Fr. Z: Don't Receive Communion in the Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dauphin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
japhy said:
There are sacred vessels designed for a single priest to hold both paten and chalice. And an altar server could hold a communion plate for safety. I don’t know offhand what to do about those who would prefer not intinction, but I’m sure they wouldn’t be left out in the cold.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe there would be any prohibition for a server or an EMHC to hold the chalice for the priest.
 
Dauphin said:
Although all the things you describe would be wonderful, none of them are necessary to introduce reception on the tongue as mandatory. Hopefully, the “Tridentine” practice will return to universality in the Church, but this simply isn’t essential. Everyone could be required to receive on the tongue today without any architectural or logistical difficulties, and the fruits would be enormous.
Click to expand...
Please describe. I never hear anyone say how this can be done. Are you further suggesting that Communion under both species would therefore be discarded?
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Please describe. I never hear anyone say how this can be done. Are you further suggesting that Communion under both species would therefore be discarded?
Click to expand...
Here’s how:
  1. Move your hands out of the way
  2. Stick out your tongue.
As to how the Vatican could implement this practice:
  1. Rescind the indults.
It’s that simple. No further changes would be necessary. Communion would move just as smoothly as ever.
 
AmbroseSJ said:
Please describe. I never hear anyone say how this can be done. Are you further suggesting that Communion under both species would therefore be discarded?
Click to expand...
Communion under both species is already optional and has been. It is not mandatory.
 
Dauphin said:
Here’s how:
  1. Move your hands out of the way
  2. Stick out your tongue.
As to how the Vatican could implement this practice:
  1. Rescind the indults.
It’s that simple. No further changes would be necessary. Communion would move just as smoothly as ever.
Click to expand...
That’s the sort of pathetic answer I might have expected. 🤷

Instead, why don’t you do the above, and leave everyone else alone?
 
snhs said:
Church teaching has said for two thousand years or so that we should receive in the mouth. Was the Church wrong in that period for not allowing people to receive in the hand?
Click to expand...
Uh. This is patently false. See the link below which confirms that in the 4th century communion was received in the hand. The document quotes St. Cyril. This is not a “recent” invention. It is allowing people the option to return to an ancient practice that was not permitted for a time more recently. Fourth century trumps early 20th century. Therefore, both practices have an “ancient” tradition that should be reverent regardless of which way is chosen.

adoremus.org/1101Communionhand.html
 
AmbroseSJ said:
That’s the sort of pathetic answer I might have expected. 🤷

Instead, why don’t you do the above, and leave everyone else alone?
Click to expand...
Is there something incomplete about the answer? Have I left something out? Is what I say impossible?

What problem do you see with rescinding permission for reception on the hand? Why is this a complex matter?

People receive on the tongue all the time; making this practice universal is a simple matter.
 
jc-servant said:
Uh. This is patently false. See the link below which confirms that in the 4th century communion was received in the hand. The document quotes St. Cyril. This is not a “recent” invention. It is allowing people the option to return to an ancient practice that was not permitted for a time more recently. Fourth century trumps early 20th century. Therefore, both practices have an “ancient” tradition that should be reverent regardless of which way is chosen.

adoremus.org/1101Communionhand.html
Click to expand...
Because something is ancient, that doesn’t make it good. The practice of receiving on the tongue was made universal in the Church, and for good reason. The practice recommended by St. Cyril was discontinued because it was rightly judged to be inferior.

Listen to the podcast in the OP.
 
Lepanto
Why can’t we have both outward ritual observance AND inner purity and holiness?
Click to expand...
Outward reverance is subjective, inward reverence is judged by the Lord alone for its purity.

Jesus rejected ceremonial sanctity, and so should we.

Jim
 
wow said:
What I take from Cardinal Ratzinger’s message is that we be concerned with, “…a reverence in the heart…” not which way we decide to receive as long as the way is allowed by our Church.

I will admit that these documents can be interpreted in different ways according to each individual. Because of this, I think we as laity shouldn’t argue the point but trust that the Holy Spirit is going to guide the Church in it’s decision. When the Church decrees that one way is to be used I will obey and pray all others accept the decision.

During Mass, I would hate to think that reverence is simply diminished because someone’s observation of how others choose to receive. What I mean is that if someone is thinking of me or my reverence because of how I receive Communion, are they fully focused and showing the utmost reverence to our Lord during the Mass?

I apologize you misinterpreted my defense of receiving Communion in the hand. When I stated, “Lord I am unworthy to receive you, only say the word and I shall be healed”, I was trying to convey that by our faith, the Lord heals us from sin and allows us to accept Communion…in either way as allowed by the Church.

I’m not saying taking Communion on the tongue is wrong or superior just as I believe receiving Communion in the hand is not wrong or inferior. With the proper reverence in our hearts, either way is equal.

Peace…
Click to expand...
The inner reverence is undoubtedly the most important thing but the fact is by deciding to receive in the hand/on the tongue we make a decision about which is best for us.

You appear to miss the point that individuals are often influenced by the Holy Spirit to effect change in the Church. Perhaps Abp. Ranjith’s comments form the start of that perhaps not. I think that the laity should be aware of why they take Communion by one method or the other. Both may be allowed but the arguments for Communion on the tongue seem more persuasive than those for Communion in the hand. Unless we can explain to ourselves, even if to no one else, why we choose one form over I think it is right to discuss it.

I don’t think many people allow such distractions to affect their observance of what they are doing. But they are still aware that people receive on the hand when they leave the Church, at that time I think its legitimate to discuss it.

