Eucharist in the Hand

[pnewton]

Since this is not the seventh century, what was condemned then because of the symbolic nature of the act can not be applied at this later date where this problem of symbolism no longer exists. I am reminded every time this issue arises of the Samaritan woman’s question to Jesus about the right place to worship. The method is not as important as the external reverence, the internal fear of God and the mental assent to the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence.

Having one receive in the hand with a bow, Amen and proper disposition is preferable to someone swaggering up and receiving on the tongue and visa versa.

Receiving in a state of mortal sin or when one is in denial of the Presence of Christ is bad regardless of how one receives.

 

[EnchantedEve]

Further thoughts:

If you’re referring to the anointing of a Priest’s hands in the rite of Ordination, this is not done in the Byzantine tradition. Are you saying a Melkite priest’s (eg) hands are therefore not “consecrated”?

There is no anointing of a Deacon’s hands in the Latin rite–either form–yet a Deacon may distribute Communion with his “unconsecrated” hands.

As beautiful as the various anointings of a new Priest or Bishop may be, these do not confer the Sacrament of Orders.

That is done by the imposition of the Bishop’s hands on the candidate in all the Catholic liturgies, according to a statement by Pope Pius XII.

I did not intend to make a deeper analysis as to the nature of the priest’s ministry or reception in Orders. All I am saying is he has been called and found worthy by the Church for the perpetuation of His holy mysteries, and this recognition was conferred by the Church in Her own diverse ways. This is why I kiss a priest’s hands when opportune, since they confect the Holy Sacraments in a fashion I cannot. I am simply pointing out due to the venerable nature of his office, he is better placed than I to embrace His Body for our benefit. When he descends from the altar, I know it is from hands graced to offer comfort and peace, and that I cannot do. That is all I mean.

 

[Like]

Check out this video “Kneeling, Kneelers, Altar Rails, and Cardinal Arinze”

youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0g3UMRtMM

 

[EnchantedEve]

Local synods, such as that of Rouen, do not have the authority of an Ecumenical Council.

Furthermore, the Byzantine Liturgy of St. James, as well as the Liturgies of the Chaldean and Assyrian Churches have always called for Communion in the hand.

These are living traditions, and can hardly be said to be “aping Protestants.”

BTW–I saw a televised service celebrated by the Anglican Abp. Desmond Tutu. The women all had their heads covered, and people received on the tongue.

Now what?

While the Eastern rite practices are venerable and are to be respected, they are in keeping with the mannerisms and ways of the people of the East, and not the West. As such, they should not be used in the West, because they will not be understood in the same manner, which is the essence of the concern here. I know most of the East does not genuflect but gives a sweeping bow. This is appropriate in the East, but not a recognized sign of reverence in the West, and we should maintain our local traditions as is our custom.

 

[Hypothesis]

One thing that troubles me about the Novus Ordo mass is the ‘sign of peace’ part…when the priest shakes all those peoples hands around him…then goes back to get the host and places it in your mouth…i hope all those peoples hands were clean…

 

[Layman]

**Support priests who say the TLM. Join or set up a Latin Mass Society in your area. Travel to a TLM if you can’t. Sponsor seminarians to conservative seminaries. **

My opinion: Bishops are often practical men. If they see the TLM is generating revenue, they’ll get behind it. And you will have a fine Mass without distractions.

 

[kleary]

Since this is not the seventh century, what was condemned then because of the symbolic nature of the act can not be applied at this later date where this problem of symbolism no longer exists.

.

This is not true. Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi is a fact of Liturgical Action in the Catholic Church. Our public worship must express what we believe. Vatican II never changed that. And the liberals know that very well- changing these things that expressed the Catholic teaching can and has changed the faith of the majority of Catholics. Most Catholics do not believe in Transubstantiation- most do not believe in the SAcrificial nature of the Mass. Good job- those who have changed this knew right well how liturgical action teaches and shows what the faith is.

Ken

 

[Cluny]

While the Eastern rite practices are venerable and are to be respected, they are in keeping with the mannerisms and ways of the people of the East, and not the West. As such, they should not be used in the West, because they will not be understood in the same manner, which is the essence of the concern here. I know most of the East does not genuflect but gives a sweeping bow. This is appropriate in the East, but not a recognized sign of reverence in the West, and we should maintain our local traditions as is our custom.

I live in the West and have always lived in the West.

Customs such as the metanoia (“sweeping bow”) were one time quite common and standard in the West as well as East.

In fact, the further back you go, the fewer and fewer actual differences there are between “Eastern” and “Western” practices.

Bows have always been recognized as a sign of reverence in the West, not only in religious contexts but secular and social ones as well.

My point is that receiving Communion in the hand is NOT intrinsically Protestant, nor receiving on the tongue intrinsically Catholic.

 

[Layman]

So let’s chuck 1965 years of liturgical development on the potter’s wheel and mix-and-match a new liturgy. Then effectively forbid the old rite. Folly, madness, pride and a hint of wickedness, there, I say.

At this stage I could give two straws for what was done 700 years ago in Antioch. What’s strange is this urge to innovate and justify it by archaeologisms. Then, ban a genuine old rite that has helped make many saints!

