Eucharist in the Hand

[K_C]

Hello all.

I am a “regular” Catholic (i.e. attend the Novus Ordo, et al), but have kept some of my pre-Vat II attitudes. One is that I prefer to receive Holy Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand. Since this has always been perfectly permissible by the Church, I continue to do so. This act is my personal expression of reverence and humility before the Lord. (I was also concerned about the possibility of defilement by those who might “steal” consecrated hosts, as this is very easy to do.)

I also receive daily, via email, the readings from the Mass of the day. At the end of the readings there is always a brief commentary related to these and written by a prominent saint or scholar in the Church.

Today the commentary was written by St. Cyril of Jerusalem. I was a bit surprised to read him describe the proper way to receive the Eucharist in one’s hand! I was never told, after Vat. II, that this had been a practice in the Church before (i.e. after the consecrated hosts began to be used instead of regular loaf bread which, of course, would require handling). St. Cyril was a Doctor of the Church who lived around 300 years after Christ.

My question: Does anyone know just when and why the Church began to have its members receive Communion on the tongue? Thanks.

 

[damooster]

This Catholic Answers article states that:

Vatican II never mentioned receiving the host in hand. But when some countries introduced the practice illicitly Pope Paul VI surveyed the world’s bishops to see if it should be allowed where it already existed. Rather than suddenly suppressing reception in the hand, the pope granted an indult intended to let the practice continue for a time in those areas where it already existed. Oddly enough, the bishops of the United States—where the practice did not exist—asked permission of the Holy See to introduce it here. Even more amazingly, they got it.

Edit: I just realized that you wanted to know when the Church started receiving on the tongue. I don’t know the answer to this question (sorry).

 

[Cluny]

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.

 

[bostonboy23]

Hello all.

I am a “regular” Catholic (i.e. attend the Novus Ordo, et al), but have kept some of my pre-Vat II attitudes. One is that I prefer to receive Holy Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand. Since this has always been perfectly permissible by the Church, I continue to do so. This act is my personal expression of reverence and humility before the Lord. (I was also concerned about the possibility of defilement by those who might “steal” consecrated hosts, as this is very easy to do.)

I also receive daily, via email, the readings from the Mass of the day. At the end of the readings there is always a brief commentary related to these and written by a prominent saint or scholar in the Church.

Today the commentary was written by St. Cyril of Jerusalem. I was a bit surprised to read him describe the proper way to receive the Eucharist in one’s hand! I was never told, after Vat. II, that this had been a practice in the Church before (i.e. after the consecrated hosts began to be used instead of regular loaf bread which, of course, would require handling). St. Cyril was a Doctor of the Church who lived around 300 years after Christ.

My question: Does anyone know just when and why the Church began to have its members receive Communion on the tongue? Thanks.

in the very early days of the church communion was given in the hand. im not sure when it changed but i do know that it was the preferred way to do it. there is nothing “wrong” with taking it in the hand a lot of people including myself prefer to receive on the tongue.

 

[K_C]

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.

Well, that is not really an answer to my question. However, I found what you said very interesting! I also wonder why, here in America, our bishops had no apparent consideration for any form of purification of hands.

 

[shuzo1189]

I found this Interesting:

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

It covers (In brief) the establishment of receiving the Eucharist on the Tongue.

 

[I_Believe]

Hello all.

I am a “regular” Catholic (i.e. attend the Novus Ordo, et al), but have kept some of my pre-Vat II attitudes. One is that I prefer to receive Holy Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand. Since this has always been perfectly permissible by the Church, I continue to do so. This act is my personal expression of reverence and humility before the Lord. (I was also concerned about the possibility of defilement by those who might “steal” consecrated hosts, as this is very easy to do.)

I also receive daily, via email, the readings from the Mass of the day. At the end of the readings there is always a brief commentary related to these and written by a prominent saint or scholar in the Church.

Today the commentary was written by St. Cyril of Jerusalem. I was a bit surprised to read him describe the proper way to receive the Eucharist in one’s hand! I was never told, after Vat. II, that this had been a practice in the Church before (i.e. after the consecrated hosts began to be used instead of regular loaf bread which, of course, would require handling). St. Cyril was a Doctor of the Church who lived around 300 years after Christ.

My question: Does anyone know just when and why the Church began to have its members receive Communion on the tongue? Thanks.