I’m not convinced that both ways are equal. A few weeks ago I was serving at a Mass and watching the Priest so I would know when he was returning to the Altar. Someone received Communion in the hand then proceeded to leave the Church, dropping the Host at least once, and exiting with it still held in her hand. I like to think that I was fully focused at the time on my tasks as an Altar server, but it is one of the most unsettling acts I’ve ever seen. Was I showing less reverence for Our Lord by finding this unsettling/being aware of it? I don’t think I was, and obviously I was and am aware that she may not have understood the rules. Had she received on the tongue the eventuality probably wouldn’t have came up, if it had someone at the back would probably have noticed as she removed it from her mouth rather than just the Priest and Altar boy being aware of it. The Church surely has a duty to prevent this kind of incident from happening, if one method or another makes it less likely that it can happen I think its worth pursuing.

To be honest I question how many people are aware why one way might be preferable. A lot of people seem to receive in the hand because thats what they see others do. I made my First Communion in Primary 3 (when I was 7), one of our teachers told us that we shouldn’t receive in the hand until we stopped running our hands along walls as we walked. I think if we accept that both ways are allowed then we also accept the people receiving should be aware of the possible reasons for receiving by one method or another, if they’re not I don’t see how they can make a good decision on what is a very important subject.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Lepanto

Outward reverance is subjective, inward reverence is judged by the Lord alone for its purity.

Jesus rejected ceremonial sanctity, and so should we.

Jim
Click to expand...
He rejected outward displays of religion that sacrifice the truth, and cause us to neglect true worship of God, but he never told us we can behave like baboons during the Mass, if it suits our subjective sense of reverence.

Reverence is subjective to a degree, since it is informed by culture, but there are certain acts that are simply more inherently reverent than others and certain acts that cannot be interpreted as reverent. There are objective methods of displaying and engendering reverence. For example, dressing up as a clown isn’t one of them. Nothing can make that reverent.
 
I received my first Holy Communion, 50 years ago. My mother still has the photo my father took of me, kneeling at the altar rail with my tongue stretched out as far as I could(per instructions from the nuns), as I was about to receive. I always thought how ridiculous I looked and even to this day. I don’t think such a posture is reverent at all, but in fact, just the opposite.

Jesus instructed us to take and eat of his body. I don’t think He intended us to put ourselves into such contortions, in order to receive Him.

Also, the early Church Christians, received with their hands. Receiving on the tongue didn’t come until much later,

Jim
 
jc-servant said:
Uh. This is patently false. See the link below which confirms that in the 4th century communion was received in the hand. The document quotes St. Cyril. This is not a “recent” invention. It is allowing people the option to return to an ancient practice that was not permitted for a time more recently. Fourth century trumps early 20th century. Therefore, both practices have an “ancient” tradition that should be reverent regardless of which way is chosen.

adoremus.org/1101Communionhand.html
Click to expand...
So do some heresies. Indeed some heresies were supported by Saints.

I don’t think just because some practices were used by the early Church we should use them. Its worth remembering that the early Church was in a very extreme not to mention perilous situation for its early centuries. Masses were held in homes, there were few opportunities to erect public Churches etc. I have yet to hear that the Church in America etc are in a similarly extreme case necessitating similarly extreme measures. There is a reason that one of the Popes decided at some point what the established norm should be for receiving Communion.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
I received my first Holy Communion, 50 years ago. My mother still has the photo my father took of me, kneeling at the altar rail with my tongue stretched out as far as I could(per instructions from the nuns), as I was about to receive. I always thought how ridiculous I looked and even to this day. I don’t think such a posture is reverent at all, but in fact, just the opposite.

Jesus instructed us to take and eat of his body. I don’t think He intended us to put ourselves into such contortions, in order to receive Him.

Also, the early Church Christians, received with their hands. Receiving on the tongue didn’t come until much later,

Jim
Click to expand...
The sources for reception on the tongue are quite as ancient as those few for reception in the hand. Reception in the hand was done principally under emergency conditions, such as when a priest was unavailable. There are very early texts referring to how is it more suitable and reverent to receive on the tongue. Fr. Z addresses the historical arguments in the podcast.

Christ commanded his apostles to take Communion in the hand, not the lay faithful. Receiving on the tongue and kneeling is hardly a contortion, but a very simple and humble act.

It should give great pause that the protestant reformers used Communion in the hand to destroy belief in the real presence and de-emphasize the ministerial priesthood.
 
Lepanto said:
He did? How?
Click to expand...
All their works are performed to be seen. They widen their phylacteries and lengthen their tassels Mathew 23:5
Click to expand...
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which appear beautiful on the outside, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth.
Click to expand...
Even so, on the outside you appear righteous, but inside you are filled with hypocrisy and evildoing. Mathew 23:28
Click to expand...
.

Jim
 
Dauphin
The sources for reception on the tongue are quite as ancient as those few for reception in the hand.
Click to expand...
No its not.
Reception in the hand was done principally under emergency conditions, such as when a priest was unavailable. There are very early texts referring to how is it more suitable and reverent to receive on the tongue.
Click to expand...
Reception in the hand was the way it was done for centuries. Its the way people ate.
Christ commanded his apostles to take Communion in the hand, not the lay faithful.
Click to expand...
Not only his apostles were present, but also disciples. Also, the Apostles gave communion to the people, in the hand.
Receiving on the tongue and kneeling is hardly a contortion, but a very simple and humble act.
Click to expand...
No its not. Its an abnormal way of receiving food and it looks ridiculous. But each to his own.
It should give great pause that the protestant reformers used Communion in the hand to destroy belief in the real presence and de-emphasize the ministerial priesthood.
Click to expand...
No, they didn’t believe in the real presence when they began this in the first place.

What you believe as a Church, has to do with what is taught.

Receiving on the tongue has nothing to do with teaching of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The original purpose for mandating reception on the tongue, had to do with abuse, not as a way to be more reverent.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top