Do you really want to go back to the early Church practices?

[latinmasslover]

I thought I’d post this question since every other time it is asked on another thread it’s never answered.

BTW - give an answer before posing your opposing view/question (you know who you are!)

For those of you who say that Communion in the hand should be permitted and/or encouraged because (allegedly) this is the way it was practiced in the early Church, do you also want to penances of the early Church? The **public **confession, the **public **and **severe **(sometimes long) penance?

Please think hard about what this would mean before giving an answer.

 

[cascherman]

sure. If the Catholic Church says so, I do.

but the Church doesn’t require that, and they do allow Eucharist in the hand, so no need to really ponder that too much longer.

 

[snowfly]

I thought I’d post this question since every other time it is asked on another thread it’s never answered.

BTW - give an answer before posing your opposing view/question (you know who you are!)

For those of you who say that Communion in the hand should be permitted and/or encouraged because (allegedly) this is the way it was practiced in the early Church, do you also want to penances of the early Church? The **public **confession, the **public **and **severe **(sometimes long) penance?

Communion in the hand has led to abuses, just last week I watched a Priest give a young girl a Host in the hand, she started to walk away with the Host in her hand.

I’m not saying she had no intention of consuming, but the Priest touched her arm and signalled to her to consume there and then.

Then I’ve heard of the Host being trampled under foot in the aisles, and being use at black masses.

There are some things that could have been kept, like the Altar rails, then we wouldn’t have to watch the parents scamper to the Altar to grab tiny children during Mass, with their bright red faces on the way down.

I personally have never seen Hosts laying around the Church, but I was told first hand from a protestant, that he went and received the Host and then on his way down took it out of his mouth, so it’s a hard one to keep and eye on.

He told me this with a grin on his face, no surprise there, he also told me he one time smelt the devil, so we don’t need to be too smart to know what kind of practice he dabbled in.

 

[markadm]

but the Church doesn’t require that, and they do allow Eucharist in the hand, so no need to really ponder that too much longer.

But only because it was an abuse that couldn’t be gotten rid of. So it was legalised.

And not everywhere, I might add. Communion in the hand is by use of an indult, which could in theory be withdrawn (Deo volente! )

 

[cascherman]

But only because it was an abuse that couldn’t be gotten rid of. So it was legalised.

And not everywhere, I might add. Communion in the hand is by use of an indult, which could in theory be withdrawn (Deo volente! )

So be it, I’ll receive on my tongue if the indult you talk about is withdrawn. The key point here is if the Church says it is OK then its OK in my book.

No argument here. Also, anything that can prevent abuse of the Host is A-OK with me.

 

[YACatholic]

I say that Communion should be permitted in the hand because the Church says so. That’s enough for me. I’m not yet qualified to argue with the pope.

 

[Brother_John]

Then I’ve heard of the Host being trampled under foot in the aisles, and being use at black masses.

I personally have never seen Hosts laying around the Church, but I was told first hand from a protestant, that he went and received the Host and then on his way down took it out of his mouth, so it’s a hard one to keep and eye on.

He told me this with a grin on his face, no surprise there, he also told me he one time smelt the devil, so we don’t need to be too smart to know what kind of practice he dabbled in.

Well, I just came from a so-called “Christian Book Store” this morning, that freely sold “communion supplies” to anyone who walked in the door. So, we CAN at least HOPE that some of the abuses you have pointed out were not perpetrated on hosts from our Church.

 

[markadm]

I say that Communion should be permitted in the hand because the Church says so. That’s enough for me. I’m not yet qualified to argue with the pope.

smacks own head

As has already been noted, Communion in the hand was formerly forbidden but done anyway. The abuse became so widespread that it was then legalised, but only then through a permission or “indult”. The indult is not effective in all countries.

Equally I have not heard this Pope call specifically for Communion in the hand, nor was it he who allowed it.

 

[Brother_John]

smacks own head

As has already been noted, Communion in the hand was formerly forbidden but done anyway. The abuse became so widespread that it was then legalised, but only then through a permission or “indult”. The indult is not effective in all countries.

Equally I have not heard this Pope call specifically for Communion in the hand, nor was it he who allowed it.

I would be curious as to how this practice came to be. Because I distinctly remember when it started in my church at the time. It did NOT happen by osmosis.