This may help. At least it’s from a Bishop.

I googled “history of receiving on the tongue catholic” and found this brief read …

In a Jan. 8 article labeled a “historical-liturgical note,” Bishop Schneider reviewed the writings of early church theologians about eucharistic reception and said the practice of laypeople receiving Communion on the tongue was the predominant custom by the sixth century.
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=26389

Then I googled “historical-liturgical note” and found the article itself …
te-deum.blogspot.com/2008/03/historical-liturgical-notes-on-rite-of.html

That article should answer your questions as well as any. Lot’s of details like this…

In the Early Church, before receiving the consecrated Bread, people had to wash the palms of their hands. Moreover, the faithful bowed profoundly in receiving the Body of the Lord with the mouth directly from the right hand and not from the left. The palm of the hand served as a kind of paten or corporal, especially for women. Thus one reads in a sermon of St. Caesarius of Arles (470-542): “All the men who desire to communicate, must wash their hands. And all the women must carry a linen cloth, on which they receive the Body of Christ” (Sermo, 227, 5).

Thanks for starting this thread

 

[EnchantedEve]

I was aware that the Church permitted communion in the hand in the early days, however this did not affect my decision to receive only kneeling and on the tongue. I was often reminded of a story, which you may be familiar with, of a Catholic who brought a devout Muslim to his parish. Inside, he explained that Catholics believed God was genuinely present in the Holy Eucharist in the tabernacle, which is why we genuflect. The Muslim said, “Let me get this straight, you believe that God is in that little gold box?” Yes, replied the Catholic. “And you only genuflect? You do not enter and walk on your knees and cover your face before your God?”

This told me the value of the Eucharist and that we can never be too pious in it’s reception. While in theory we may receive worthily in the hand, the idea of having the audacity of putting my hands (Unconsecrated, no less!) forward and being so bold as to think I may hold God almighty is too much for me to fathom. It has been said that the devil leads us to do good in order to stop us from doing better. It is better to receive on the tongue and kneeling, however permissable in the hand may be. God guide you!

 

[Cluny]

First off, your hands, along with the rest of you, were consecrated to God by your Baptism.

Next, can you explain to me the intrinsic difference between holding the Body of Christ in your mouth and in your hand?

(BTW–I usually receive on the tongue.)

 

[K_C]

My thanks to both of you who posted links to articles on this topic. I read them both. Also, in following another thread in this forum, I found this, taken from the works of Michael Davies:

COMMUNION IN THE HAND

1. Can I turn now to Communion in the hand. The Blessed Sacrament, Christ Himself, is God’s greatest gift to mankind. Throughout the centuries up to the Second Vatican Council the devotion shown towards this Sacrament grew and grew. And, of course, this reverence became more noticeable in the distribution and reception of Holy Communion. In the very early centuries Holy Communion in the form of bread was given into the hands of the faithful but by as early as the fourth century when people were becoming more aware of the Divine Nature of the Sacrament they became more anxious lest the tiniest particle should fall to the ground. This anxiety gave rise to the reception directly on the tongue of the recipient and as early as the Synod of Rouen in 650 A.D. the practice of receiving in the hand was condemned as an abuse. The Roman Ordo of the ninth century accepts Communion on the tongue as the normal practice.
2. Then came the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Catholics were accused of worshipping bread, of giving false honour to the Sacrament, and of priests showing wicked arrogance by claiming greater holiness than the people. To rid the people of this superstition and to show rejection of the Catholic belief in the Blessed Sacrament the reformers insisted on the host being placed in the hands of the recipients in that it was only a symbolic piece of bread. Since the Reformation, therefore, the reception of Communion on the tongue by Catholics testified to their belief in the Real Presence within the Sacrament. Reception in the hands by non-Catholics testified to their belief that it was only symbolic bread. This was the situation throughout the world up to the Second Vatican Council.
3. What then did Vatican II say about Communion in the hand? … Nothing. Absolutely nothing. This practice was introduced soon after the Council by priests in Holland as an ecumenical gesture. It was a flagrant abuse of the established Catholic practice and should have been stopped immediately. Unfortunately it was not and spread to Germany, Belgium and France. Because the bishops failed to exercise their authority it was left to the laity to protest at this scandal and prompt Pope Paul VI to act. After consulting all the bishops of the world he issued an instruction called Memoriale Domini on 29th May 1969 and said that the traditional manner of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue should not be changed. He may as well not have bothered. Within the space of two years most of those bishops around the world who had voted in the majority to maintain the traditional practice succumbed to pressure from the liberals and authorised Communion in the hand.
4. A few years ago an American priest asked Mother Teresa what disturbed her most about the Church of today. She said the thing she found most troubling was reception of Communion in the hand. How right she is. We now treat the Body of Christ, the Blessed Sacrament, so casually we hand it around as if it is some everyday commodity.

