Eucharist in the Hand

[Lil_Flower_Love]

Hey Everyone

Recently, someone told me that the way in which permission to receive the Eucharist in the hand came about was through disobedience to the Holy Father. He told me that some priests in Europe were the first to give the Eucharist in the hand and when it came to the attention of Pope Paul VI, he condemned it and ordered that it be stopped. The priests who were doing this continued to do it and more began to distribute the Eucharist in the hand as well. It was only after this that Pope Paul VI allowed reception of the Eucharist in the hand rather than continue to fight these priests.

Does anyone know if this it true?

Thanks and God bless!

 

[Crusader]

Lil Flower Love:

Hey Everyone

Recently, someone told me that the way in which permission to receive the Eucharist in the hand came about was through disobedience to the Holy Father. He told me that some priests in Europe were the first to give the Eucharist in the hand and when it came to the attention of Pope Paul VI, he condemned it and ordered that it be stopped. The priests who were doing this continued to do it and more began to distribute the Eucharist in the hand as well. It was only after this that Pope Paul VI allowed reception of the Eucharist in the hand rather than continue to fight these priests.

Does anyone know if this it true?

Thanks and God bless!

Communion in the hand actually dates from the very earliest period of the Church. Going to communion strictly on the tongue came about from abuses.

I’m not sure when communion in the hand was once again allowed (the GIRM of 1973 perhaps?), but I’m sure it was due to some degree (officially or not) to the explosive (and in many cases abusive) use of EMHCs.

 

[Marie]

Lil Flower Love:

Hey Everyone

Recently, someone told me that the way in which permission to receive the Eucharist in the hand came about was through disobedience to the Holy Father. He told me that some priests in Europe were the first to give the Eucharist in the hand and when it came to the attention of Pope Paul VI, he condemned it and ordered that it be stopped. The priests who were doing this continued to do it and more began to distribute the Eucharist in the hand as well. It was only after this that Pope Paul VI allowed reception of the Eucharist in the hand rather than continue to fight these priests.

Does anyone know if this it true?

Thanks and God bless!

Sounds like a fairy tale to me. The church stance for the first 1500 years on receiving the eucharist was standing. It was only 500 years ago that kneeling was introduced. Of the two, kneeling is the newer tradition.

 

[Ichthus]

1. Kneeling, not standing, is the longer tradition in the Latin Rite. Dating since before the Middle ages
2. The post was about communion in hand, not about standing!
3. Yes, this is true. In fact universal law still forbids communion in
   hand. It is by indult that it is now allowed.
4. The US got this indult, or permission to deviate from normal law, in 1977.
5. The conditions were laid out in 1968. 2/3rd of the Epicopal conference of the nation and permission of Rome is necessary. Individual bishops can still ban the practice. Priests can refuse it if they have reasonable suspicion of sacrilege.
6. Yes communion in hand was practiced in the early Church, but we are not doing it like they did. Do women now use veils covering their hands? No, but they did then. Antiquarinism is a bad argument.

adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Paul VI resisted and condemned the practice illicitly introduced in Erope. When it had spread he issued an “indult”. The idea was that the faithful were mislead in think it was okay according to Church law and that it would be a cause of disunity to pursue it further.

1. I do not, I waht to make this clear, think that those who receive on hand are, for this reason, any lesser than those who receive on tongue. Man receive on hand reverently, where permitted. So don’t misunderstand me

P.s., Crusader, you have it backwards. The wide use of EMHC’s came after communion in hand, which was 1977 in the US. It also came about because in 1978 the bishops authorised both species at every Sunday Mass, where before, in accordance with Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, communion under both kinds was restricted to special occasions. Also the misunderstanding that ensued when self intinction was reprobated. Intinction was thrown out as well.

 

[Marie]

1. Kneeling, not standing, is the longer tradition in the Latin Rite. Dating since before the Middle ages

1. The post was about communion in hand, not about standing!
2. Yes, this is true. In fact universal law still forbids communion in
   hand. It is by indult that it is now allowed.
3. The US got this indult, or permission to deviate from normal law, in 1977.
4. The conditions were laid out in 1968. 2/3rd of the Epicopal conference of the nation and permission of Rome is necessary. Individual bishops can still ban the practice. Priests can refuse it if they have reasonable suspicion of sacrilege.
5. Yes communion in hand was practiced in the early Church, but we are not doing it like they did. Do women now use veils covering their hands? No, but they did then. Antiquarinism is a bad argument.

adoremus.org/0203CommunionHand.html

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

Paul VI resisted and condemned the practice illicitly introduced in Erope. When it had spread he issued an “indult”. The idea was that the faithful were mislead in think it was okay according to Church law and that it would be a cause of disunity to pursue it further.