The pastor went to great lengths to explain to the congregation as to how this had been deemed an accepted practice, and how it was to be done. We even had demonstrations on how to “properly” receive by hand.

A few weeks later, we started. Understandably, many chose to continue to receive on the tongue. The rail had been removed some time earlier.

 

[YACatholic]

smacks own head

As has already been noted, Communion in the hand was formerly forbidden but done anyway. The abuse became so widespread that it was then legalised, but only then through a permission or “indult”. The indult is not effective in all countries.

Equally I have not heard this Pope call specifically for Communion in the hand, nor was it he who allowed it.

I understand that. (Sorry to make you smack your own head) Don’t you think that if the Holy Father did not view this practice as permissible, he would have corrected it already? He has been our pope for over a week now. I don’t think this Pope would treat liturgical abuses lightly. All I am saying is that as an internet posting Catholic, I am not going to kid myself into believing that I have insight that the Pope does not.

My point is this. Just as you have not heard this Pope call specifically in the hand, I have not heard him call specifically against it. (As if each pope needs to cover ground that another has trodden)

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your feedback. Have a great day!

God Bless,

YACatholic

 

[latinmasslover]

I understand that. (Sorry to make you smack your own head) Don’t you think that if the Holy Father did not view this practice as permissible, he would have corrected it already? He has been our pope for over a week now. I don’t think this Pope would treat liturgical abuses lightly. All I am saying is that as an internet posting Catholic, I am not going to kid myself into believing that I have insight that the Pope does not.

My point is this. Just as you have not heard this Pope call specifically in the hand, I have not heard him call specifically against it. (As if each pope needs to cover ground that another has trodden)

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your feedback. Have a great day!

God Bless,

YACatholic

He’s a reverent and holy man, therefore he’s against it. Personally, I think that he’s just trying to figure the best way to get rid of it while keeping as many Catholics as possible from throwing the fit that will, without a doubt, be thrown.

 

[Brother_John]

He’s a reverent and holy man, therefore he’s against it.

WOW ! He told you this himself?

“THEREFORE” ??? Is this like, Algebra/Geometry for Catholics?

Therefore, anyone who receives Communion in the hand is NOT reverent and holy?

My, aren’t we judgemental…

 

[latinmasslover]

WOW ! He told you this himself?

“THEREFORE” ??? Is this like, Algebra/Geometry for Catholics?

Therefore, anyone who receives Communion in the hand is NOT reverent and holy?

My, aren’t we judgemental…

When you’re as awesome as I am, you just know things; the Pope and I are just too cool, have a special link.

Seriously, people who receive in the hand aren’t necessarily irreverent; simply unaware of the presumption of this practice.

 

[YACatholic]

He’s a reverent and holy man, therefore he’s against it. Personally, I think that he’s just trying to figure the best way to get rid of it while keeping as many Catholics as possible from throwing the fit that will, without a doubt, be thrown.

So you’re suggesting that our Pope is allowing the continued practice of “irreverance” toward Blessed Sacrament because he’s afraid of how his people will react? You know that doesn’t make any sense. If it was wrong, he would stop it. End of story.

 

[Sure]

When you’re as awesome as I am, you just know things; the Pope and I are just too cool, have a special link.

Seriously, people who receive in the hand aren’t necessarily irreverent; simply unaware of the presumption of this practice.

Rather than imagining what the Pope really thinks maybe we should look at what he has publically stated on the matter:

"[T]he second objection we wanted to consider was directed against the act of receiving Communion: kneeling–standing, hand–mouth. Well, first of all, I would like to say that both attitudes are possible, and I would like therefore to ask all priests to exercise tolerance and to recognize the decision of each person; and I would further like to ask you all to exercise the same tolerance and not cast aspersions on anyone who may have opted for this or that way of doing it. But you will ask: Is tolerance the proper answer here? Or is it not misplaced with respect to this most holy thing? Well, here again we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always be so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well-founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years.

If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion. We find a particularly fine passage in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, from the fourth century. In his catechetical homilies he tells the candidates for baptism what they should do at Communion. They should make a throne of their hands, laying the right upon the let to forma throne for the King, forming at the same time a cross. This symbolic gesture, so fine and so profound, is what concerns him: the hands of man form a cross, which becomes a throne, down into which the King inclines himself. The open, outstretched hand can thus become a sign of the way that a man offers himself to the Lord, opens hands for him, that they may become an instrument of his presence and a throne of his mercies in this world. Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him."

