Does the Holy Father Require Communion From Him on the Knees?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimothyH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless of course you are holding a newly baptized infant!! 😃

(At the Papal Mass of the Baptism of Our Lord, there were a few who were just holding their newly baptized children so they remained standing while they received…It was such a lovely Mass. I love that EWTN shows all these)
 
Protestant Reformer Martin Bucer advising English reformer Thomas Cramner on how best to gradually change the faith of England’s Catholic population through revisions in the Book of Common Prayer:

"Every superstition of the Roman Antichrist is to be detested… I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think…that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed-as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth—which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason. In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the sacraments in the hand."

Saint Thomas Aquinas:

“The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency.”
Note: (Before I get bombarded with straw-man arguments, I’ll point out that this isn’t Dogmatized, its just food for thought.)

Pope Paul VI’s thoughts on Communion in the hand/mouth:

*"In the following period, after the true meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, its effect, and the presence of Christ in it had been profoundly investigated, from a pressing sense of reverence toward this holy Sacrament, and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated Bread on the tongue of the communicants.

In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries, but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament, and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s Body." *
Note: these are Paul VI’s thoughts on the matter, but he eventually allowed bishops to make the choice to introduce communion in the hand if they deemed it necessary…

Edited by Moderator

Fr. John Hardon after explaining that communion in the hand was begun in the U.S. as a liturgical abuse and that it was introduced illegally:

“Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

and at another point:

“Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”
 
Yes. There have been a few (like maybe three) individual times in the past few years where he has given Communion to someone in the hand or standing, but that is the exception.

I’ve also noticed that some priests at papal masses refuse to give Communion in the hand and will hold it in front of someone’s face until he sticks his tongue out.
 
YoungTradCath said:
I’ve also noticed that some priests at papal masses refuse to give Communion in the hand and will hold it in front of someone’s face until he sticks his tongue out.
Click to expand...
Ouch. You mean “allows placement of the Host on his tongue,” don’t you? 🙂
 
James924 said:
Protestant Reformer Martin Bucer advising English reformer Thomas Cramner on how best to gradually change the faith of England’s Catholic population through revisions in the Book of Common Prayer:

"Every superstition of the Roman Antichrist is to be detested… I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honor they wished to show this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration. I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think…that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed-as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth—which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason. In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the sacraments in the hand."

Saint Thomas Aquinas:

“The dispensing of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest for three reasons. First, because he consecrates in the person of Christ. But as Christ consecrated His Body at the Supper, so also He gave It to others to be partaken of by them. Accordingly, as the consecration of Christ’s Body belongs to the priest, so likewise does the dispensing belong to him. Secondly, because the priest is the appointed intermediary between God and the people, hence as it belongs to him to offer the people’s gifts to God, so it belongs to him to deliver the consecrated gifts to the people. Thirdly, because out of reverence towards this Sacrament, nothing touches It but what is consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands for touching this Sacrament. Hence, it is not lawful for anyone else to touch It, except from necessity, for instance, if It were to fall upon the ground or else in some other case of urgency.”
Note: (Before I get bombarded with straw-man arguments, I’ll point out that this isn’t Dogmatized, its just food for thought.)

Pope Paul VI’s thoughts on Communion in the hand/mouth:

*"In the following period, after the true meaning of the Eucharistic mystery, its effect, and the presence of Christ in it had been profoundly investigated, from a pressing sense of reverence toward this holy Sacrament, and of the humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated Bread on the tongue of the communicants.

In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries, but especially because it is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament, and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s Body." *
Note: these are Paul VI’s thoughts on the matter, but he eventually allowed bishops to make the choice to introduce communion in the hand if they deemed it necessary…

Edited by Moderator

Fr. John Hardon after explaining that communion in the hand was begun in the U.S. as a liturgical abuse and that it was introduced illegally:

“Whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God.”

and at another point:

“Behind Communion in the hand—I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can—is a weakening, a conscious, deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”
Click to expand...
  1. It matters little what a protestant writes regarding something they do not posses.
    2.Pope Paul allowed communion in the hand. He easily could have prohibited the practise.
    3.St Thomas lived 1000 years after St. Taursis was martyred for protecting the Eucharist that he carried on his body. He was a boy of twelve or so.
    4.Fr. Hardon had a few strong opinions.To speak for God is very dangerous. He may be correct in his last statement,need more data to be sure.
    It is not a issue of the amount of priests we have but rather an issue of the amount of time required of these priests to ensure that all that want the Eucharist receive the Eucharist!
Ministers of Care bring Holy Communion to the sick, the homebound, the hospitilized, those that would be unable to receive.
Eucharistic Adoration would cease unless a priest was present beginning until end.

The heirarcy of the Church has decided whom can touch Our Lord. I leave this in their capable hands!
 
