Communion in the hand

[JNB]

A few things here.One, just becausethe eraly church did somthing, does not mean it is allways desireable for such a practice to continue. Also one must understand that back in the eraly church,practices were different diocese from diocese. One must also ask themselves, why did communion in the hand fall out of practice in both the east and west eraly on, and in the east, there still is no communion in the hand.

Also, if anchient practices such as communion in the hand are so desireable because some parts of the anchient church had this practice, then what about other anchient pratices such as men and women sitting on different sides of the church, how about having all confessions being required to be public in front of other parishoners? Its a whole can of worms that is being opened here.

Here is the documentation from 350 AD:

catholicfaithandreason.org/fathersoneucharist.htm

scroll down to the second to last paragraph on the first page.

I am interested in everyone’s thoughts. I hope we all remain true to Christ’s Sacred Heart by having a rational and respectful conversation about His Most Blessed Sacrament!!!

Let His Peace Reign Over Us,

maurin

 

[Windmill]

another quote from stravinskas:

during the English protestant revolt, Cranmer, the anglican archbishop, wrote to the new anglican “priests” about how to handle kneeling at the communion rail. his goals were to stamp out particularly “catholic” beliefs. he said, “don’t fight them on kneeling at the rail, but force them to receive communion in the hand. then, within a few years, belief in transubstantiation will not exist.”

interesting how history repeats itself.

 

[Windmill]

i agree with histroyb. dietrich vonhildebrand, whom pope pius XII called “the 20th century doctor of the church”, wrote in “trojan horse in the city of god” that the truth often lies above the argument of extreme ends.

example, before vatican ii, authority was often elevated above virtue. so, abbots would require monks to do things that were bad, and they enforced it by stressing the monks’ vows of obedience. vatican ii was very wise in noticing this problem, but many liberals took this abuse and said, “well then, we need to get rid of this authority to aolve this problem.” so, the argument between anarchists and strict authoritarians was waged. however, as vonhildebrand noted, the truth is that authority is subject to the law of love, and the end of obedience is virtue. it is not about power, but about responsible use of that power.

von hildebrand repeatedly appeals to this poor “thesis-antithesis” way of thinking, and how even christ looked past the debate to the deeper questions surrounding a problem.

by the way, cardinal o’connor and many curial officials have stated that von hildebrand’s book “trojan horse in the city of god” is a GREAT book to read to understand the problems in the church today. it’s put out by sophia press institute.

it is my favorite book. i have read it 3 times and find insights each time.

here’s a link to it:

trojan horse city of god

 

[netmilsmom]

another quote from stravinskas:

during the English protestant revolt, Cranmer, the anglican archbishop, wrote to the new anglican “priests” about how to handle kneeling at the communion rail. his goals were to stamp out particularly “catholic” beliefs. he said, “don’t fight them on kneeling at the rail, but force them to receive communion in the hand. then, within a few years, belief in transubstantiation will not exist.”

interesting how history repeats itself.

Now that’s just scary.
Thanks for sharing!

 

[Jo_Benedict]

Note:

This thread has been created from the “I am not a Traditionalist…” thread because that thread was taken completely off-topic by the Communion-in-the-hand discussion.

 

[Lisa_Lavadores]

Does anyone mind talking about their motivation. Please dig deeper than what we already know of Jesus, that He is God’s Son, the King of Kings (I mean this sincerely, please do not read flippancy).

I don’t mind. I love talking about myself!

When I converted, I adhered to the norm in my parish – the hand. I did so for quite some time. Then I started noticing that sometimes there were tiny crumbs on my hand. No biggie – I licked them up.

All was fine for a time – but then I discerned that I wasn’t being called to religious life and I started wearing make-up again. Suddenly, after I licked up the crumbs, there was lipstick on my hand. Wiping it off became an annoyance, so I switched to the tongue.

 

[palmas85]

A few things here.One, just becausethe eraly church did somthing, does not mean it is allways desireable for such a practice to continue. Also one must understand that back in the eraly church,practices were different diocese from diocese. **One must also ask themselves, why did communion in the hand fall out of practice in both the east and west eraly on, **and in the east, there still is no communion in the hand.

