Communion on hand

[kleary]

Then why did these Apostles allow communion in the hand in the early Church? Or why wasn’t it condemned? You’re argument of them being bishops and so allowed to receive in the hand is far weaker?

Well for one they didn’t have nice neatly cut round wafers of bread back then. Maybe they all had to come to a more fuller understanding of things. We see definite progress in the early Church to get away from the in the hand practice. And I do find condemnation of the practice in the early church.

Communion in the hand was never a universal custom or practice in the history of the Church. Popes St. Sixtus (115-165 A.D.) and St. Euchtyian (275-283 A.D.) both forbade the faithful from receiving communion in the hand; St. Basil (330-379 A.D.) permitted this practice only in times of persecution; St Leo the Great teaches, “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” Eventually, communion in the hand was forbidden universally because, as Paul VI states, “with the passage of time as the truth of the eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ’s presence in it were more deeply understood the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant” Memoriale Domini, 8].

Ken

 

[JKirkLVNV]

It makes no difference if those behind the re-institution are bent on false ecumenism, changing the Catholic doctrine on the priesthood and the Eucharist? The same with Altar girls? That those behind it are radical feminists and those who desire change in Catholic doctrine on the priesthood to allow for female priests?

Ken

Goodness, you DO bounce around. How about we stick to one topic (esp since I’m not keen on the idea of altar girls either, but I submit to the authority of the Church and I don’t brow-beat altar girls or their parents regarding their serving)? Don’t you think it’s a mistake (sort of a conspiracy-theory mistake), not to mention a sin, to attribute motive falsely?

This is just one more example of people setting themselves up as “mini-popes.” You are permitted to rec. Holy Communion on your tongue. Others exercise the liberty given them by the Church to receive in the hand. Be content to exercise that liberty and stop trying to constrain the consciences of those the Church gives the same liberty.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Well for one they didn’t have nice neatly cut round wafers of bread back then. Maybe they all had to come to a more fuller understanding of things. We see definite progress in the early Church to get away from the in the hand practice. And I do find condemnation of the practice in the early church.

Communion in the hand was never a universal custom or practice in the history of the Church. Popes St. Sixtus (115-165 A.D.) and St. Euchtyian (275-283 A.D.) both forbade the faithful from receiving communion in the hand; St. Basil (330-379 A.D.) permitted this practice only in times of persecution; St Leo the Great teaches, “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” Eventually, communion in the hand was forbidden universally because, as Paul VI states, “with the passage of time as the truth of the eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ’s presence in it were more deeply understood the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant” Memoriale Domini, 8].

Ken

Kindly provide links that cite Pope Saint Sixtus, Pope St. Euchtyian, and the full context of Saint Basil’s teaching. This author also refers to Saint Basil’s teaching (somewhat more contextually):matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

 

[kleary]

I will close on this topic tonight, since it is 11:30 here…

I remember being taught by the nuns where I went to grade school back in the late 1970’s, “It is sacreligious for anyone except the priest to touch the sacred host.”

Then, a few weeks later at my then parish they had two weeks of training classes in the church for “the new liturgy” that involved “Eucharistic Ministers”, “Communion under both kinds”, and “Communion in the hand”.

I was one of the altar boys there for the training. I asked the new “nun” who was there, not dressed like nun- the first nun I ever saw without a habit and her hair all nicely done by a hairstylist, wearing makeup, "Why is this happening? She gave me an answer that I found to be exactly the one Traditionalists argue about- she said, “To further involve the lay people in the liturgy as called for by Vatican II and to express our own priesthood.”

Does the church allow this practice today? Yes she does. Does she know those who were behind it are those who wished to destroy the priesthood and the Catholic Doctrines of the Eucharist?

Ken

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I will close on this topic tonight, since it is 11:30 here…

I remember being taught by the nuns where I went to grade school back in the late 1970’s, “It is sacreligious for anyone except the priest to touch the sacred host.” The same nuns might also have a thing to say about constant criticism of the Church.

