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

[AmbroseSJ]

Dauphin:

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.

abusus non tollit usum, plus the times are completely different.

In reading this thread, I am more convinced than ever that Communion-on-the-tongue people are no different, and no better than the radical post Vatican II liturgists. They are inflamed with a concept, but with no idea how to achieve it. They think like Bolsheviks, where they shoot first and ask questions later. Just make it a rule for everyone NOW, and we’ll figure something out. That’s exactly the type of strategy and policy that instigated so many post Vatican II liturgical abuses.

Everyone sees what great evils are raised by precipitous liturgical changes, and this one is more than that, it is a whole sacramental understanding. Right now Communion in the hand is stable and reverently done, no matter how much the Communion-on-the-tongue people say otherwise. If a change is actually required it should be done gradually, with much forethought and circumspection. There have already been enough drastic changes back and forth in these matters, and another sudden swing of the pendulum would do untold damage to the faithful’s faith and trust in their Church.

 

[Dauphin]

No its not.

I’m afraid you’re quite wrong on that one.

The earliest source for Communion on the hand is from St. Cyril of Jerusalem in A.D. 386.

Another source from this century for Communion on the tongue is earlier than this and reveals that Communion on the Hand was already a rare practice by the mid 4th century. St. Basil the Great, who died in 379, taught that Communion on the Hand was only permitted in times of persecution. Communion in the hand was not widespread in ancient times.

Sixtus I in the 2nd century taught that laymen shouldn’t touch the Sacred vessels, never mind the Host.

Pope Gregory the Great testified that Communion was received on the tongue as a universal practice in Rome. Leo the Great, who died in 461, talks about Communion in the mouth as the current usage.

All of these historical references are in the podcast in the first post. It’s very clear that the practiced improved over time, and Communion in the hand was gradually abolished.

Reception in the hand was the way it was done for centuries. Its the way people ate.

Yes, it’s the way people ate normal food. The Eucharist is not normal food.

Not only his apostles were present, but also disciples. Also, the Apostles gave communion to the people, in the hand.

Christ celebrated the Eucharist with His apostles, and was speaking to them, offering instruction to them alone.

There is nothing in scripture that hints at how Communion was received by laymen in the early Church.

No its not. Its an abnormal way of receiving food and it looks ridiculous. But each to his own.

Yes! It’s not a normal way of receiving at all. The Eucharist isn’t normal.

Kneeling and receiving on the tongue is a humble act.

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.

The protestant reformers were quite clear that they were using Communion on the hand to destroy belief in the real presence. This isn’t a matter of dispute.

 

[Dauphin]

abusus non tollit usum, plus the times are completely different.

In reading this thread, I am more convinced than ever that Communion-on-the-tongue people are no different, and no better than the radical post Vatican II liturgists. They are inflamed with a concept, but with no idea how to achieve it. They think like Bolsheviks, where they shoot first and ask questions later. Just make it a rule for everyone NOW, and we’ll figure something out. That’s exactly the type of strategy and policy that instigated so many post Vatican II liturgical abuses.

Everyone sees what great evils are raised by precipitous liturgical changes, and this one is more than that, it is a whole sacramental understanding. Right now Communion in the hand is stable and reverently done, no matter how much the Communion-on-the-tongue people say otherwise. If a change is actually required it should be done gradually, with much forethought and circumspection. There have already been enough drastic changes back and forth in these matters, and another sudden swing of the pendulum would do untold damage to the faithful’s faith and trust in their Church.

It’s a very simple thing to do. You’ve presented no argument that explains why it’s such a difficult matter.

Receiving on the tongue is a very widespread practice. Where I attend Mass, at least half the people do it. It wouldn’t be some extraordinary rupture, since reception on the tongue is already relatively common. Even where it’s not common, it wouldn’t involve any massive change. It’s a very easy method of reception, which anyone can do, assuming they have a mouth and a tongue.

I agree that there are some reasonable steps that could be taken for a gradual re-introduction of the practice, such as insistence by the Vatican that Children receiving first Communion be taught to receive on the tongue. Hopefully, however, the practice of reception on the hand will be abandoned, even if it takes a while.

This recommendation is part of a hermeneutic of continuity, in contrast to the hermeneutic of rupture by the modernists who so influenced the church after the Second Vatican Council.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

All of these historical references are in the podcast in the first post. It’s very clear that the practiced improved over time, and Communion in the hand was gradually abolished.

