Eucharist in the Hand

[Cluny]

to let lay people read My saint’s epistles from the pulpit;

Actually, Jesus did do this when He dictated the first form of Liturgy to His step-brother St. James of Jerusalem.

The lesson or lessons before the Gospel have ALWAYS been read by a layman (if untonsured reader is not available) in the Eastern tradition.

The Roman rite is NOT the standard for the whole Church.

Deal with it.

And, fwiw, the position and type of the tabernacle or other provision for guarding the Holy Gifts–be it aumbry, hanging pyx, Eucharistic dove, Sacrament House–has varied considerably.

 

[K_C]

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

Sorry if I’m boring you, Layman. However, I DID inquire of the staff as to which forum I should use for this question (since there was no obvious one dedicated to the sacraments or to Church history) and was told that I could post it either here or in the Apologetics forum, whichever seemed more appropriate to the particular question.

Perhaps I should have searched more diligently, but I am also at present involved in trying to defend myself from a spiritual assault by some sedevacantists (compiling a refutation). So…once again, I apologize for any redundance. However, it is also true that no one compelled you to join in this thread, which is what produced your boredom.

However, I have learned what I sought via the posted links above: Communion in the hand was allowed early in Church history, but only when it was necessitated by extreme circumstances (as when no priest could be present), and it became a popular choice in Europe which soon spread to America as well. (My own theory is that it is mostly a choice based upon expediency. I.e. it is much easier on priests’ backs not to have to bend over each kneeling communicant - or to chance touching each one’s mouth - when administering the sacrament. You know…nothing succeeds like ease!)

 

[Layman]

(My own theory is that it is mostly a choice based upon expediency. I.e. it is much easier on priests’ backs not to have to bend over each kneeling communicant - or to chance touching each one’s mouth - when administering the sacrament. You know…nothing succeeds like ease!)

Good grief. Are priests so delicate they can’t bend over for, what, 15 minutes max. per Mass, with the opportunity to straighten their backs after each administration? [Sarcasm] However did those old guys manage in the past?

Here’s an alternative opinion:
latin-mass-society.org/2009/learningthemass.html

Also one of my own: The less you do, the less you want to do.

I made the remark about not posting in this forum because I eventually realised, after another forum user pointed it out, that traditionalists in this forum were often getting ‘het up’ about posts about matters that were, in fact, not traditional at all, this being one of them. There were a lot of long threads about Novus Ordo novelties. e.g. CITH, Altar girls, use of the vernacular.

So I thought I’d flag up this slight incongruity so other traditionalists might become aware of it. Lower the old blood pressure a bit.
**
Want to start a long thread here?: **Just make a post with the heading: "I think altar girls should be allowed to administer communion and read the espistle as well", then go to the pub.

Now, a ‘modernist Catcholicism’ sub-forum where one could debate the worth of said novelties might be a good thing.

 

[pnewton]

This is not true

I totally disagree with your

Lex Orendi - Lex Credendi is a fact of Liturgical Action in the Catholic Church

I totally agree with you. I see not conflict from my position of reason for you to tie these together. Discipline in the matter of such things can and do change, and have changed for the last 2000 years. Remember that communion on the hand was the norm the first few centuries? Trying to read a seventh century document while ignoring the seventh century context is why the Church does not allow everyone to interpret Church tradition for themselves.

 

[pnewton]

As for “symbolism” - this problem still does exist today. Symbolism has always been very important for some, myself included…

But symbols change over time. If you recall the original time when communion on the tongue was done in the seventh century specifically to renounce belief in the Real Presence. People to day simply do not do this. I can’t say it could never happen, but it sure isn’t a common cultural symbol.

 

[EnchantedEve]

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.

But surely you must conceded that prior to the changes of 1969 all genuflected at the point where the Incarnation is mentioned (which I do, even at the New Mass). I still cannot think of an example of immemorial usage of bowing in the West for reverance.

