Has the practice of Communion in the hand really strengthened and clarified ourfaith?

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

Could you please cite any document from the MAGISTERIUM where the MAGISTERIUM teaches that? Do you know what the word “magisterium” means? An individual Church Father is NOT the magisterium! History is not the magisterium! The Catholic Encyclopedia is NOT the magisterium!

So quotes from early Church Fathers who were bishops is not good enough for you? They are part of the Magisterium.

I will look for some more but you have yet to prove that reception of communion in the hand is not an ancient practice.

So let me get this right. You are saying that if the Magisterium does not state that reception of communion in the hand is an ancient practice, even though early Church Fathers (who were bishops so therefore are part of the Magisterium) and History also states that is happened, that it did not happen?

Or are you now just picking at nits becuase your contention that reception of communion in the hand is not an ancient practice has been proved to be wrong?

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

So quotes from early Church Fathers who were bishops is not good enough for you? They are part of the Magisterium.

I think you quoted just one or two of them. If you had read this thread you’ll see that the authenticity of some quotations is contested by some scholars.

I will look for some more but you have yet to prove that reception of communion in the hand is not an ancient practice.

That’s because I’m not trying to prove it. I never stated that it was not an ancient practice. I just QUESTIONED whether it was or not. Then BOOM you accused me of going against the teaching of the magisterium.

So let me get this right. You are saying that if the Magisterium does not state that reception of communion in the hand is an ancient practice, even though early Church Fathers (who were bishops so therefore are part of the Magisterium) and History also states that is happened, that it did not happen?

Or are you now just picking at nits becuase your contention that reception of communion in the hand is not an ancient practice has been proved to be wrong?

I’m not picking at “nits.” YOU were the one who accused me of going against the teaching of the magisterium. I take being faithful to the magisterium seriously. It may seem like something unimportant to you, but it is important to me. I also trust the magisterium more than I would any historians or people like you

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

I will look for some more but you have yet to prove that reception of communion in the hand is not an ancient practice.

Okay, I have done a bit of research and I have found a Magisterial document that acknowledges that reception of the Eucharist in the hand is an ancient practice. I will assume that one such cite is enough.

Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion

Specifically these two sentences (bold emphasis added).

At the same time a full sharing in the celebration of the Eucharist, expressed through Sacramental communion, has recently stirred up in some places the desire to return to the practice by which the Eucharistic bread is placed in the hand of the faithful who communicates himself by putting it in his mouth.

It is true that, according to ancient usage, it was once permitted for the faithful to take the sacred food in their hands and themselves to place it in their mouths and even, in the earliest period, to carry the holy Sacrament with them from the place of celebration, especially in order to receive it as viaticum if they should have to suffer for the profession of the faith.

There you go.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hey did anyone see the Popes First Mass? He was giving Communion in the hand to many Bishops/Cardinals.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Catholic Dude:

Hey did anyone see the Popes First Mass? He was giving Communion in the hand to many Bishops/Cardinals.

Yes, I noticed this too. It appeared to me that the majorityof them were still receiving on their tongue though as were most of the congregation (lay people and relgious). Another thing I noticed was that the concelebrants were self communicating by intinction. Maybe this is routinely practiced in the states I’ve just never noticed it before. Does anyone know?

 

[otm]

tuopaolo:

No I do not. The Church has not said that Communion on the tongue does not go back to the apostles.

Your last sentence is irrelevant as this is not about how much sacrilege currently occurs but about whether it would increase or decrease. Even if you couldn’t say for “a fact” one could say that probably it would decrease. This is not a math problem or a philosophical problem. This is about God.

Lack of statement of a non-event is not proof of the event, or even evidence that the event may have occured. There is evidence of Communion in the hand in the early Church. I have heard of no evidence of Communion on the tongue in the early Church, which is neither proof that it did or did not occur; if you have evidence, please provide.

However, with evidence of one but not the other, there is at least the legitimate supposition that the one not reported did not occur, or occured in so few circumstances as to approach non-occurance, and it is to the proponent of the occurance of the non-reported event to overcome the presumption that it did not occur.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

Okay, I have done a bit of research and I have found a Magisterial document that acknowledges that reception of the Eucharist in the hand is an ancient practice. I will assume that one such cite is enough.

Memoriale Domini, the Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion

I took all this time to research it, I was hopeing for some sort of response on it. Also was looking forward to a reply to otm, but I guess the silence is answer enough.

otm:

Lack of statement of a non-event is not proof of the event, or even evidence that the event may have occured. There is evidence of Communion in the hand in the early Church. I have heard of no evidence of Communion on the tongue in the early Church, which is neither proof that it did or did not occur; if you have evidence, please provide.