Then, a few weeks later at my then parish they had two weeks of training classes in the church for “the new liturgy” that involved “Eucharistic Ministers”, “Communion under both kinds”, and “Communion in the hand”. **WOW! Are you sure about that? MY understanding was that EMHCs (to give them the proper name) came quite a bit AFTER the introduction of the Pauline Mass. **

I was one of the altar boys there for the training. I asked the new “nun” who was there, not dressed like nun- the first nun I ever saw without a habit and her hair all nicely done by a hairstylist, wearing makeup, "Why is this happening? She gave me an answer that I found to be exactly the one Traditionalists argue about- she said, “To further involve the lay people in the liturgy as called for by Vatican II and to express our own priesthood.” **You asked her specifically about communion in the hand? You singled that issue out? Also, just a tiny thing really, nuns aren’t the magisterium of the Church. The lady may well have been talking through her veil (or her hairdo, whichever). **

Does the church allow this practice today? Yes she does. Does she know those who were behind it are those who wished to destroy the priesthood and the Catholic Doctrines of the Eucharist?

Ken

**

I doubt the Church thinks precisely along these lines. But that’s part of the problem that mini-popes have to contend with: it’s hard to get the major pope’s attention so that they can let him know just where he’s messing up.
**

 

[Jared123]

I will close on this topic tonight, since it is 11:30 here…

I remember being taught by the nuns where I went to grade school back in the late 1970’s, “It is sacreligious for anyone except the priest to touch the sacred host.”

Then, a few weeks later at my then parish they had two weeks of training classes in the church for “the new liturgy” that involved “Eucharistic Ministers”, “Communion under both kinds”, and “Communion in the hand”.

I was one of the altar boys there for the training. I asked the new “nun” who was there, not dressed like nun- the first nun I ever saw without a habit and her hair all nicely done by a hairstylist, wearing makeup, "Why is this happening? She gave me an answer that I found to be exactly the one Traditionalists argue about- she said, “To further involve the lay people in the liturgy as called for by Vatican II and to express our own priesthood.”

Does the church allow this practice today? Yes she does. Does she know those who were behind it are those who wished to destroy the priesthood and the Catholic Doctrines of the Eucharist?

Ken

That reminds me of a joke. What do you call a nun who doesn’t wear a habit? LPN (Lapel Pin Nun). What do you call a nun that wears a habit? RN (Real Nun).

 

[kleary]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kleary forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
Then, a few weeks later at my then parish they had two weeks of training classes in the church for “the new liturgy” that involved “Eucharistic Ministers”, “Communion under both kinds”, and “Communion in the hand”. **WOW! Are you sure about that? MY understanding was that EMHCs (to give them the proper name) came quite a bit AFTER the introduction of the Pauline Mass. **

We had the New Mass- my former parish church was one that was constructed prior to the New Mass being implementated with a freestanding altar and no altar rail. We had the New Mass- just no communion in the hand, Em’s or communion under both kinds.

I was one of the altar boys there for the training. I asked the new “nun” who was there, not dressed like nun- the first nun I ever saw without a habit and her hair all nicely done by a hairstylist, wearing makeup, "Why is this happening? She gave me an answer that I found to be exactly the one Traditionalists argue about- she said, “To further involve the lay people in the liturgy as called for by Vatican II and to express our own priesthood.” **You asked her specifically about communion in the hand? You singled that issue out? Also, just a tiny thing really, nuns aren’t the magisterium of the Church. The lady may well have been talking through her veil (or her hairdo, whichever). **

I asked her why “in the hand” and why “lay people distributing” when I was taught it was sacreligious for anyone but the priest to touch the Sacred Host.

Does the church allow this practice today? Yes she does. Does she know those who were behind it are those who wished to destroy the priesthood and the Catholic Doctrines of the Eucharist?

Ken

**

I doubt the Church thinks precisely along these lines. But that’s part of the problem that mini-popes have to contend with: it’s hard to get the major pope’s attention so that they can let him know just where he’s messing up. **

JKirkLVNV:

 

[gmarie21]

And when visiting the Lord, one should always be silent a reverent?

