Communion in the Hand

[SuperTrad]

All of that is your spirituality, not mine.

-Tim-

It’s neither of our ‘spirituality’. It’s practice. What we do reflects and affects what we believe.

The old way cannot be discount as mere personal preference. It was universal and sufficient for hundreds of years. The recent radical changes do not have the same authority. Indeed, one has to reach, and reach hard, to scrape together precedents for them.

 

[TimothyH]

Found this when researching:
communion-in-the-hand.org/quotations.html

If you believe that your god is in this thing then collectively getting up off your knees and
having it being passed into your hands by another layman makes no sense at all, unless your beliefs have changed.

If I wasn’t Catholic it’d be fascinating to watch from a socio-psychological perspective; “Belief And Practice in Roman Catholicism, 1812 - 2012”

Ever so often, someone from one of the radical traditionalist websites comes here and says almost this same thing word for word, posts the same links and makes the same arguments.

And as an Extraordinary Minister, I fall into getting aggrivated about it every time.

-Tim-

 

[LightBound]

Found this when researching:
communion-in-the-hand.org/quotations.html

If you believe that your god is in this thing then collectively getting up off your knees and
having it being passed into your hands by another layman makes no sense at all, unless your beliefs have changed.

If I wasn’t Catholic it’d be fascinating to watch from a socio-psychological perspective; “Belief And Practice in Roman Catholicism, 1812 - 2012”

You wanted to know why I posted the link to our moderator’s warning and what it had to do with you? Well, the fact you are putting your personal preferences as being better than what the Church has granted and and now posting links to a site that makes disparaging comments over what the Church allows might be a reason or two. It would do you well to go over what is allowed and not allowed here on CAF, since you are a new member.

 

[LightBound]

Ever so often, someone from one of the radical traditionalist websites comes here and says almost this same thing word for word, posts the same links and makes the same arguments.

And as an Extraordinary Minister, I fall into getting aggrivated about it every time.

-Tim-

I agree. I think we’ve all heard this before…from someone that was banned, I believe. Hmmmmm…

 

[Melchior_1]

It’s neither of our ‘spirituality’. It’s practice. What we do reflects and affects what we believe.

Is there a problem with how Tim or myself practice? The Cistercians and Franciscans are pretty good examples to live by.

The old way cannot be discount as mere personal preference. It was universal and sufficient for hundreds of years. The recent radical changes do not have the same authority. Indeed, one has to reach, and reach hard, to scrape together precedents for them.

I wouldn’t exactly call 20+ Rites and several different Missals (like the Roman-Franciscan Missal) “universal”.

 

[Rich_C]

You have received excellent instruction about this from Brother JR showing the reason this term is no longer used, yet you override it in favor of your search on the Vatican documents that “proves” he is wrong? Take a good look at your referenced links, and you’ll find on the first page alone, several date back to 1955, 1959, and 1969. In some instances, the reference was only to “Ordo” meaning Order, and did not refer to the Mass.

Oh, but you are wiser, yes?

I will never understand why this is a big deal.

Seriously, everytime I say “Ordinary Form” to a Catholic in real life (darling wife, excepted) they get confused and eventually say, “wait, do you mean the Novus Ordo?”

I say fight habits that are actually a problem and let this one go.

 

[Melchior_1]

I will never understand why this is a big deal.

Seriously, everytime I say “Ordinary Form” to a Catholic in real life (darling wife, excepted) they get confused and eventually say, “wait, do you mean the Novus Ordo?”

I say fight habits that are actually a problem and let this one go.

I say the same thing about receiving with your hands and the use of language during Mass, but that doesn’t stop people from bringing it up.

 

[SuperTrad]

‘Radical traditionlist’ is a contradiction in terms, no? ​

I invite readers to consider how the 4 ends of the mass are served by this archeologism. What’s better about CITH than COTT, in the context of a Mass?​

As a traditionalist, I would like the see EMHCs abolished entirely, except in case of true emergency. Which I think was the idea behid them. Then no one would have their feelings hurt ​

The site I linked to contains quotes mainly from eminent Churchmen. Try to understand: CITH makes no sense except in time of repression or in very special circumstances.​

‘Austerity’ is appropriate to a monastery or friary; monks are meant to be poor.​

In a minimalist, modern diocesan church, it’s just bland architectural fashion, which dates quickly.
When an existing church is stripped of its altar rails and statues, it’s iconoclasm by definition.