 

[Cluny]

So let’s chuck 1965 years of liturgical development on the potter’s wheel and mix-and-match a new liturgy. Then effectively forbid the old rite. Folly, madness, pride and a hint of wickedness, there, I say.

At this stage I could give two straws for what was done 700 years ago in Antioch. What’s strange is this urge to innovate and justify it by archaeologisms. Then, ban a genuine old rite that has helped make many saints!

The living traditions of Eastern Catholics and the other Eastern Churches are hardly “archaeologisms.”

And my studies of liturgical developments have shown me that sudden shifts are not unheard of.

And just what have I said that is would forbid the Extraordinary form? Please give specific quotes.

 

[Layman]

The living traditions of Eastern Catholics and the other Eastern Churches are hardly “archaeologisms.”

And my studies of liturgical developments have shown me that sudden shifts are not unheard of.

And just what have I said that is would forbid the Extraordinary form? Please give specific quotes.

I say it’s queer that a Church as big and as ancient as the Catholic church should suddenly radically mutate its own, ancient, main rite, and justify this change by picking bits from old practices or other churches.

As far as I know, Jesus or Mary did not appear to any living saint or clergyman to request this. Can you imagine the conversation:

“Now then, your Grace, I would like My priests to turn their backs on Me in the tabernacle; to leave the sanctuary during Mass; to let lay people hold Me in their unpurified hands; to let lay people read My saint’s epistles from the pulpit; to drop the language of those who crucified Me and in whose capital My Vicar now reigns and use many, varied local languages instead, so that a man may hear Mass in a foreign country and not understand it at all; to rip out the dividing rails between the sanctuary and the nave so that the former is seen as no different to the latter; to drop ancient hymns sung to adore Me and adopt ones used by those opposed to My church …”

I didn’t say that you would forbid the EF. The EF was effectively banned until recently. I’m in touch with a chap who sang at Easter Triduum masses in a small room at a hotel in London in the early 70’s, and people flew in from all over the world to attend them.

Why?

**Because Easter was not being celebrated in the old rite anywhere else. **

Pitiful.

 

[malphono]

I really don’t have the wherewithal to enter into yet another discussion about communion in the hand, but I will make a few observations.

Yes, [post=5142803]Cluny[/post] is correct about the Byzantine Liturgy of S James. OTOH, that particular liturgy is used so rarely (and in so few places) that it is really more of a historical footnote than anything else. While the ACoE might distribute communion in the hand (and I’m not at all sure about the extent of the applicability of the practice within the ACoE – I’ll leave that to one of our ACoE members to clarify), I believe that the Chaldeans do not. CITH is certainly not practiced in any of the West Syriac Churches nor, as far as I am aware, in the Armenian or Alexandrene Churches. In general, in the Orient and East (including the Byzantine Liturgies of S John Chrysostym and S Basil) is intinction, in one form or another.

And yes, albeit that the wording strikes me as somewhat clumsy, I believe that the intent in [post=5142945]EnchantedEve’s[/post] post is correct in theory regarding bowing vs genuflection. It really has nothing to do with where a particular congregation (or person) is located, but has everything to do with liturgical Tradition: East is East, and West is West.

Be that as it may, the discussion here is clearly about practices in the Western (i.e. Latin Rite) Church. Whether CITH was practiced the early days, is somewhat irrelevant (at least PP Pius XII thought so in Mediator Dei). The fact of the matter is that the practice was abandoned, by the Latin Church long ago for a variety of reason which have been stated in this (and who-knows how many prior) thread(s).

 

[Layman]

I wonder could we have a policy in the trad. sub-forum of:

Someone posts at topic like:

"Why is [a Novus Ordo novelty] [good/bad]?"

To which the standard response should be:

"Sorry mate, wrong forum".

Might save a lot of time and typing

 

[I_Believe]

So let’s chuck 1965 years of liturgical development on the potter’s wheel and mix-and-match a new liturgy. Then effectively forbid the old rite. Folly, madness, pride and a hint of wickedness, there, I say.

At this stage I could give two straws for what was done 700 years ago in Antioch. What’s strange is this urge to innovate and justify it by archaeologisms. Then, ban a genuine old rite that has helped make many saints!

 

[Dtmccameron]

In the Byzantine (and other Eastern Catholic liturgies), leavened bread is used and communion is given on the tongue.

Exception: the Byzantine Liturgy of St. James, which calls by rubric for communion in the hand (after St. Cyril), and the Liturgies of the Chaldeans/Church of the East–but in this case, first the communicants purify their hands in the smoke of the censer.

I like that, why don’t we do that?

Heck, why just for the purifying fun of it?

Then again, I’ve always been impressed by incense…

 

[EnchantedEve]

I live in the West and have always lived in the West.

Customs such as the metanoia (“sweeping bow”) were one time quite common and standard in the West as well as East.

In fact, the further back you go, the fewer and fewer actual differences there are between “Eastern” and “Western” practices.

Bows have always been recognized as a sign of reverence in the West, not only in religious contexts but secular and social ones as well.