However, with evidence of one but not the other, there is at least the legitimate supposition that the one not reported did not occur, or occured in so few circumstances as to approach non-occurance, and it is to the proponent of the occurance of the non-reported event to overcome the presumption that it did not occur.

 

[tuopaolo]

ByzCath:

I took all this time to research it, I was hopeing for some sort of response on it.

Byz, FYI, I don’t subscribe to any threads so sometimes I will just miss a reply or read a reply, intend to reply later, perhaps in order to give it more thought or time, but then forget about it. Sometimes I will choose not to reply for whatever reason if for example I find the discussion going no where and have already had my say in it. You can always drop me a line if a reply seems belated.

otm should read what Jimmy Akin says about the so-called “burden of proof” as otm sorely misunderstands the concept:

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0310bt.asp

Now on to your gracious post which you took so much time to research. First the sacred Council of Trent infallibly taught that the tradition of Communion received from the hands of the priest is of apostolic origin:

“It has always been the practice in the Church of God in the reception of the Sacrament, that laypersons receive Communion from priests
and that the priest-celebrants give Communion to themselves. This practice, coming down lawfully and justly from Apostolic tradition, ought to be
retained.” ("… In sacramentali autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a sacerdotibus communionem acciperent, sacerdotes autem celebrantes se ipsos communicarent; qui mos tamquam ex traditione apostolica descendens iure ac merito retineri debet.") – Council of Trent, Sess. 13, chapter 8 (DS 1648)

franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/tongue.html

Second, given this infallibly teaching of the Council of Trent, what you quoted must be understood in its light. My understanding is that Communion in the hand was permitted under certain circumstances such as in times of persecution. This doesn’t change the fact that the norm was Communion on the tongue. Indeed even till this day the universal norm and law is Communion on the tongue. Communion in the hand is only permitted on a case by case basis whereby a conference of bishops submits a request to the Holy See asking special permission to allow Communion in the hand in their lands.

 

[toppro77]

Brendan:

I really can’t see how it has increase faith.

Though, in all fairness, His Holiness at one time gave Communion in the Hand.

He stopped when it was found out that occasionally, misguided persons were keeping the Eucharist recieved from his hands as a souvenir.

When did Pope John Paul II stop giving communion in the hand? I saw him pass it out like that many times, including word youth day 2002 which I have on VHS.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

tuopaolo:

Now on to your gracious post which you took so much time to research. First the sacred Council of Trent infallibly taught that the tradition of Communion received from the hands of the priest is of apostolic origin:

“It has always been the practice in the Church of God in the reception of the Sacrament, that laypersons receive Communion from priests
and that the priest-celebrants give Communion to themselves. This practice, coming down lawfully and justly from Apostolic tradition, ought to be
retained.” ("… In sacramentali autem sumptione semper in Ecclesia Dei mos fuit, ut laici a sacerdotibus communionem acciperent, sacerdotes autem celebrantes se ipsos communicarent; qui mos tamquam ex traditione apostolica descendens iure ac merito retineri debet.") – Council of Trent, Sess. 13, chapter 8 (DS 1648)

franciscan-archive.org/a…ica/tongue.html

I have never denied that reception of the Eucharist on the tongue was not also an ancient practice. After all I am a Byzantine and this is the only way we may recieve and as far as I know it is the only way we have always recieved.

That does not change the fact the reception of the Eucharist in the hand is also of apostolic origin.

Having said that, what you posted does not say anything about reception on the tongue. I would say that the excerpt you posted goes against the use of EMHC. As then one does not recieve communion from the priest. But then this also has issues as the deacon is also an Ordinary Minister of Communion.

Now I must add that you doubted that communion in hand was an ancient practice and you stated that the Church does not teach this. I have proven the latter false and by your link you prove the former false, unless you just found this link.

Second, given this infallibly teaching of the Council of Trent, what you quoted must be understood in its light. My understanding is that Communion in the hand was permitted under certain circumstances such as in times of persecution. This doesn’t change the fact that the norm was Communion on the tongue. Indeed even till this day the universal norm and law is Communion on the tongue. Communion in the hand is only permitted on a case by case basis whereby a conference of bishops submits a request to the Holy See asking special permission to allow Communion in the hand in their lands.

Sorry about that but it does not work. It is an ancient practice. You are now attempting to rationalize your stand after the proof you asked for has been supplied.

You are correct about Communion on Tongue being the norm but that is not what we are talking about here, that is just a Red Herring.

 

[brotherhrolf]

In all my years, I have never received the Holy Eucharist in my hand. I cannot conceive of doing so for me.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Hosts being left in the pews; hosts being put in pockets; hosts being sold on e-bay. Yes, Communion in the hand has sure strengthened and clarified our faith.