 

[Rich_C]

All of that is your spirituality, not mine.
I prefer that the only artwork visible be a **cross without corpus **to remind me that that it is my body which should be nailed to it.

I believe that’s not allowed. Isn’t there supposed to be no less than one crucifix (not empty cross) that the priest can see, to remind us what the Mass is; the same sacrifice as at Calvary?

See? Anyone can prefer something that is not allowed. It’s a good reminder for us all to be humble.

 

[Rich_C]

I say the same thing about receiving with your hands and the use of language during Mass, but that doesn’t stop people from bringing it up.

At the end of day, I thank God I found something amazing, I’m sorry others are missing out, and I return to my examination of conscience.

 

[Sirach2]

I will never understand why this is a big deal.

Seriously, everytime I say “Ordinary Form” to a Catholic in real life (darling wife, excepted) they get confused and eventually say, “wait, do you mean the Novus Ordo?”

I say fight habits that are actually a problem and let this one go.

It’s not a “big deal” except that Brother so eloquently spent valuable time to teach the Saints Alive why the term is not in use today. S(he) retorted rudely that she refuses to accept his words. Had she not just been instructed moments before, yes, it would not raise many eyebrows when others use it who have NOT been instructed.

 

[SuperTrad]

I wouldn’t exactly call 20+ Rites and several different Missals (like the Roman-Franciscan Missal) “universal”.

I’m talking about the Roman Catholic rite. Pick-and-mix is not a way to make a sacred rite, if you want it to convey and point to the eternal. Especially if there’s leeway to add *more * things, according to local custom and taste.

The 1962 missal, thank God, escaped being abrogated and the Pope has said clergy can’t mutate it off their own bat. When moving or travelling you can expect to attend the same mass.

 

[Melchior_1]

I’m talking about the Roman Catholic rite. Pick-and-mix is not a way to make a sacred rite, if you want it to convey and point to the eternal. Especially if there’s leeway to add more things, according to local custom and taste.

Yet the latter is how we brought Anglicans home, and several of the Orthodox several centuries ago. St. Koble and St. Francis Xavier both built solid Catholic cultures in areas by not importing euro-Catholicism.

Franciscans have always used the Roman-rite, but as we’ve seen here they have their own ancient traditions.

We need to look at the universal Church Christ built. Otherwise we ain’t very Catholic.

 

[Rich_C]

I see that you are dismissive of some key paragraphs, whether intentionally or not, that clearly grant permission, and state that it has been* a traditional* method.

Actually, if you read the next sentence I think you’ll see the quote doesn’t mean what you think it means. The “traditional method” refers to the priest giving Holy Communion, rather than a lay person taking it. It word traditional here doesn’t seem to apply to the part about tongue versus hand.

Earlier in the same letter it reads,

Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

**When therefore a small number of episcopal conferences and some individual bishops asked that the practice of placing the consecrated hosts in the people’s hands be permitted in their territories, **the Holy Father decided that all the bishops of the Latin Church should be asked if they thought it opportune to introduce this rite. A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.

Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?

Yes: 597

No: 1,233

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

1. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?

Yes: 751

No: 1,215

Invalid votes, 70

1. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?

Yes: 835

No: 1,185

Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow.

This was the CDW’s letter issued in 1969, over 40 years ago. It does not prove, as you allege, disobedience. It merely states that formal approval had not been requested, and the Office is concerned that the faithful had not been instructed. Brother JR explained how it may have appeared to be disobedience, but in fact was NOT. Did you read his posts?

I don’t doubt the superior general’s understanding of Canon Law, but you can see in the fourth bolded part above (my bold) that the request had come and not yet been answered, so some of your facts aren’t straight.

I may do some personal research into this and if I can get a straight chronology of the changes, I’ll post them here for interested parties.