Also, if anchient practices such as communion in the hand are so desireable because some parts of the anchient church had this practice, then what about other anchient pratices such as men and women sitting on different sides of the church, how about having all confessions being required to be public in front of other parishoners? Its a whole can of worms that is being opened here.

In the very early church, communion was an actual meal modeled on the Passover meal, however due to abuses in the Agape, the practice was discontinued and changed into the communion service in which Holy Communion was distributed to the faithful individually rather than having a large communal meal.

Communion in the hand feel out of general use mainly because the faithful stopped taking it home. In the early church the faithful did not receive a small host as we do, rather they received a fairly substantial size loaf so that it could be consumed at home during the week. Normally, and the practice differed from church to church, each family would bring a loaf of bread and give it to the Priest or normally the Deacon who was in most cases kind of like the master at arms as it were.

The bread would then be consecrated and distributed to the faithful. The faithful did not normally receive back the same loaf they had brought. A small portion might be consumed at the altar, again depending on the Church, but the receiver, normally the patriarch of the family, took the host back to the family whee they consumed a small piece of it then took it home. White cloth was normally prescribed to keep mice from devouring the host at home. There were fairly specific instructions on how to wrap it effectively as well.

As time went on, families stopped bringing their own bread for consecration and the Church started to buy it instead with monetary gifts from the faithful… With an eye towards economy perhaps, always a problem in the early Church, the portions distributed became smaller and smaller.

From everything I have been able to determine, the Church went to communion on the tongue primarily as an effort to re-enforce belief in the Real Presence which due to numerous heresies floating around that denied it, was becoming seriously doubted by many and denied by quite a few…

Interesting that the reformers or as I suppose we should call them in these ecumenical times, seekers of truth, wanted communion in the hand restored for exactly the opposite reason, to deny the real presence.

But in the interest of fairness, when and if the Church decides that we bring our own loaves for consecration and upon receiving bring them home for later consumption, I will be first in line to champion reception in the hand.

I will also have available a suitable number of pieces of white cloth for sale at a nominal price to assist the faithful in this endeavor.

 

[LilyM]

if anything, i would say WE are the reason for a lot of the problems in the church. we oftentimes put pressure on priests and bishops, and they are humans who have their limits. imagine what would happen in the average parish if priests actually followed the pope’s encyclical, “redemptionis sacramentum”, and stopped doing extraordinary ministers of holy communion on a habitual (weekly) basis. the laity would revolt. many don’t even know that the pope has issued such a document saying this becuase the hierarchy are afraid of the implications. many in the hierarchy are concerned about what to do since the pope revoked the indult for american parishes to allow EMHCs to purify vessels. why else wouldn’t we have already seen these changes take effect? why delay? the answer is obvious. it’s US.

i think we can agree that it is good to learn from the past so that we do not repeat the same things.

What rot - there are three parishes in my area who don’t use EMsHC full stop. Not weekdays or Sunday (apart from the infrequent occasions at one when the chalice is offered as well). They are obviously not scared of what the laity will think - in spite of the fact that they can very much vote with their feet in this area, which is supplied with an abundance of churches of pretty much all shades of rubricity.

I’m sure on occasions the priests disregard RS because it is THEIR personal preference too - maybe the priests liked having less work to do when EMsHC purified the vessels and so are reluctant to give up the practice? Maybe there are similar advantages to some of the other practices?

 

[mrs_abbott]

Mother Theresa was asked, “What have you seen that makes you the saddest?” This saintly nun had seen the horrors of starvation, child abandonment, and poverty, yet she responded, “What makes me the saddest is when I see Catholics receiving Communion in the hand.”

Just because something is “legal” doesn’t mean it is good. In fact, when it comes to altar girls, communion in the hand, both species at Communion, and many other things, they arose out of a spirit of disobedience and, despite constant disapproval from the hierarchy, they were, reluctantly, “allowed” to prevent a rupture in the Church. Such “rewarding of disobedience” is a concern for many.

Hmmm, interesting.