I know a Blessed Sacrament priest who is from Holland. Blessed Sacrament priests give retreats on the Eucharist and start up Perpetual Adoration Chapels for those who don’t know this order. He told me that Communion in the hand started in Holland out of disobedience. The bishops then petitioned Pope Paul VI for permission for Communion in the hand. They stated that since they were already doing it, and will continue the practice, they would like permission. If Paul VI had said no, they were going to continue their disobedience. This same tactic was later used to obtain permission for female altar servers.

---

Communion in the hand has weakened our faith by causing doubts about the Real Presence. When you only have priests and deacons distribute Communion and people kneel to receive it on their tongues, there is a built-in reverence for the Blessed Sacrament. When you have people receive Communion in the hand from their neighbor, it has the opposite effect.

---

We have only 30% of Catholics who believe what the Church teaches about the Blessed Sacrament, that it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ under the sacramental form of bread and wine. When 70% of Catholics believe something other than what Holy Mother Church teaches, we have a crisis in faith regarding the Blessed Sacrament. Eliminating Communion in the hand and cracking down on liturgical abuses, including abuses in the use of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, will go a long way to restoring the correct belief in the Blessed Sacrament among Catholics.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Catholic Dude:

Hey did anyone see the Popes First Mass? He was giving Communion in the hand to many Bishops/Cardinals.

Bishops, priests and deacons are the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion. Therefore, it is proper for them to receive Communion in the hand.

---

Bishops and priests consecrate the host everytime they say Mass, so there is no reason for Pope Benedict XVI to not give them Communion in the hand. The Church has always observed this practice.

---

However, the Church did revoke this practice from the laity. While it is true communicants received Communion in the hand in the early Church, there was a reason the practice was stopped. If anyone knows the answer, please post a link, as I am not sure exactly why the Church stopped this practice among the laity, although I have a good idea why it was stopped.

 

[rcn]

Swiss Guard:

Hosts being left in the pews; hosts being put in pockets; hosts being sold on e-bay. Yes, Communion in the hand has sure strengthened and clarified our faith.

Communion in the hand has nothing to do with the above.

We have only 30% of Catholics who believe what the Church teaches about the Blessed Sacrament

That’s not true.
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp

 

[mlchance]

Swiss Guard:

**Communion in the hand has weakened our faith by causing doubts about the Real Presence. **

Today’s logical fallacy is the post hoc.
Swiss Guard:
**We have only 30% of Catholics who believe what the Church teaches about the Blessed Sacrament, that it is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ under the sacramental form of bread and wine. **

As has been pointed out several times, this 30% statistic is not true.

Now here is something that is true: The Church permits receiving the Host in the hand.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

rcn:

Communion in the hand has nothing to do with the above.

That’s not true.
[catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp](http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp)

I notice you and mlchance are quick to say that it’s not true that only 30% of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. You posted the link, so I’ll respond to what Jimmy Akin says in the link.

**Q: I have repeatedly heard it said that only 33 percent, or something like that, of Catholics believe in the Real Presence. How scandalous! Is this true? **

A: No, it’s not, and it makes me want to tear my hair out every time I hear that bogus statistic. While the actual statistics are not what they should be, and do reveal a great deal of faulty catechesis, the numbers are nowhere near as dire as the above statistic would lead one to believe.

Allow me to set the record straight: The Gallup Organization conducted a phone poll of 519 American Catholics, 18 years or older, regarding their attitudes and beliefs about Holy Communion. The poll was conducted from December 10, 1991, to January 19, 1992. Pollsters consider a survey of this type to have an error rate of plus or minus five percent.

One of the questions asked was this: "Which one of the following statements about Holy Communion do you think best reflects your belief:

"[A] When receiving Holy Communion, you are really and truly receiving the body and blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, under the appearance of bread and wine, or

"** When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving bread and wine, which symbolize the spirit and teachings of Jesus and in so doing are expressing your attachment to his Person and words, or

"[C.] When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving bread and wine, in which Jesus is really and truly present, or

“[D.] When receiving Holy Communion, you are receiving the body and blood of Christ, which has become that because of your personal belief”

"[E.] Don’t Know

“[F.] Refused [to answer].”**
Akin then goes on to give the results.

The results: 30 percent picked A, 29 percent picked B, 10 percent picked C, 23 percent picked D, two percent picked E, three percent picked F, and an additional three percent volunteered that none of the above expressed their belief. We will refer to the latter category as option G.
It seems clear that only 30% believe in the Real Presence. Well, not according to Akin, as he gives his interpretation of the results.

Now let’s put the pieces together: Options A and D both essentially describe transubstantiation, though option D omits mentioning Christ’s soul and divinity and includes the erroneous notion that transubstantiation is dependent on one’s personal faith. Nevertheless, add the two together and it turns out 53 percent of American surveyed believe in transubstantiation.