1. I do not, I waht to make this clear, think that those who receive on hand are, for this reason, any lesser than those who receive on tongue. Man receive on hand reverently, where permitted. So don’t misunderstand me

P.s., Crusader, you have it backwards. The wide use of EMHC’s came after communion in hand, which was 1977 in the US. It also came about because in 1978 the bishops authorised both species at every Sunday Mass, where before, in accordance with Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, communion under both kinds was restricted to special occasions. Also the misunderstanding that ensued when self intinction was reprobated. Intinction was thrown out as well.

Yes I know it is about communion in the hand. The tradition which I am quoteing from Catholic Encylepedia state Standing and receiving in the Hand were the norm until 1500’s. It even explains that men received directly into their hand and the woman received in the hand but their hands were covered to receive. I can’t find it right now but the in the Hand was the norm until the reformation. I’ll see if I can find the article again.

 

[Marie]

Now what I was trying to get at was the fact that in the early church they recieved on the hand and standing. This Article was one:

newadvent.org/cathen/04170a.htm

Communion Bench
An adaptation of the sanctuary guard or altar rail. Standing in front of this barrier, in a space called the chancel, or pectoral, the faithful were wont in early times to receive Holy Communion, the men taking the Consecrated Bread into their hands and the women receiving it on a white cloth, called the domenical, while deacons administered the Precious Blood which each took through a reed of gold or silver. About the twelfth century when the custom arose of receiving under one kind only, the priests placed the small Hosts on the tongues of the communicants at the chancel-rail.

Later on, about the fifteenth century the practice was introduced of receiving Holy Communion kneeling, and so the altar-rail gradually came to assume a form better suited to its modern use, and like what it is at present (Bourassé, Dict. D’Arch. Paris, 1851). When large crowd approach the altar on special occasions so that the ordinary accommodation for receiving is not adequate, a row of prie-Dieu or benches provided with Communion cloths or cards, with a lighted candle at the end of each row, may be arranged around the chancel. (Cong. of Rites, Decr. 3086, Nov. ed.)

The other connecting article which I am still trying to locate shows that there was a bit of scuffle at the time when the Norm was changed to kneeling and receiving on the tongue. They argued then also that it was a abuse. I found that highly amusing to say the least because here we are going full circle again and in the opposite direction. I will see if I can find the actual article. It ties in and is very interesting.

 

[Lil_Flower_Love]

Thanks for the links, Ichthus! :tiphat:

 

[Crusader]

Marie:

Sounds like a fairy tale to me. The church stance for the first 1500 years on receiving the eucharist was standing. It was only 500 years ago that kneeling was introduced. Of the two, kneeling is the newer tradition.

Hand vs. tongue, not kneeling vs. standing.

 

[Marie]

Crusader:

Hand vs. tongue, not kneeling vs. standing.

I know that…ROFLOL! I started out saying it backwards and no one has figured out that I got it backwards and corrected it.That is what the article states…in the HAND! Give and old lady a break…giggle! I’m slow but I got it. FINALLY!

It’s not easy being old…but you can learn from me. Die young.

newadvent.org/cathen/04170a.htm

Communion Bench
An adaptation of the sanctuary guard or altar rail. Standing in front of this barrier, in a space called the chancel, or pectoral, the faithful were wont in early times to receive Holy Communion, the men taking the Consecrated Bread into their hands and the women receiving it on a white cloth, called the domenical, while deacons administered the Precious Blood which each took through a reed of gold or silver. About the twelfth century when the custom arose of receiving under one kind only, the priests placed the small Hosts on the tongues of the communicants at the chancel-rail.

 

[Crusader]

Ichthus:

1. Yes communion in hand was practiced in the early Church, but we are not doing it like they did. Do women now use veils covering their hands? No, but they did then. Antiquarinism is a bad argument.

P.s., Crusader, you have it backwards. The wide use of EMHC’s came after communion in hand, which was 1977 in the US. It also came about because in 1978 the bishops authorised both species at every Sunday Mass, where before, in accordance with Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy, communion under both kinds was restricted to special occasions. Also the misunderstanding that ensued when self intinction was reprobated. Intinction was thrown out as well.