 

[Windmill]

lilym,

i’m not sure exactly what you mean by, “what rot.” it doesn’t sound very nice.

i think that many younger priests are being bold about church law and the proper role of a priest. they could care less if people are offended, as long as they know they are doing what is right and doing it charitably.

i am talking about how a lot of things got to be where they are.

things are getting better

 

[st_bernard]

Gratia et pax vibiscum,

I recognize ‘receiving in the hand’ is valid but, personally, I believe it is not a reverent sign of receiving the Holy Body of Christ. I understand it has some grounds for historic validity but I believe we should receive the Holy Eucharist as reverent as possible. That means partaking or reverently acknowledging the Holy Blood, as well, if it is offered.

These sacred signs [bread and wine] are the closest we get to union with our Lord and Saviour this side of Heaven and we should acknowledge them with the respect and reverence He is due.

Gratias

 

[historybrat]

To me it seems like everyone is just spinning their wheels over a question which will never be agreed upon. As a previous poster said alot of different things use to be done in ancient times. If one is looking for support for taking communion in the hand or by the tongue, both sides can cite lots of ancient sources. The arguements has been going on alot longer then most people think.
People asked for opinions so I will give mine. If the Church says that communion can be taken by hand or by the tongue, then to me it seems like either way is licit and should not be judged by others. If a 9 year old wants to always take it by tongue good for her. If someone wants to always take it by hand, good for them. And if others will go with whatever the majority are doing at that parish good for them.

My concern is do we stay within the guidelines given to us? I went to one parish during a teen mass and they were tossing the host with the kids trying to catch it in their mouths, obivously I think we can all probably disagree this is not right. And are we receiving it reverently? If both of those are there, then as far as I am concerned its valid and licit. And while no expert on what the Church supports everything I have read points to that. Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t necessarily want to get rid of NO masses, but to curb the abuses and make them more reverent. Pope Pious X wasn’t saying all change is bad, but that we must be cautious not to change just to change, and not to lose our reverence for all that is holy.

historybrat

 

[MTD]

Can you supply a source? The logic for this seems to be the Church bends to avoid hurt feelings. If that were true, then we would have women priests, contraception, and a host of other issues that fall into this category of “hurting feelings.” Have you read the GIRM with respect to permissions?

Just wanted to point out that your reference to the Church not bending in regards to women priests, contraception, etc. is not very relevant since those are matters of faith and morals. The method of receiving Holy Communion falls under Church discipline, not faith and morals.

On the topic of Communion in the hand: I’ve always thought this quote from Dominicae Cenae very significant:

“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist.”

Maria

 

[Karin]

On the topic of Communion in the hand: I’ve always thought this quote from Dominicae Cenae very significant:

“To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained, one which indicates an active participation in the ministry of the Eucharist.”

Maria

what a beautiful quote…thank you for sharing it with us!

 

[JKirkLVNV]

There is some doubt that Mother Teresa actually said this. The following article is written by a former SSPX devotee who made his way out of the movement and who sometimes posts here. Here’s a partial quote, read the whole thing:

“The problem that ‘traditionalists’ have in these areas is that they can at times commit the sin of partiality (James 2:1, 2:9, 4:11-13) by elevating to the status of what is and is not “proper” their personal likes and dislikes. Because of this, even though their intentions are much more noble then the liberal, they end up being two peas in the same pod because the same disobedience is prevalent in both cases. And as the synod of Trullo noted, they feel that they are somehow more respectful or better people because of the way they receive communion. ***Some of the real crusaders have even gone so far as to put condemnations of communion by hand in the mouths of Mother Theresa and Our Lady which goes to show just what lengths of deception they will go to promote their agenda as neither Mother Theresa nor Our Lady would council disobedience to the Magisterium of the Church. (Mother Theresa in fact denounced the use of her name by those crusading against communion by hand.)” ***Emphasis mine.

Here’s the link:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[pnewton]

Mother Theresa was asked, “What have you seen that makes you the saddest?” This saintly nun had seen the horrors of starvation, child abandonment, and poverty, yet she responded, “What makes me the saddest is when I see Catholics receiving Communion in the hand.”

I have seen this several times. Does anyone know the source? I only ask because it seems such a strange thing since many other things will send one to hell and this does not. I would think the eternal damnation of souls would illlicit much more concern.

 

[maurin]

A few things here.One, just becausethe eraly church did somthing, does not mean it is allways desireable for such a practice to continue. Also one must understand that back in the eraly church,practices were different diocese from diocese. One must also ask themselves, why did communion in the hand fall out of practice in both the east and west eraly on, and in the east, there still is no communion in the hand.