• Cardinal Ratzinger, 1978

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I think you’d have to ask what part of the early Church. Or were in the early Church. We know that not everyone one in the doing everything the same way. Paul’s letters tell of of many things that were going on at various places that need to be stopped.

If you were in Jerusalem and Christian still pretty much Jewish, believing that Jesus was the Christ, going to temple and meeting with other believers for sharing of the Eucharist, but you still mainly fellowed the Jewish religion / Laws.

Other in the Gentile world did not follow theses practices.
For me the Question of the OP would need to be a little more narrowed down.

I would not have any objections to returning to the Church of the 40’s 50’s as I know more about that period then those prior other than the preiod we are in right now.

The thing is the church can not go back to the any part of its past , but in continuing the move forward in the Holy Spirit we may find the need to bring back into common practice many aspects from our glorious past. As new things come into play we decide what works and what does not, what we need to bring back and what we don’t, ans how to blend them. That I believe is were we are now in finding what of the new is not working and what of the recent past we need to bring back. I have faith that out Holy Father will see that we continue in the path of God in the way the Holy Spirit leads him to present it to us. through the Holy Mother Church.

One thing I like to remember is that in reality there is nothing new everything that come has been here before just under a different name.And as they have be rejected before they will in do time be rejected again.

 

[latinmasslover]

So you’re suggesting that our Pope is allowing the continued practice of “irreverance” toward Blessed Sacrament because he’s afraid of how his people will react? You know that doesn’t make any sense. If it was wrong, he would stop it. End of story.

No, he wouldn’t. He’s not stupid, he’s very aware of the giant hissy-fit that will be thrown he sets it right. He’s likely waiting, and praying, trying to figure how the heck to forbid it with the least amount of people throwing tantrums.

 

[latinmasslover]

Rather than imagining what the Pope really thinks maybe we should look at what he has publically stated on the matter:

“That does not of course mean that it should always be so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly.” But that was in 1978. He himself has matured since then, seen the beautiful results of the practice, and will make a wise decision in time, I have no doubt.

To say the practice is okay to do is the same as an adult saying he should be able to go to the bathroom during the Consecration at Mass because, after all, the children do it and mean no offense. He shouldn’t have to kneel because he didn’t as a child. He shouldn’t have to pray more than one Pater, Ave, and Gloria because, again, children manage with this just fine.

Children aren’t irreverent with the “little” they do for God, but as our understanding increases, so does our responsibility. The Church changed the practice for a reason, and to go back because it’s what the Church did in the beginning of her existance (which I’ve yet to see *proof *of) is ridiculous.

 

[stmaria]

I would be curious as to how this practice came to be. Because I distinctly remember when it started in my church at the time. It did NOT happen by osmosis.

.

It came to be in late 1964 by Bishops in the Netherlands without approval. The Netherlands had some of the most radical ideas of reform
time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,835149-1,00.html
Time Magazine 1966
“As many as 6,000 dedicated Catholic and Protestant laymen reportedly belong to ecumenical study groups in The Netherlands that periodically celebrate interfaith Communions; either a minister or a priest will preside, and the consecrated elements are given to all members present. And though probably most common in Northern Europe, experiments in interCommunion have taken place in the U.S. and even in Rome, where one Catholic priest privately admits that Protestant ministers have showed up for services at his church, stayed to receive Communion with the congregation”

And it still is.
*In Holland, They’re Inventing Their Own Mass 2007
*chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/170066?eng=y
In Nijmegen, Holland, in the church of the Augustinian friars, each Sunday the Mass is concelebrated by a Protestant and a Catholic, with one presiding over the liturgy of the Word and the sermon, and the other over the liturgy of the Eucharist, in alternation. The Catholic is almost always a layperson, and is often a woman. For the Eucharistic prayer, the texts of the missal are passed over in favor of texts composed by the former Jesuit Huub Oosterhuis. The bread and wine are shared by all.

 

[puzzleannie]

I would be very happy if liturgical law currently in force in my country and my diocese were practiced, since I don’t pretend to know more than the bishops who have given us these laws, and my personal preference has no bearing whatever on those laws.