If you’re so convinced that things were so much better then, you might also want to do away with pews. They are basically a protestant invention. In the early days of the church people just stood and milled about (with their animals) Is it any wonder Communion on the tongue was considered necessary?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Dauphin:

It’s a very simple thing to do. You’ve presented no argument that explains why it’s such a difficult matter.

Just because you take no notice of them does not mean that I have not made plenty of mention in previous posts of what the problems are. The fact is, you have not explained even once, how this concept would in fact be practiced. Your explanation is “you just do it.” That does not take into account all of the problems that I mentioned, and still others I could mention. If your church already has so many people receiving on the tongue, then what’s your beef? Why are you still not satisfied? In every church in the World, Communion on the tongue is an option, if not mandatory. You have no reason to complain, other than your dislike of other people’s spirituality.

 

[japhy]

If you’re so convinced that things were so much better then, you might also want to do away with pews. They are basically a protestant invention. In the early days of the church people just stood and milled about (with their animals)…

Hey, the Eastern Church gets by just fine standing!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Here’s a less biased article, on receiving Communion in the hand and tongue.

Once piece in the article that you’ll see;

In the early days of the Church the faithful frequently carried the Blessed Eucharist with them to their homes (cf. Tertullian, “Ad uxor.”, II, v; Cyprian, “De lapsis”, xxvi) or upon long journeys (Ambrose, De excessu fratris, I, 43, 46), while the deacons were accustomed to take the Blessed Sacrament to those who did not attend Divine service (cf. Justin, Apol., I, n. 67), as well as to the martyrs, the incarcerated, and the infirm (cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI, xliv). The deacons were also obliged to transfer the particles that remained to specially prepared repositories called Pastophoria (cf. Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, xiii).

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Jim

 

[Dauphin]

If you’re so convinced that things were so much better then, you might also want to do away with pews. They are basically a protestant invention. In the early days of the church people just stood and milled about (with their animals) Is it any wonder Communion on the tongue was considered necessary?

I’m sure that’s a caricature.

I’m not making an argument that things are better because they’re older - quite the opposite. Just as Communion on the hand was an improvement, so was the introduction of pews and kneelers, to make postures of adoration more common.

 

[Dauphin]

Here’s a less biased article, on receiving Communion in the hand and tongue.

Once piece in the article that you’ll see;

matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html

Jim

Some of these were highly questionable practices that were discontinued for a reason. Simply because the practice was ancient, doesn’t make it good.

I don’t think deacons handling Communion for extraordinary purposes was harmful at all, though.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Some of these were highly questionable practices that were discontinued for a reason. Simply because the practice was ancient, doesn’t make it good.

I don’t think deacons handling Communion for extraordinary purposes was harmful at all, though.

It wasn’t just deacons, as the little piece that you did read said, the “faithful,” would carry communion home with them.

Obviously you didn’t read the article that I linked to.

Jim

 

[Dauphin]

Just because you take no notice of them does not mean that I have not made plenty of mention in previous posts of what the problems are. The fact is, you have not explained even once, how this concept would in fact be practiced. Your explanation is “you just do it.” That does not take into account all of the problems that I mentioned, and still others I could mention. If your church already has so many people receiving on the tongue, then what’s your beef? Why are you still not satisfied? In every church in the World, Communion on the tongue is an option, if not mandatory. You have no reason to complain, other than your dislike of other people’s spirituality.

It’s not spirituality that I take issue with. I’m sure most people who receive on the hand to it reverently. I do have a problem with reception on the Hand as a behavior, though; I think it’s a poor practice - just like carrying Communion home was.

The issues you raised were superfloous, and I already dealed with them. Nothing would be absolutely required to change besides the practice of reception on the hand itself; no “extras” are required to facilitate reception on the tongue, otherwise nobody would be able to do it today.

 

[Dauphin]

It wasn’t just deacons, as the little piece that you did read said, the “faithful,” would carry communion home with them.

Obviously you didn’t read the article that I linked to.

Jim

Yes, I was well aware of that practice before. It’s a perfect example of a very poor practice which was discontinued for good reason.

You’ve made it clear that you didn’t listen to the podcast, otherwise you wouldn’t have gotten your facts wrong in the first instance. So we’re even.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.