And, with regards to the council: You must concede that this position does favor protestantism, even if in your perception only a little. At best, it is indirect because this custom was of widespread use of protestants at the time, and Cardinal Suenens did say that it what was what influenced His Eminence to introduce the practice in Belgium. They certainly were not in stark contrast to protestant practices.

And lastly, I have become aware from some in the Eastern rite that innovations (such as communion in the hand) have been introduced in recent years. Whether this applies to the Chaldean I cannot say, as I am not well-versed in that rite. I do know this has been the practice among some liberal Byzantines.

 

[Cluny]

And lastly, I have become aware from some in the Eastern rite that innovations (such as communion in the hand) have been introduced in recent years. Whether this applies to the Chaldean I cannot say, as I am not well-versed in that rite. I do know this has been the practice among some liberal Byzantines

For the Chaldean practice that I’ve seen with my own eyes, see my post #40.

And as I said, Byzantine St. James calls for Communion in the hand, if the rubrics are strictly followed. I will also say I’ve never seen it so done.

Since the Divine Liturgies of St. John, St. Basil, and Presanctified Gifts specifically call for the use of the spoon, how can you know “liberal Byzantines” give communion in the hand?

Could you have been seeing the plate of Antidoron, perhaps?

 

[JDI]

It’s really neat seeing how many have posted replies that look at the historical side of when receiving on the tongue started and was then somewhat allowed to change. I can tell you that in our family, we all receive Communion on the tongue, except for my son who sometimes will receive on the hand (unsure why…). We have always stressed to our children that we should show proper respect and awe at what we are truly receiving.

One thing that is a pet peeve of mine is to see firstly, many walk away with the host and leisurely put in their mouth part-way down the aisle. Also, I’ve seen the host dropped and be casually picked up and put in the mouth as well as the “scoop” technique as if the host is a liquid. I’ve seen children walk away with Jesus and show their siblings before consuming Him, like “look what I’ve got!” I also find it somewhat puzzling when the Extraordinary Ministers of Communion aren’t quite sure how to put it into my mouth as though they may accidentally touch my lower lip and catch the Black Plague.

Personally my concern, along with the aforementioned, is the absence of the Communion Paten which altar servers used to hold under our chins in the past. I tried to have them re-introduced in our parish and the idea was effectively shot down by a few individuals with influence in the parish who thought that it would be too “regressive” and “pre-Vatican II” like that was a dark period in our Church that should be forgotten. The reception of this novel idea was lukewarm at best. Many have forgotten those days and some care not to revisit them. It is quite unusual in my opinion. The patens would help to remind people how sacred Jesus is in the Blessed Sacrament and how we should safeguard Him.

Anyway, I’ll continue to receive our Lord, unworthy sinner that I am, on my tongue.

God Bless.

 

[I_Believe]

It’s really neat seeing how many have posted replies that look at the historical side of when receiving on the tongue started and was then somewhat allowed to change. I can tell you that in our family, we all receive Communion on the tongue, except for my son who sometimes will receive on the hand (unsure why…). We have always stressed to our children that we should show proper respect and awe at what we are truly receiving.

One thing that is a pet peeve of mine is to see firstly, many walk away with the host and leisurely put in their mouth part-way down the aisle. Also, I’ve seen the host dropped and be casually picked up and put in the mouth as well as the “scoop” technique as if the host is a liquid. I’ve seen children walk away with Jesus and show their siblings before consuming Him, like “look what I’ve got!” I also find it somewhat puzzling when the Extraordinary Ministers of Communion aren’t quite sure how to put it into my mouth as though they may accidentally touch my lower lip and catch the Black Plague.

Personally my concern, along with the aforementioned, is the absence of the Communion Paten which altar servers used to hold under our chins in the past. I tried to have them re-introduced in our parish and the idea was effectively shot down by a few individuals with influence in the parish who thought that it would be too “regressive” and “pre-Vatican II” like that was a dark period in our Church that should be forgotten. The reception of this novel idea was lukewarm at best. Many have forgotten those days and some care not to revisit them. It is quite unusual in my opinion. The patens would help to remind people how sacred Jesus is in the Blessed Sacrament and how we should safeguard Him.