 

[I_Believe]

My thanks to both of you who posted links to articles on this topic. I read them both. Also, in following another thread in this forum, I found this, taken from the works of Michael Davies:

COMMUNION IN THE HAND

1. Can I turn now to Communion in the hand. The Blessed Sacrament, Christ Himself, is God’s greatest gift to mankind. Throughout the centuries up to the Second Vatican Council the devotion shown towards this Sacrament grew and grew. And, of course, this reverence became more noticeable in the distribution and reception of Holy Communion. In the very early centuries Holy Communion in the form of bread was given into the hands of the faithful but by as early as the fourth century when people were becoming more aware of the Divine Nature of the Sacrament they became more anxious lest the tiniest particle should fall to the ground. This anxiety gave rise to the reception directly on the tongue of the recipient and as early as the Synod of Rouen in 650 A.D. the practice of receiving in the hand was condemned as an abuse. The Roman Ordo of the ninth century accepts Communion on the tongue as the normal practice.
2. Then came the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Catholics were accused of worshipping bread, of giving false honour to the Sacrament, and of priests showing wicked arrogance by claiming greater holiness than the people. To rid the people of this superstition and to show rejection of the Catholic belief in the Blessed Sacrament the reformers insisted on the host being placed in the hands of the recipients in that it was only a symbolic piece of bread. Since the Reformation, therefore, the reception of Communion on the tongue by Catholics testified to their belief in the Real Presence within the Sacrament. Reception in the hands by non-Catholics testified to their belief that it was only symbolic bread. This was the situation throughout the world up to the Second Vatican Council.
3. What then did Vatican II say about Communion in the hand? … Nothing. Absolutely nothing. This practice was introduced soon after the Council by priests in Holland as an ecumenical gesture. It was a flagrant abuse of the established Catholic practice and should have been stopped immediately. Unfortunately it was not and spread to Germany, Belgium and France. Because the bishops failed to exercise their authority it was left to the laity to protest at this scandal and prompt Pope Paul VI to act. After consulting all the bishops of the world he issued an instruction called Memoriale Domini on 29th May 1969 and said that the traditional manner of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue should not be changed. He may as well not have bothered. Within the space of two years most of those bishops around the world who had voted in the majority to maintain the traditional practice succumbed to pressure from the liberals and authorised Communion in the hand.
4. A few years ago an American priest asked Mother Teresa what disturbed her most about the Church of today. She said the thing she found most troubling was reception of Communion in the hand. How right she is. We now treat the Body of Christ, the Blessed Sacrament, so casually we hand it around as if it is some everyday commodity.

Yes, and even JPII shared Mother Teresa’s view.

 

[Layman]

I think it’s unnerving that communion in the hand, removal of altar rails, the priest versus populum, secular language, lay lectors, lady altar-boys etc. have all been introduced post-Vatican II, in its ‘spirit’, whatever that is.

Collectively and objectively, they look irreverent.

If the clergy want to make our rite more mundane, they’re going the right way about it.

 

[K_C]

I was aware that the Church permitted communion in the hand in the early days, however this did not affect my decision to receive only kneeling and on the tongue. I was often reminded of a story, which you may be familiar with, of a Catholic who brought a devout Muslim to his parish. Inside, he explained that Catholics believed God was genuinely present in the Holy Eucharist in the tabernacle, which is why we genuflect. The Muslim said, “Let me get this straight, you believe that God is in that little gold box?” Yes, replied the Catholic. “And you only genuflect? You do not enter and walk on your knees and cover your face before your God?”

This told me the value of the Eucharist and that we can never be too pious in it’s reception. While in theory we may receive worthily in the hand, the idea of having the audacity of putting my hands (Unconsecrated, no less!) forward and being so bold as to think I may hold God almighty is too much for me to fathom. It has been said that the devil leads us to do good in order to stop us from doing better. It is better to receive on the tongue and kneeling, however permissable in the hand may be. God guide you!