Probably because:
  1. It is actually the “normal” way to receive communion, and for the vast majority of the history of the Church, that was the only way it was done.
  2. If you think about communion in the hand, it is pretty pointless, it in a way amounts to self-communication, and it creates a danger of losing particles of the Lord’s sacred body (though where it is permitted, it is permitted, and nobody can say it’s wrong if it is permitted by legitimate authority).
  3. The Pope is trying to set an example for others in his role as supreme pastor of the Church - to gently start moving things back toward the mainstream of the Church’s longstanding practices on things like this.
Just my speculation. 😃
 
Here are some quotes from him:

"…we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the 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 should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts 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…"

Cardinal Ratzinger “God Is Near Us” Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001

And from: God and the World:

Communion in the hand, or directly in the mouth?

“I wouldn’t want to be fussy about that. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion.”

He has said similar things since becoming Pope.

His decision in terms of those receiving from him as Pope was made for various reasons --one can read them in “Light of the World”.
 
thomas_jd said:
  1. It matters little what a protestant writes regarding something they do not posses.
Click to expand...
This is a profoundly incorrect and, I believe, foolish statement. To ignore historical precedent is foolish. The point is that changes in the liturgy can cause changes in faith and that there is 500 years of historical precedent showing that it did just that. By the way, the Church in England DID possess the Eucharist initially. They lost it gradually through changes in the communion prayers and rite of ordination, etc, etc. Ironically, there were those who believed that similar changes in the post-conciliar church would produce similar results in people’s faith in the teachings of the church… and here we are… lex orandi, lex credendi (and vice versa of course).

I’m not sure what your point regarding Saint Thomas was… perhaps to point out that in the early church lay people carried the Eucharist? Everyone knows this and it in no way nullifies St Thomas’ arguments. The Church’s understanding of the Eucharist (and about a thousand other things) has and continues to develop and “evolve”. The one thing it didn’t do prior to the 1960s was “DEvolve”, climb DOWN the ladder. Why not just do away with mass in our parishes and satisfy yhe liturgy of the word at a local Jewish synagogue and the liturgy of the Eucharist at each other’s homes? After all, its what the early church did…

Regarding ministers who bring the Eucharist to faithful in hospitals etc, this is of course a good thing and I don’t know anyone who argues against it. I dare say its a straw man argument. Certainly before the number of priests declined by 5 buh-zillion percent (approximately) these responsibilities did not need to be handed out to lay persons as much, but the state of the church is what it is and of course lay ministers should continue to assist their priests and their dioceses by undertaking this good work.

What I don’t like to see is priests use lay ministers of communion at mass even though their situation doesn’t meet the requirements set by the church, because otherwise it would “take too long”. And then these same priests, at every N.O. ash wednesday mass I’ve been to, turn right around and administer the mere ashes all by themselves…mere ashes vs the God of the Universe…its just plain silly. Who cares if communion takes an extra 3-7 minutes depending on church size? Seriously.

Also, regarding what the hierarchy has decided, the point here is that the hierarchy decided this in a none doctrinal context. It is an ordinance, a discipline, and therefore part of the hierarchy’s prudential judgement and open to debate. Ordinances have been practically imprudent and sometimes disastrous in the past, we have 2,000 years of proof of this. The hierarchy also decided to write Code of Canon Law Can. 212 §3 which tells us that with regard to ordinances, non-doctrinal matters, and the hierarchy’s prudential judgement, we have not only the right, but also the obligation to voice concerns and argue for change if we truly believe ordinances to be harmful to the church and to its primary mission, the salvation of souls.

Silly blanket statements along the lines of “the hierarchy has spoken” and straw-man arguments about obedience are common tactics used to illegitimately put a hush on these issues.
 
Originally Posted by thomasjd
Eucharistic Adoration would cease unless a priest was present beginning until end.
Click to expand...
Have you read about the devotion to Adoration prior to the post-conciliar reforms? I think this argument is silly. Adoration was a bigger deal BEFORE the reforms than after. Lets be serious, less than a third of Catholics even go to mass on Sundays (much less Adoration, ever) and the few who do tend to yap their heads off in the sanctuary before and after mass, lets not pretend there is a greater devotion to our Lord or respect for His presence or devotion to Him in Adoration in the post-conciliar age.
 
Bookcat said:
Here are some quotes from him:

"…we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always do so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In the 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 should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts 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…"

Cardinal Ratzinger “God Is Near Us” Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001

And from: God and the World:

Communion in the hand, or directly in the mouth?

“I wouldn’t want to be fussy about that. It was done in the early Church. A reverent manner of receiving Communion in the hand is in itself a perfectly reasonable way to receive Communion.”

He has said similar things since becoming Pope.

His decision in terms of those receiving from him as Pope was made for various reasons --one can read them in “Light of the World”.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you to everyone who replied to my original question.