Anyway, I’ll continue to receive our Lord, unworthy sinner that I am, on my tongue.

God Bless.

Hi JDI, I agree with your reasoning. The reasons to receive on the tongue w/paten far outweigh the reasons always given for receiving in the hand. Imho.

God Bless

 

[EnchantedEve]

For the Chaldean practice that I’ve seen with my own eyes, see my post #40.

And as I said, Byzantine St. James calls for Communion in the hand, if the rubrics are strictly followed. I will also say I’ve never seen it so done.

Since the Divine Liturgies of St. John, St. Basil, and Presanctified Gifts specifically call for the use of the spoon, how can you know “liberal Byzantines” give communion in the hand?

Could you have been seeing the plate of Antidoron, perhaps?

As I said, I have not experienced this personally. Some people I know who went to the Byzantine rite here in Los Angeles told me communion was distributed like in the New Rite, with lay ministers. Besides, by definition their being “liberal” means they are probably not losing sleep over the rubrics. Liberal Byzantines would be no different.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

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.

KC:

Read St. Cyril’s Description of how to Receive our Lord the hand VERY CAREFULLY. We can’t do much of what he describes – The touching of the eyes and nose and the kissing with the lips with the Body of our Lord BEFORE the eating of the Body of our Lord…

The closest I’ve seen anyone come in my experience is a TAC priest whom I watched receiving when he was serving Mass for a fellow priest… He knelt and reached his hands above his head, RIGHT hand on top of the Left as he bowed his head, while the body of our Lord was placed in his hand. He then gazed at our Lord enthroned in his hand as he held our Lord aloft (while still kneeling) for 1 or 2 seconds before reverently consuming Him. Yes, This priest made a throne out of his right hand so he could “gaze on Him whom he had pierced”.

I can say this was a singular loving act that impressed me for the reverence and awe the priest displayed for the Lord present in the Sacrament. I would have no problems, and I don’t think anyone else here would either, if I saw Catholics receiving our Lord with the Reverence and awe this Anglican priest displayed when he knelt down, presented his right hand on top of his left and then enthroned the Lord in the palm of his right hand while he gazed at him before drawing Him into his mouth.

According to the Vatican, receiving our Lord on the tongue is supposed to be the NORM, and Receiving Him in the hand is supposed to be allowed by an INDULT. If you feel the need to receive our Lord on the tongue, go ahead.

From the beginning, the East has usually used Leavened Bread dipped (or soaked) in wine, which is then consecrated (“Eucharisted” is the first Post Apostolic term) or “transubstantiated” into our Lord’s Body and Blood, while the West has almost always used UNLEAVENED bread and wine which were kept in separate vessels and then Consecrated/“Transubstantiated” into our Lord’s Body and Blood. Because of the difficulty in meeting together on weekdays, and the strong desire to eat the Lord’s Body, Catholics were allowed to carry a few of the “Eucharisted” Hosts home with them and store them in “Family Tabernacle”. The father would then give the family members “their daily dread” during their Morning Prayers each day.

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

Your Brother and Servant in Christ, Michael

 

[K_C]

Good grief. Are priests so delicate they can’t bend over for, what, 15 minutes max. per Mass, with the opportunity to straighten their backs after each administration? [Sarcasm] However did those old guys manage in the past?

Here’s an alternative opinion:
latin-mass-society.org/2009/learningthemass.html

Also one of my own: The less you do, the less you want to do.

I made the remark about not posting in this forum because I eventually realised, after another forum user pointed it out, that traditionalists in this forum were often getting ‘het up’ about posts about matters that were, in fact, not traditional at all, this being one of them. There were a lot of long threads about Novus Ordo novelties. e.g. CITH, Altar girls, use of the vernacular.

So I thought I’d flag up this slight incongruity so other traditionalists might become aware of it. Lower the old blood pressure a bit. …
.