Are their people who receive the Eucharist who shouldn’t or receive (name removed by moderator)roperly? Yes. If you want a parish where they only receive on the tongue, go to a Tridintine Mass. Or out here, St. Mary of the Angels offers both options, the rail where you kneel and receive on the tongue, or from the priest where you can receive on the tongue or the hand. I guess, that I was always taught that before receiving the Eucharist one should focus on making themselves ready to receive and afterward one should be in silent prayer. No where in what I was taught is there a suggestion that to recieve one should look at or focus on everyone and how they recieve. I know when I’m in line, I focus either on my daughter not acting up or on the crucifix that hangs above the altar.

Maybe for all those so upset with how many are recieving on their hand, you should focus on the crucifix instead of your neighbor.

 

[anonymoususer]

A few points to consider:

1. Instead of this “it is ok to receive on the hand” dialogue, ask yourself this: are we being as reverent as humanly possible while we receive the Eucharist? To me, to say “it is ok to receive on the hand” is COMPLETELY irreverent. Why NOT receive on the tongue should be the question.
2. EMHCs, there should be no such thing. I wouldn’t care if it meant Mass was 15 minutes or even an hour longer. “Lord, we ask You to be pleased with this sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts. Lord, wash away my iniquities, cleanse me from all my sins.” Do you see EMHCs getting their hands cleansed? I don’t. Do you see the great care the Priest shows to cleanse the instruments used to distribute Holy Communion? The cup, the bowel, etc.? Obviously, the priest (at least at my parish) shows great reverence for the Eucharist. EMHCs cannot replicate this same reverence.
3. I think the whole communion on the hand and EMHC thing is nothing short of the work of the evil one. I couldn’t care less if the church doctrine accepts it or even enforces it. I would expect at least a portion of the Church to be influenced by the evil one. If you think otherwise, you greatly underestimate his power.

 

[MrS]

A few points to consider:

1. Instead of this “it is ok to receive on the hand” dialogue, ask yourself this: are we being as reverent as humanly possible while we receive the Eucharist? To me, to say “it is ok to receive on the hand” is COMPLETELY irreverent. Why NOT receive on the tongue should be the question.
2. EMHCs, there should be no such thing. I wouldn’t care if it meant Mass was 15 minutes or even an hour longer. “Lord, we ask You to be pleased with this sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts. Lord, wash away my iniquities, cleanse me from all my sins.” Do you see EMHCs getting their hands cleansed? I don’t. Do you see the great care the Priest shows to cleanse the instruments used to distribute Holy Communion? The cup, the bowel, etc.? Obviously, the priest (at least at my parish) shows great reverence for the Eucharist. EMHCs cannot replicate this same reverence.
3. I think the whole communion on the hand and EMHC thing is nothing short of the work of the evil one. I couldn’t care less if the church doctrine accepts it or even enforces it. I would expect at least a portion of the Church to be influenced by the evil one. If you think otherwise, you greatly underestimate his power.

all very good points…, thanks for stating them,

.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I’d wager that there are several posters here who never received on the hand.

CDL, Eastern Catholic

 

[MrS]

perhaps a poll with visible option??

or has it been done already?

 

[Jared123]

The point of EMHC’s not washing their hands is a very good point. We don’t use EMHC’s in my diocese and hope they don’t ever go down that road. We have Acolytes and Priest that hand out communion. I myself am an Acolyte and I too wash my hands after distributing communion, just as a priest does, and notice that there are several crumbs on my hand when doing so. There is no way EMHC’s can distribute the body of Christ to hundreds of people without getting crumbs on their hands. They need to wash their hands and not to do so is a total lack of reverence. It’s small things like this that eventually add up to where people don’t have revence for the Body of Christ and eventually question the true presence.

 

[CatholicNick]

I’d wager that there are several posters here who never received on the hand.

CDL, Eastern Catholic

Me for one, and I never intend to do so. I will not touch Our Lord until I am a Priest.

Receiving in the hand is inherently irreverent, and can never be more reverent than humbly kneeling, and receiving Our Lord on one’s tongue.