Thank you for the beautiful story! I seldom see others (at least in the nearest parishes) receiving on the tongue these days. Sometimes I feel like my hubby and I are the only ones. So it warms my heart to read that we are not really alone.

 

[K_C]

I think it’s unnerving that communion in the hand, removal of altar rails, the priest versus populum, secular language, lay lectors, lady altar-boys etc. have all been introduced post-Vatican II, in its ‘spirit’, whatever that is.

Collectively and objectively, they look irreverent.

If the clergy want to make our rite more mundane, they’re going the right way about it.

Yes, I feel the same. I am also bothered when people openly talk inside the church, both before and after Mass. Personally, I like to remain a bit for a few prayers of thanksgiving and this is distracting. In former days, it was even considered a venial sin. However, I was cheered a bit when a foursome engaged in such chatter (on Good Friday, no less) was asked to move the conversation outside by one of the priests.

Despite the things which cause us all heartache in our Church today, I have tried to overlook them out of obedience to the Church. Currently I am, once again, under attack for my faith by sedevacantists (and feel obligated to at least try to answer their attacks - which requires research for me). I am sometimes troubled by doubts, but then again I remember how important humble submission is to Jesus. He spent three years in teaching us about the kingdom of God, yet He had already spent thirty years, simply submitting to the directions of His parents. So I think that He expects us to remain faithful and obedient - even when we are troubled or have some doubts about just what the Church is doing.

PRAY FOR OUR POPE AND FOR OUR CHURCH, but don’t let doubts or heartache make you give up fighting the “good fight”!

 

[Cluny]

Further thoughts:

While in theory we may receive worthily in the hand, the idea of having the audacity of putting my hands (Unconsecrated, no less!) forward and being so bold as to think I may hold God almighty is too much for me to fathom.

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.

 

[kleary]

Well here we go again…

Communion in the hand was condemned in the 6th century I believe. Synod of Rouen in 650 AD…

Yes, it was a practice in the ancient Church. But was “in the hand” a matter of showing what we believe in the Liturgy? When we worship in public- our actions show what we believe. The fact that the practice of in the hand did exist in the ancient Church is no defense for the re-introduction of the practice in this day and age. Come on- get real…they did not have neatly cut circular cut-to-fit-the-mouth paper thin wafers of bread back then either.

The re-introduction of Communion in the Hand came in the 20’th century was not done to show the faith of the communicant at the Liturgy…It started as an ABUSE in Europe after Vatican II. Vatican II never addressed or condoned such practice- for it possibly was thought unthinkable! People began to ape the practice of Protestants after Vatican II- I believe when the Novus Ordo Mass was introduced- since it looked exactly like their communion services.

Anyway once the horses were out of the barn instead of clamping down and stopping the abuse the Vatican let it go. It is the same with female servers at the altar- the abuse now has become the norm.

Ken

 

[Cluny]

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?

 

[Cluny]

1. A few years ago an American priest asked Mother Teresa what disturbed her most about the Church of today. She said the thing she found most troubling was reception of Communion in the hand

Actually, Blessed Mother Teresa herself has denied she ever said this, and the priest who quoted her as saying so, at her request, retracted it.

This issue has been discussed elsewhere in these forums.

 

[Cluny]

1. A few years ago an American priest asked Mother Teresa what disturbed her most about the Church of today. She said the thing she found most troubling was reception of Communion in the hand

Actually, Blessed Mother Teresa herself has denied she ever said this, and the priest who quoted her as saying so, at her request, retracted it.

This matter has been discussed elsewhere in these forums.

 

[LARodger]

I think it’s unnerving that communion in the hand, removal of altar rails, the priest versus populum, secular language, lay lectors, lady altar-boys etc. have all been introduced post-Vatican II, in its ‘spirit’, whatever that is.

Collectively and objectively, they look irreverent.

If the clergy want to make our rite more mundane, they’re going the right way about it.

I agree totally and cry inside so often when I think of the many not so good changes after Vatican II wanted or not. It appears so casual now. I believe that only when there is great reverence shown by The Church will there be reverence shown by the people. I’m sure no one can say they don’t go to “another” place when listening to traditional Gregorian chant during The Mass.
Sancta Maria ora pro nobis!