 

[Rich_C]

It’s not a “big deal” except that Brother so eloquently spent valuable time to teach the Saints Alive why the term is not in use today. S(he) retorted rudely that she refuses to accept his words. Had she not just been instructed moments before, yes, it would not raise many eyebrows when others use it who have NOT been instructed.

As far as I can tell, its a difference of opinion and they were both polite.

As far as the term “Novus Ordo” goes, I’m happy not to use it around you since it offends you; I’ll be a Greek to a Greek like St. Paul said. Offending anyone is not my goal, especially not with semantics.

 

[Sirach2]

RichC,

There was no need to reprint the entire article. I was able to read it and I understand english.
But now that you have voiced your objections, I note this comment concerning the bishops’ vote and urge anyone attempting to interpret the results at face value without any further (name removed by moderator)ut from the hierarchy, to refrain from such audacity.

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops [within their particular countries] and of many of the faithful.

The vote was universal, but indicates not a shred of unanimity for certain countries where bishops, though a minority to the whole, were in agreement and cast a positive vote. Do you have the country-by-country breakdown, Rich? I think not.

Therefore, the CDW gave permission for bishops of those certain countries who expressed the desire for CITH to adopt it under indult with accompanying stipulations and guidelines.

 

[Rich_C]

RichC,

There was no need to reprint the entire article. I was able to read it and I understand english.
But now that you have voiced your objections, I note this comment concerning the bishops’ vote and urge anyone attempting to interpret the results at face value without any further (name removed by moderator)ut from the hierarchy, to refrain from such audacity.

The vote was universal, but indicates not a shred of unanimity for certain countries where bishops, though a minority to the whole, were in agreement and cast a positive vote. Do you have the country-by-country breakdown, Rich? I think not.

Therefore, the CDW gave permission for bishops of those certain countries who expressed the desire for CITH to adopt it under indult with accompaanying stipulations and guidelines.

If I hadn’t quoted it, people probably would have complained.

I was just trying to correct you on the facts. I have absolutely no agenda, whatever you’re insinuating.

The case is closed the but the history is interesting.

 

[triumphguy]

‘Radical traditionlist’ is a contradiction in terms, no? ​

I invite readers to consider how the 4 ends of the mass are served by this archeologism. What’s better about CITH than COTT, in the context of a Mass?​

As a traditionalist, I would like the see EMHCs abolished entirely, except in case of true emergency. Which I think was the idea behid them. Then no one would have their feelings hurt ​

The site I linked to contains quotes mainly from eminent Churchmen. Try to understand: CITH makes no sense except in time of repression or in very special circumstances.​

‘Austerity’ is appropriate to a monastery or friary; monks are meant to be poor.​

In a minimalist, modern diocesan church, it’s just bland architectural fashion, which dates quickly.
When an existing church is stripped of its altar rails and statues, it’s iconoclasm by definition.

There are no EMHCs in the latin mass - so there you go. Wish granted.

Icons are different from altar rails. So losing the railings does not equal iconoclasm.

 

[Sirach2]

As far as I can tell, its a difference of opinion and they were both polite. [Politelness – as in telling a knowledgable religious his help is not accepted?]

As far as the term “Novus Ordo” goes, I’m happy not to use it around you since it offends you; I’ll be a Greek to a Greek like St. Paul said. Offending anyone is not my goal, especially not with semantics.

:thankyou:It is not offensive to me, but I have appreciated the instruction from Brother on our behalf. Whenever we hear about the mass being celebrated today on television for special occasions like ordination of a bishop, etc., the commentary is usually worded, “will celebrate the Ordinary Form” or alternately, “will celebrate the Extraordinary Form.” Nobody uses Novus Ordo. It is just not a proper designation these 40 years later.

 

[garn9173]

As a traditionalist, I would like the see EMHCs abolished entirely, except in case of true emergency. Which I think was the idea behid them. Then no one would have their feelings hurt .​

In my Parish, it takes up to 16 EMCH’s per weekend Mass to distribute Communion. In your perfect world, please explain how Communion would be distributed in my Parish, which is a “in the round church”.