So Akin is telling us that the erroneous belief that transubstantiation is dependent on one’s personal faith is Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, even though Akin himself states that option D is erroneous. This makes me wonder if Akin ever worked in the Clinton White House.

Continued in the next post…

 

[oat_soda]

As has been pointed out several times, this 30% statistic is not true.

according to james akin? like he’s the ultimate authority?

the fact is out of the 500 or so catholics polled, only 30% professed an acurate belief in the eucharist. in as far as that poll acurately sampled the true population of catholics, this statement is true. i’m sure even less follow the teaching on contraceptives.

Now here is something that is true: The Church permits receiving the Host in the hand.

therefore, receiving the eucharist in the hand is not inheirently evil or wrong. but, in today’s climate of secularism and skepticism, it can be argued that this discipline was imprudently reintroduced, as cardinal ratzinger, now Pope Benedict the XVI has argued against the reform of the liturgy. from what i have read, eucharist in the hand was ended because of problems of abuse, like we see today.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

Continuation of my previous post…

**

Now add in option C, which does assert the Real Presence, even though an erroneous view of it (i.e., consubstantiation), and it turns out that 63 percent believe in the Real Presence.

Now Akin adds that the erroneous view of consubstantiation is Catholic teaching on the Eucharist, even though he himself states that this view is erroneous as well.

Presumably, some of the remaining eight percent would also believe in the Real Presence. Consider, for example, a person who would have said yes to option D except for the fact that it omits reference to Christ’s soul and divinity; this person may well have said “none of the above” even though he clearly believed in the Real Presence.

Apparently Akin is an amateur mind reader as he says that people who answered “none of the above” may very well believe in the Real Presence, even though the person had the opportunity to choose option A but didn’t choose it. Akin sounds more like an Enron accountant than a Catholic apologist with the way he manipulates the numbers.

According to this line of logic, if 25% of Catholics answer a survey saying Jesus Christ is true God and true man, 25% answer Jesus is true God but not man, 25% answer Jesus is not true God but true man, and 25% answer Jesus doesn’t exist, 75% of Catholics would be in line with Catholic teaching, even though only 25% say Jesus is what the Church teaches.

The results are clear: 30% of Catholics in this survey believe in the Real Presence, no matter how Akin or anyone else on this forum want to distort the results. I suppose Communion in the hand has nothing to do with this, just as it has nothing to do with hosts being found in pews, choir lofts or sold on e-bay.

No matter how the numbers are manipulated to show Catholics belief in the Real Presence or the specious arguments used to justify this practice, the reality of loss of faith in the Real Presence and hosts being found everywhere - from pews to e-bay - show that Communion in the hand has weakened the Catholic faith and has enabled more occurances of sacrilege against Jesus in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar.

---

 

[Swiss_Guard]

mlchance:

Today’s logical fallacy is the post hoc.

I am not claiming that Communion in the hand is the only reason for a weakening of faith in the Real Presence. Poor catechesis and liturgical abuses also contribute to a weakening of faith. Is this a logical fallacy? Are you saying there is no weakening of faith in the Eucharist, no liturgical abuses or no evidence of poor catechesis? Are you saying everything is fine with the Church in America even though there are empty pews on Sundays? Are the empty pews my imagination too?

mlchance:

Now here is something that is true: The Church permits receiving the Host in the hand.

– Mark L. Chance.

Please point out to me where I said the Church does not permit Communion in the hand? My contention is that Communion in the hand doesn’t strengthen and clarify our faith.

---

Those who bring up that Communion in the hand was done in the early Church ignore the fact that harsh penances were also done in the early Church. Penitents used to have to beg for alms to be re-admitted into the Church, sometimes for an entire year. Should we return to this practice as well?

---

The fact that something was done in the early Church is not a reason to bring back that practice. We should instead find out why that practice was discontinued before making a judgment on bringing it back.

 

[Swiss_Guard]

oat soda:

according to james akin? like he’s the ultimate authority?

the fact is out of the 500 or so catholics polled, only 30% professed an acurate belief in the eucharist. in as far as that poll acurately sampled the true population of catholics, this statement is true. i’m sure even less follow the teaching on contraceptives. therefore, receiving the eucharist in the hand is not inheirently evil or wrong. but, in today’s climate of secularism and skepticism, it can be argued that this discipline was imprudently reintroduced, as cardinal ratzinger, now Pope Benedict the XVI has argued against the reform of the liturgy. from what i have read, eucharist in the hand was ended because of problems of abuse, like we see today.

Well said Oat Soda.

---

Not only is Jimmy Akin not the ultimate authority, he manipulates the results to make it say what he wants it to say rather than what it really says. This is not only poor apologetics, it is poor logic.