No problem, Layman. My blood pressure never rose. I guess I misunderstood the nature of this forum. I thought it was about the traditions of the Church. But I guess it is really about “traditionalism”.

I find that whole area rather confusing. At present, as I said, I have been under attack by some “traditionalists” who are also sedevacantists. I find it difficult to differentiate between those who simply prefer the TLM and those who (openly or secretly) defy the papacy (i.e. Pope Benedict et al since Vat II).

My question was not meant to affirm the practice of communion-in-the-hand. I receive on the tongue. I was just surprised when I came across that quotation by St. Basil about how to receive in the hand.

I do not doubt the comparative reverence of communicants receiving either way, however. What matters is what is in the mind and heart of each. Yet I do think that receiving on the tongue demonstrates reverence better. It is disheartening, to say the least, to hear reports that so many Catholics no longer even believe in the True Presence. I think that this also demonstrates that there really is something true about “Lex orandi, lex credendi”…or so it seems, anyway. (But I do not mean to get into that old debate again about the words of consecration. Been there, done that!)

THANKS AGAIN TO ALL WHO HAVE RESPONDED. YOUR (name removed by moderator)UT HAS BEEN A GREAT HELP!

 

[Jimzz12]

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.

And… women traditionally wear a purifier cloth over their hand. Reception is only in the palm of the right hand… never to touch fingers. Hand is not to go to mouth. Head is to bow to the hand acting as a ciborium.

Or so the Archbishop of Kazikstan says.

 

[Jimzz12]

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.

This was a gnostic practice. Never Catholic.

 

[Jimzz12]

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!

And… I would say, "Why cover my face? God can still see me. He can see everything.

 

[Jimzz12]

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.)

“Recieve as a child”

 

[Jimzz12]

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.

Basically… I goes like this…

There was a widespread disobedience in West Germany and somehow it was tolerated. The disobedience spread and to other countries. It is “allowed” in a manner of speaking for the same reasons Moses allowed divorce.

No lie.

For the record widespread disobedience is common… Do the German and Irish bishops still formerly oppose Humane Vitae? (i.e.)

 

[Cluny]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonboy23
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.

This was a gnostic practice. Never Catholic.**

If you are saying that it is a gnostic, non-Catholic, practice to receive in the hand, this is historically not true, as posts I have already given have shown.

 

[pnewton]

This was a gnostic practice. Never Catholic.

The fact that Catholics receive today belies that this was never Catholic. If you mean that prior to the last century it was never Catholic, that shows an ignorance of Church history, since it was the initial way of receiving communiont. Finally, the connection to gnosticism shows an ignorance of what gnosticism is, since their is no “gnostic way” to receive communion.

 

[Jimzz12]

**Quote:
Originally Posted by bostonboy23
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.

This was a gnostic practice. Never Catholic.**

If you are saying that it is a gnostic, non-Catholic, practice to receive in the hand, this is historically not true, as posts I have already given have shown.

I should have clarified. The argument for reception hand is a form of gnosticism in that it is a look backward to a past that does not exist. Moreover, it has been made clear that although the practice may have existed, as evidenced from artwork and other historical sources, it was indeed outside the Spirit of the Church. The reference is the book written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of Karaganda in Kazakhstan entitled *Dominus Est. *It is part of a more comprehensive dissertation endorsed by Archbishop Francis Cardinal Arinze attempting to dispel certain myths such as the one propogated here in this forum; among other tasks.

A source article. Also, a well developed interview by Fr. Pacwa on EWTN.

sanctepater.blogspot.com/search/label/reform%20of%20the%20reform%between%

te-deum.blogspot.com/2008/12/author-of-dominus-est-bp-athanasius.html

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/12/bishop-schneider-on-ewtn.html

marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2009/01/communion-on-tongue.html

Amazon link.

amazon.com/Dominus-Est-Reflections-Central-Communion/dp/0977884619/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1241276784&sr=8-3

Paperback: 63 pages
Publisher: Newman House Press; 1 edition (January 5, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0977884619
ISBN-13: 978-0977884612