 

[February]

A few points to consider:

1. Instead of this “it is ok to receive on the hand” dialogue, ask yourself this: are we being as reverent as humanly possible while we receive the Eucharist? To me, to say “it is ok to receive on the hand” is COMPLETELY irreverent. Why NOT receive on the tongue should be the question.
2. EMHCs, there should be no such thing. I wouldn’t care if it meant Mass was 15 minutes or even an hour longer. “Lord, we ask You to be pleased with this sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts. Lord, wash away my iniquities, cleanse me from all my sins.” Do you see EMHCs getting their hands cleansed? I don’t. Do you see the great care the Priest shows to cleanse the instruments used to distribute Holy Communion? The cup, the bowel, etc.? Obviously, the priest (at least at my parish) shows great reverence for the Eucharist. EMHCs cannot replicate this same reverence.
3. I think the whole communion on the hand and EMHC thing is nothing short of the work of the evil one. I couldn’t care less if the church doctrine accepts it or even enforces it. I would expect at least a portion of the Church to be influenced by the evil one. If you think otherwise, you greatly underestimate his power.

i agree. personally, i had received in the hand since 2nd grade up until about a year ago (i’m 26). a newfound respect for my faith and the sacrament changed my mind. now i receive on the tongue and more often than not, from the priest directly. i also have received some strange looks from people (i.e. EMHCs the few times I do go to them), like that can’t believe a young woman actually receives on the tongue.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A few points to consider:

1. Instead of this “it is ok to receive on the hand” dialogue, ask yourself this: are we being as reverent as humanly possible while we receive the Eucharist? To me, to say “it is ok to receive on the hand” is COMPLETELY irreverent. Why NOT receive on the tongue should be the question.** If we take this to its logical conclusion (being as reverent as humanly possible, then each mass would last for hours. Why? Because we’d be crawling on our knees to the base of the sanctuary and prostrating ourselves there. That woud be the MOST reverent thing we could do. I receive in the hand because it allows ME (I can’t speak for anyone else and I’m not indicting those who elect to receive on the tongue) to focus entirely on Jesus. I can do it unselfconsciously, whereas reception on the tongue for me has always been awkward (I don’t like people putting their hands near my mouth or eyes). So that’s why not. **
2. EMHCs, there should be no such thing. I wouldn’t care if it meant Mass was 15 minutes or even an hour longer. “Lord, we ask You to be pleased with this sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts. Lord, wash away my iniquities, cleanse me from all my sins.” Do you see EMHCs getting their hands cleansed? I don’t. Do you see the great care the Priest shows to cleanse the instruments used to distribute Holy Communion? The cup, the bowel, etc.? Obviously, the priest (at least at my parish) shows great reverence for the Eucharist. EMHCs cannot replicate this same reverence. **EMHCs can be overused certainly, but I attend a very, very large parish with mutliple masses on a Sunday. When one mass is leaving, people are arriving for the next one. And you do realize that the cleansing that the priest does is a ceremonial cleansing, right? His hands are probably no more or less clean at that point than anyone else’s in the congregation. **
3. I think the whole communion on the hand and EMHC thing is nothing short of the work of the evil one. I couldn’t care less if the church doctrine accepts it or even enforces it. I would expect at least a portion of the Church to be influenced by the evil one. If you think otherwise, you greatly underestimate his power.

**This last paragraph is what I cannot forbear to answer and why I keep chipping in on this tired topic (in addition to the outrageous misinformation). You’ve basically violated a provision of the Council of Trent that anathematizes anyone who says that the Church can propose to the faithful any discipline that would lead the faithful into impiety. You haven’t merely pointed out a problem or expressed an opinion pro or con, you’ve stated that a discipline permitted by the Church is the work of Satan (more mini-popery, as well). I urge you to prayerfully reconsider this position. **

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The point of EMHC’s not washing their hands is a very good point. We don’t use EMHC’s in my diocese and hope they don’t ever go down that road. We have Acolytes and Priest that hand out communion. I myself am an Acolyte and I too wash my hands after distributing communion, just as a priest does, and notice that there are several crumbs on my hand when doing so. There is no way EMHC’s can distribute the body of Christ to hundreds of people without getting crumbs on their hands. They need to wash their hands and not to do so is a total lack of reverence. It’s small things like this that eventually add up to where people don’t have revence for the Body of Christ and eventually question the true presence.