My point is that receiving Communion in the hand is NOT intrinsically Protestant, nor receiving on the tongue intrinsically Catholic.

I am not going to disagree with you per se, but I must confess as a person of various ethnic backgrounds I cannot name an example in my traditions where we bow in reverence. Respect yes, as to a noble or king or superior, but to our God, I cannot think of any, even in our pagan days. Could you give an example? Kneeling appeared to be the more prevalent sign of adoration and reverance. I will admit the spirit of Western and Eastern culture may have at one time been more similar, however to deny they have developed in seperate directions I think would be doing a disservice to both.

And I agree, when practiced well it is not necessarily protestant, but you must admit it was done primarily as move by Cardinal Suenens in favor of protestantism**.

 

[EnchantedEve]

And yes, albeit that the wording strikes me as somewhat clumsy, I believe that the intent in [post=5142945]EnchantedEve’s[/post] post is correct in theory regarding bowing vs genuflection. It really has nothing to do with where a particular congregation (or person) is located, but has everything to do with liturgical Tradition: East is East, and West is West.

Hey, it was 1 in the morning, give me a break.

 

[K_C]

Since this is not the seventh century, what was condemned then because of the symbolic nature of the act can not be applied at this later date where this problem of symbolism no longer exists. I am reminded every time this issue arises of the Samaritan woman’s question to Jesus about the right place to worship. The method is not as important as the external reverence, the internal fear of God and the mental assent to the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence.

Having one receive in the hand with a bow, Amen and proper disposition is preferable to someone swaggering up and receiving on the tongue and visa versa.

Receiving in a state of mortal sin or when one is in denial of the Presence of Christ is bad regardless of how one receives./quote]

Undoubtedly, internal states and attitudes are very important. However, the Church also asserts that certain things must be present in order for the consecration to be valid. This is why there is so much controversy over the words used.

As for “symbolism” - this problem still does exist today. Symbolism has always been very important for some, myself included. For example, on Good Friday we celebrated the veneration of the Cross, as is the custom. A life-sized cross was brought up to the altar for this occasion. However, there was no corpus on it. Not only that, but there is also no crucifix over our altar - just the “risen Lord” suspended in air.

This bothered me because most Protestants have removed the Body of Christ from the crucifix and use only the cross. This seems unimportant on the surface, but the implication is that we venerate the cross itself, rather than the One Who died upon it for our salvation…that we should focus on the aftermath of Calvary rather than its message: sacrifice and suffering are necessary to salvation.

I know this is Protestant thinking because I once sponsored a Protestant friend who became a Catholic. She asked me, later, why we have to have that “grotesque” figure of Jesus on the cross. (I explained that it was because He wanted to teach us the value of suffering, that He truly understands ours, and to show us just how much He loved us.)

Despite my loyalty to the Church since before Vatican II, it still does trouble me to see certain elements of our faith slowly being eroded like this - an apparent effort to meld us with Protestantism. I do understand ecumenism and Christ’s desire that “all be one” and think the drive towards this end is commendable. However, I often fear that we may go too far in our attempts to placate our “separated brethren”. I also wonder just what changes other denominations are making in their own celebrations for the same purpose. That is something about which we hear very little.

 

[K_C]

…I cannot name an example in my traditions where we bow in reverence. Respect yes, as to a noble or king or superior, but to our God, I cannot think of any, even in our pagan days. Could you give an example?

And I agree, when practiced well it is not necessarily protestant, but you must admit it was done primarily as move by Cardinal Suenens in favor of protestantism.

I can give one example: During the recitation of the Creed, when we reach the remembrance of the Incarnation, the missal indicates that all should bow in reverence. I try to remember to do so. However, I seldom notice anyone else - including the priest - bowing. So we are intended to bow, but who really follows missals anymore?

As for your last statement, I believe that any accomodations we’ve witnessed were not so much in favor of Protestantism as in keeping with the theme of Vat II: “That they all be one, Father, as You are in me and I am in You.” This was the true spirit of Vatican II. I think that the magisterium recognized all-too-well the rapidly declining state of affairs in our world today. We seem on the brink of the age of AntiChrist (if not already immersed in it). I think that the Church was taking the wishes of Christ to heart in a very urgent manner. However, unfortunately, too much lattitude was allowed in the wake of Vat II and, therefore, too much indiviudal variation has ensued which, in turn, seems to erode the universality of the liturgy.

 

[Cluny]

While the ACoE might distribute communion in the hand (and I’m not at all sure about the extent of the applicability of the practice within the ACoE – I’ll leave that to one of our ACoE members to clarify), I believe that the Chaldeans do not.

There are videos on line showing ACofE liturgies, with the people receiving in their hands (after first holding them in the smoke of the censer).

The one time I went to the local Chaldean Catholic Church, receiving in the hand was the actual practice there. I saw no one receive on the tongue.

So, following the examples of their counterparts and what seemed to be the received custom, I too received in my hand.

I also checked carefully for crumbs and did not budge from my spot until I had swallowed the Precious Body.

Note carefully: only here, at the Byzantine St. James, and at an outdoor megamass (maybe) are the only three times I would receive in my hand. Normally I do receive on my tongue.