I wanted to find out if it was true and I suppose it is. This is not what I had thought but I guess it is. So be it.

You can all carry on with your arguments if you want but I have my answer.

Again, thanks.

-Tim-
 
James924 said:
Lets be serious, less than a third of Catholics even go to mass on Sundays … and the few who do tend to yap their heads off in the sanctuary before and after mass.
Click to expand...
Can you please PLEASE stop painting such broad brush strokes on Catholics (especially those who regularly attend the OF)?
While I do not disagree with the % of Catholics attending mass, as that has been proven and often cited, I do disagree with your bashing of those who do go as being irreverent both in this quoted comment and in previous ones. I regularly go to an OF parish and participate in the OF liturgy, and in MOST of the parishes I go to (all over the country) while there may not be absolute silence, there is most definitely an aura of respect and devotion when in the sanctuary, especially when the Blessed Sacrament is present in the tabernacle or otherwise.
Please, man, charity, first!
 
Big_Feet said:
Can you please PLEASE stop painting such broad brush strokes on Catholics (especially those who regularly attend the OF)?
While I do not disagree with the % of Catholics attending mass, as that has been proven and often cited, I do disagree with your bashing of those who do go as being irreverent both in this quoted comment and in previous ones. I regularly go to an OF parish and participate in the OF liturgy, and in MOST of the parishes I go to (all over the country) while there may not be absolute silence, there is most definitely an aura of respect and devotion when in the sanctuary, especially when the Blessed Sacrament is present in the tabernacle or otherwise.
Please, man, charity, first!
Click to expand...
Firstly, there was no violation of charity in my post. Secondly, I’d love to attend these parishes you speak of (in the event an EF isn’t available) but I’m afraid I’ve attended N.O.s all over the country, North Dakota, Minnesota, California, Tennessee, Montana, Georgia, Nebraska (and in several different parishes in each of those states except for montana and georgia) as well as in europe and I must say I have never seen what you describe. The closest I came to what you describe is one (1) parish in Nebraska and even in that case it was just “less bad” than the others. I suppose you could call all of that a coincidence of astronomical proportions, but I don’t think it is. Rather I think it is an accurate representation of the general norm within the church today. In all of these cases, the ones not yapping are always in a tiny minority, a few individuals here or a family there, kneeling, trying to pray, everyone sees them, nobody cares.

I’m just tired, man. I’m tired of being in denial of all of this. Tired of pretending we’re in a “new springtime”. Anyway, my apologies for coming off as uncharitable.
 
James924 said:
I’m just tired, man. I’m tired of being in denial of all of this. Tired of pretending we’re in a “new springtime”.
Click to expand...
We are only in the very early period of time after the last great Council of the Church! Just wait! God’s Church is getting back on track, after many years of being off track (a bit or a lot – depends on your perspective) due to some bad initial interpretations that Council. With the previous, current and future popes, we are growing again!!! This IS the “New Springtime!” Take heart! One must remember that the seed always starts small, and only in time and with proper nourishment, will it grow into the tree it was meant to be!!
 
James924 said:
Firstly, there was no violation of charity in my post. Secondly, I’d love to attend these parishes you speak of (in the event an EF isn’t available) but I’m afraid I’ve attended N.O.s all over the country, North Dakota, Minnesota, California, Tennessee, Montana, Georgia, Nebraska (and in several different parishes in each of those states except for montana and georgia) as well as in europe and I must say I have never seen what you describe. The closest I came to what you describe is one (1) parish in Nebraska and even in that case it was just “less bad” than the others. I suppose you could call all of that a coincidence of astronomical proportions, but I don’t think it is. Rather I think it is an accurate representation of the general norm within the church today. In all of these cases, the ones not yapping are always in a tiny minority, a few individuals here or a family there, kneeling, trying to pray, everyone sees them, nobody cares.

I’m just tired, man. I’m tired of being in denial of all of this. Tired of pretending we’re in a “new springtime”. Anyway, my apologies for coming off as uncharitable.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Big Feet. I don’t know what it was like before Vatican II, and I am a traditional who does not have an EF around so attend and OF and there are times I do hear people whispering or talking before mass begins or after it ends but I see a lot of respect at Mass and during Adoration from Catholics. I attend two parishes just because of my traveling in the morning to take my son to school and so attend daily mass different than my usual parish and at both places there is not a lot of talking going on.

You are right there are those that don’t show respect and that the ones who are doing the talking don’t seem to care that people are trying to pray and I wish they would think about that and stop because it is hard for me to concentrate on prayers when people are talking around me. It usually happens after mass rather than before.

I expect in an EF there is more reverence and I would so love to go to one if I could but there are a lot of devoted Catholics out there who do show reverence at Mass and in God’s house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top