Our EMHCs wash their hands at the end of the distribution of Holy Communion, from a bowl of water which is then poured down the sacrarium.

 

[scylla]

I have never recieved in the hand as I attended Mass when I was younger and back then we had real respect for the Eucharist.

I pretty much left the faith and when I came back after about 14 or so years it was all different. I still received on the tongue as I wanted to give Jesus the most respect possible, now that I knew whom I was receiving. I was shocked at the difference and what happened when I came back.

It really seems that most people who receive in the hand do so not out of intentional irreverance but out of the spirit of Vatican II. We are free now, so lets do what we can do. This has changed the focus from what should I do, to what can I do.

I agree it is an evil development as it changes the focus of our belief system.
Many people don’t see the focus has shifted from God to us. As in our will be done over God’s will be done. This is what many dissidents push and do so against Church teaching but is common throughout many parishes.
It just seems like a welcome change that makes the Church more inviting to everyone.

It might seem like a little thing, as people will dismiss it by saying it makes them feel closer to God. But this still is focusing on self above God which is wrong and ultimately is placing personal preference above God.

As time goes by we learn how to be more reverent and what ways better express truth. To try and go back and ignore the better practice is to deny truth. Most who receive in the hand do so out of a desire to return to a past practice, without realizing that we learned before that, receiving on the tongue is more reverent and allows for less sacrilige. This should be the ultimate concern if someone believes in the real presence as utter respect should come first.
(just because my Bishop thinks women should be ordained doesn’t make it right, I still support him just not on that)

It is deadly serious as every action we do is a reflection of truth in our faith and ultimately we will go to heaven or hell and those who lead others astray even in the smallest regard should be cautious about their freedom of belief.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Me for one, and I never intend to do so. I will not touch Our Lord until I am a Priest.

Receiving in the hand is inherently irreverent, and can never be more reverent than humbly kneeling, and receiving Our Lord on one’s tongue.

You won’t make it as a priest unless you can accept some fundamental tenants of Catholicism (and you’ll have no choice if someone in a country where the indult runs presents themselves to receive in the hand. The law of the Church permits them to do so and you will have to comply, unless you never offer the NO Mass). See above post regarding Trent. Reception in the hand is no less reverent than reception on the tongue.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

I have never recieved in the hand as I attended Mass when I was younger and back then we had real respect for the Eucharist.

I pretty much left the faith and when I came back after about 14 or so years it was all different. I still received on the tongue as I wanted to give Jesus the most respect possible, now that I knew whom I was receiving. I was shocked at the difference and what happened when I came back.

It really seems that most people who receive in the hand do so not out of intentional irreverance but out of the spirit of Vatican II. We are free now, so lets do what we can do. This has changed the focus from what should I do, to what can I do.

I agree it is an evil development as it changes the focus of our belief system.
Many people don’t see the focus has shifted from God to us. As in our will be done over God’s will be done. This is what many dissidents push and do so against Church teaching but is common throughout many parishes.
It just seems like a welcome change that makes the Church more inviting to everyone.

It might seem like a little thing, as people will dismiss it by saying it makes them feel closer to God. But this still is focusing on self above God which is wrong and ultimately is placing personal preference above God.

As time goes by we learn how to be more reverent and what ways better express truth. To try and go back and ignore the better practice is to deny truth. Most who receive in the hand do so out of a desire to return to a past practice, without realizing that we learned before that, receiving on the tongue is more reverent and allows for less sacrilige. This should be the ultimate concern if someone believes in the real presence as utter respect should come first.
(just because my Bishop thinks women should be ordained doesn’t make it right, I still support him just not on that)

It is deadly serious as every action we do is a reflection of truth in our faith and ultimately we will go to heaven or hell and those who lead others astray even in the smallest regard should be cautious about their freedom of belief.

In Christ
Scylla

The old Holy Father, who didn’t care for communion in the hand, admitted that there were people who received in the hand reverently. You are, again, painting with a broad brush and you’ve clearly stated that a discline permitted by the Church is evil. This is not Catholic.