other news: what point were you trying to make? Lol.

“Pater Noster Prayer Chain?” lol. Well, I have to point out that’s a bit of an incongruous term since in masses where the term Pater Noster is actually used, such chains never seem to get started…:

 

[Thomas_Casey]

NOTICE FROM MODERATOR

Agenda posting is not allowed. When or what is it agenda posting?

1. When it contradicts what the Holy Father, Canon Law and the local bishop have said.
2. When it seeks to pit the authority of one pope over the authority of the current pope.
3. When it seeks to bash Vatican II rather than discuss it as a theologian would discuss it.
4. When it makes statements about Vatican II contrary to what the Holy Father has said.
5. When it ridicules, minimizes or is dismissive of what the Church permits or those who take advantage of what the Church permits.
6. When it encourages others to dissent.
7. When it encourages positions and statements made by those who have no canonical authority in the Church, this includes the SSPX, authors of books, posters of other sites, online personalities. There is a difference between quoting and ascribing authority to those who do not have it.

Anyone who is found guilty of agenda posting will be suspended. No warning and no questions asked. If you have a problem with this, feel free to send me a PM. Otherwise, continue your discussion in a polite manner and express your opinion without suggesting that it should be the opinion of the Church or of others. That’s not the purpose of the forum.

Thank You.

 

[ilySHJ]

…Generally speaking, altar-breads are sealed round the edges so there are no fragments anyway. …

My son was an altar server 7 days a week. We attended one church on weekdays where they didn’t use patens and a different one on Sundays where the priest did use patens.

The priest who did not use patens asked my son if there were ever any particles. My son responded, yes, there were always lots of particles on the paten which he was holding.

Both churches used hosts with sealed edges.

 

[Faithdancer]

It sounds, then, as if Catholics who receive in the hand should double check their palms to ensure that there are no fragments remaining? Would this be a reasonable precaution?

 

[Saints_Alive]

Two things have been said in this thread that need clarification imo.

But first we must accept that the Church has given us a choice. We can receive CITH or COTT. No matter how strongly we feel about each method of receiving, we have no right to state falsehoods in arguing in favor of one method over another.

Someone early on in the thread stated that the SSPX would tell us CITH was born of disobedience, and that CITH was not in fact born of disobedience. I’m not sure what the SSPX would say about this matter, but the fact is that CITH was indeed introduced at the parish level and not from Rome. Starting as a novelty, then becoming a liturgical abuse, CITH was finally allowed by an indult. Disobedience did come into play before the indult was granted.

As far as the old argument that our tongues are as dirty as our hands, this is a fairly weak argument in favor of CITH. Absurd really, seeing as though receiving via either method requires the Host to be placed on the tongue.

So again, the Church has given us the choice. We can state our opinions in favor of each method, but we have no right to deceive one another. That is the game of the Enemy.

 

[Sirach2]

Saints Alive:

… but the fact is that CITH was indeed introduced at the parish level and not from Rome. Starting as a novelty, then becoming a liturgical abuse, CITH was finally allowed by an indult. Disobedience did come into play before the indult was granted.

I do hope you are not repeating a rumor, such as the SSPX alleged.

Please supply an authentic source to fact-check your statement.

 

[Kevin812]

fisheaters is a dangerous site if one is new to to the Church and an occasion of sin for some others . they present the faith in a very crude and and i would say borderline pornographic manner .they seem very proud of allowing the use of the F-bomb and racist language .

This is simply untrue, unfounded, and uncharitable.

If one wishes to receive COTT, then they may ---- there is really no further discussion.

 

[Sirach2]

This is simply untrue, unfounded, and uncharitable.

:ehh: It is true. Surely you don’t expect April or any of us to lay out the dirty laundry just to prove a point, do you? Beware of this website!

 

[Mike30]

I have read, anecdotally, that a return to altar rails is on the rise in some areas. They are certainly not forbidden, it’s more up to the parish and perhaps, ocal bishop. If you watch the clip with Cardinal Arinze, he makes it clear that it is not disobedient to receive on the tongue, or to kneel while receiving. No priest or bishop can forbid you to do so, in the USA or anywhere else./QUOTE

That may be true in a perfect world. But in reality it is different… The faithful are told they must receive standing and in the hand in someareas They are ridiculed and laughed at in others and are even said to be displaying excessive piety if they choose to kneel…

That is the reality that many face.

A tidbit from this past year. I taught RCIA for years. I always instructed that it was ok to receive on the tongue. Few did but last year about half the class did The Priest was visibly quite angry and called a catechist meeting to inform us that Communion on the tongue was not to be taught any longer as the Vatican had issued guidelines that rendered the practice obsolete

 

[TimothyH]

but the fact is that CITH was indeed introduced at the parish level and not from Rome. Starting as a novelty, then becoming a liturgical abuse, CITH was finally allowed by an indult. Disobedience did come into play before the indult was granted.

The normal and ordinary way for Franciscans to recieve communion is in the hand. Franciscans were given permission to recieve in the hand by Rome. It has been that way for 800 years.

Communion in the hand is therefor neither a novelty, nor is it an abuse, nor disobedience, nor did it start at the parish level.

-Tim-

 

[Mike30]

The normal and ordinary way for Franciscans to recieve communion is in the hand. Franciscans were given permission to recieve in the hand by Rome. It has been that way for 800 years.

Communion in the hand is therefor neither a novelty, nor is it an abuse, nor disobedience, nor did it start at the parish level.

-Tim-

Franciscans are a religious order and as such have different rules and disciplines. To use their practices to prove a point not related directly to them seems a bit odd.

 

[Sirach2]

Franciscans are a religious order and as such have different rules and disciplines. To use their practices to prove a point not related directly to them seems a bit odd.

He was trying rather politely, I believe, to dispel the nasty rumors that our Church succombed to disobedient rebels who occasioned the necessity for the indult. I posted the request for a source to Saints Alive, who has been on line since then, but has not responded.

 

[severus68]

This is simply untrue, unfounded, and uncharitable.

If one wishes to receive COTT, then they may ---- there is really no further discussion.

I agree with April. There is a lot of rubbish said there. We are not supposed to recommend sites like this.

No one is saying anything against COTT. We take issue with anyone saying COTH is wrong.

 

[Baelor]

Franciscans are a religious order and as such have different rules and disciplines. To use their practices to prove a point not related directly to them seems a bit odd.

It is not odd at all; it is inconceivable that the Vatican would permit sacrilege. If the argument is that CITH is inherently problematic, then it is absurd to suggest that the fact that Franciscans have been doing it licitly for hundreds of years is not relevant.