Also, if anchient practices such as communion in the hand are so desireable because some parts of the anchient church had this practice, then what about other anchient pratices such as men and women sitting on different sides of the church, how about having all confessions being required to be public in front of other parishoners? Its a whole can of worms that is being opened here.

Thank you for your thoughts on this matter. I do not know if I agree with your second paragraph at all, but your first paragraph raises a very good question, one that is at the crux of my quest: motivation. Why DID communion in the hand fall out of practice in both the east and west?

Thanks again for your incite. It is very helpful to me!

 

[maurin]

Personally, I don’t care which way we receive-T or H…kneel or stand…1 species or 2…in the local Byzantine rite we stand & tincture…

I’ll give you some thoughts of popes:

Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy [San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 2000], p. 82:
“As I see it, the problem with a large part of modern liturgiology is that it tends to recognize only [ancient] antiquity as a source, and therefore normative, and to regard everything developed later, in the Middle Ages and through the Council of Trent, as decadent. And so one ends up with dubious reconstructions of the most ancient practice, fluctuating criteria, and never-ending suggestions for reform, which lead ultimately to the disintegration of the liturgy that has evolved in a living way.”

** MEDIATOR DEI Pius XII 1947AD**
62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer’s body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings;

If this doesn’t sound downright prophetic on "straying from the straight path" , what is it?

This all gets selectively goofy. I mean, the Churches of Christ think Organs in liturgy are anathema because…well, they did not use them in 60AD!
Of course, the Last Supper used a common chalice, so, there are church splits over “1 cuppers” & “many paper cuppers”.

Pius XII has it right…as usual.

TNT,

I am going to be quite frank here, and reallllllly expose my innards. I hope everyone goes light on me.

First I’d like to say thank you for supplying that bit of text from our Holy Father’s book “The Spirit of the Liturgy.” I have actually been afraid to read it.

Probably because I have been afraid to really confront the issue in my own mind (Communion in the Hand. I like it, I do.)

JNB, it seems, posted along the same lines above. I will make a point of going to B&N and pick up a copy.

Thanks for the eye openers.

maurin

 

[childofmary1143]

There is some doubt that Mother Teresa actually said this. The following article is written by a former SSPX devotee who made his way out of the movement and who sometimes posts here. Here’s a partial quote, read the whole thing:

“The problem that ‘traditionalists’ have in these areas is that they can at times commit the sin of partiality (James 2:1, 2:9, 4:11-13) by elevating to the status of what is and is not “proper” their personal likes and dislikes. Because of this, even though their intentions are much more noble then the liberal, they end up being two peas in the same pod because the same disobedience is prevalent in both cases. And as the synod of Trullo noted, they feel that they are somehow more respectful or better people because of the way they receive communion. ***Some of the real crusaders have even gone so far as to put condemnations of communion by hand in the mouths of Mother Theresa and Our Lady which goes to show just what lengths of deception they will go to promote their agenda as neither Mother Theresa nor Our Lady would council disobedience to the Magisterium of the Church. (Mother Theresa in fact denounced the use of her name by those crusading against communion by hand.)” ***Emphasis mine.

Here’s the link:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

That blog is incorrect. First off where can he cite proof that Mother Theresa denounced that. Secondly regarding to alleged private revelations where Our Lady speaks against communion on the hand, he says, *nor Our Lady would council disobedience to the Magisterium of the Church. As for the claims of apparitions concerning this practice, this is in fact one of the first thing the Church looks at when verifying apparitions and it make perfect sense. After all, if the apparition encourages disobedience to the Church then it is obviously not genuine. *

It is NOT the Magisterial teachings of the faith that Communion on the hand is mandated. To say that one should receive communion on the tongue is NOT encouraging disobedience.

If that were so then any apparition that says to pray the rosary daily is encouraging disobedience as no one is obliged to pray the rosary daily.

 

[Windmill]

well, i’m man enough to say that if the mother theresa quote is wrong, then i stand corrected on quoting her. however, my opinion of communion in the hand is not swayed. i think it has lent itself to many abuses, and i would not be upset if the indult allowing this practice was revoked (just like BXVI revoked the indult to allow EMHCs to purify vessels after Mass).