6a.) One thing is for certain. They didn’t receive on the tongue in the first century like we do today. Tradition (not “antiquarinism”) is an extremely strong argument for allowing us to receive in hand. Your veiled head comment added absolutely nothing to your argument however.

P.s.a. You’re confused on this matter. EMHCs (at least male EMHCs) were allowed with the release of Fideo Custos in 1969. It certainly didn’t take until 1977 for their widespread use (and abuse) to be extremely widespread – at least here in the USA. I have absolutely no doubt that the approval of “communion in hand” was strengthened/accelerated to some degree by the huge gang of EMHCs that now routinely descend on most sanctuaries during Communion…

 

[Crusader]

Veiled hands that is. You are describing how Holy Communion was distributed in the Middle Ages and later, not how it was distributed in the first several hundred years of the Church’s existance.

 

[dutch]

What good was brought about by allowing communion in the hand? Just because it was the norm at one time doesn’t imply we need to do it again. With today’s ignorance about the sacredness of the Eucharist, why would a Bishop allow an action or discipline that is more casual? We live in a relativistic, skeptical world where most people believe that the truth can’t be known.

In my experience, people enjoy kneeling and receiving the Eucharist on the tongue. Why wouldn’t you? - It’s much more reverent. What’s especially irritating to me is that Episcopalians, who’ve made a mockery of Christianity, generally use the altar rail. Finally, although this is an aside, why does the Novus Ordo mass make so few references about the literal meaning of the Eucharist? I know that most of the time during mass it is referred to as “bread”. I think if you put all of these things together, you see a diabolical attack on the Eucharist by liberal influences inside the church.

 

[Brendan]

dutch:

I know that most of the time during mass it is referred to as “bread”.

If you look at the Rubrics, whenever it is refered to a bread, it actually is bread at that time. The references are prior to completion of the Institutional Narrative. If the priest reffered to the bread as the Body of Christ prior to that point, it would be incorrect.

 

[dutch]

Brendan:

If you look at the Rubrics, whenever it is refered to a bread, it actually is bread at that time. The references are prior to completion of the Institutional Narrative. If the priest reffered to the bread as the Body of Christ prior to that point, it would be incorrect.

In Eucharistic Prayer II, after the concecration, a valid response is:“When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.”

also:“In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.”

Can anyone give me a reason why communion in the hand is a good idea?

 

[Crusader]

dutch:

In Eucharistic Prayer II, after the concecration, a valid response is:“When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.”

also:“In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.”

Can anyone give me a reason why communion in the hand is a good idea?

Though we do receive Communion in the Catholic Church I am reminded of His words at the last Supper:

“…TAKE, eat, this is my Body, which has been giving up for you…”

It sure dosen’t sound like Communion on the tongue to me…

 

[cmom]

dutch:

In Eucharistic Prayer II, after the concecration, a valid response is:“When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, Lord Jesus, until you come in glory.”

also:“In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.”

Can anyone give me a reason why communion in the hand is a good idea?

Jesus called Himself the Bread of Life.

 

[dutch]

I don’t think using the Last Supper as a model of discipline is a good idea. Does this mean we should celebrate the Eucharist sitting at a table like the early church did? I believe this ideal of going back to the simple customs of the early church was condemned by one of the popes, either Pius X or XII.

Also different is he ate dinner with the apostles who were all priests. I’m not trying to say it’s a sin to receive the Eucharist in the hand, only it’s not a good idea in this day of skepticism and overall crisis of faith.

I don’t think anyone has given a reason why it is a good thing to receive in the hand.

 

[cmom]

Because the Church has approved it.

 

[dutch]

Just because the church approves something doesn’t make it a good idea. This is strictly a disiplinary function and the church has made a lot of mistakes, like the children’s crusade for instance.

The church is made up of people who make mistakes like everyone else. They only never make mistakes in matters of faith and morals.

 

[kmktexas]

dutch:

Just because the church approves something doesn’t make it a good idea. This is strictly a disiplinary function .

Speaking of mistakes, I have heard that the bishops of the Phillapines originally asked for and were granted the indult for Communion in the Hand. After noticing that irreverance for the Eucharist was increasing, they rescinded their request and the country went back to Communion only on the tongue.

Does anyone know if this is a true story?