Hildebrand on Communion in the Hand

[Maximian]

I would very much like to hear a thoughtful response from a supporter of communion in the Hand to this paragraph of Dietrich von Hildebrand:

“Unfortunately, in many places Communion is distributed in the hand. To what extent is this supposed to be a renewal and a deepening of the reception of Holy Communion? Is the trembling reverence with which we receive this incomprehensible gift perhaps increased by re-receiving it in our unconsecrated hands, rather than from the consecrated hand of the priest? It is not difficult to see that the danger of parts of the consecrated Host falling to the ground is incomparably increased, and the danger of desecrating it or indeed of horrible blasphemy is very great. And what in the world is to be gained by all this? The claim that contact with the hand makes the host more real is certainly pure nonsense. For the theme here is not the reality of the matter of the Host, but rather the consciousness, which is only attainable by faith, that the Host in reality has become the Body of Christ. The reverent reception of the Body of Christ on our tongues, from the consecrated hand of the priest, is much more conducive to the strengthening of this consciousness than reception with our own unconsecrated hands.” (The Devastated Vineyard, pp. 67/8.)

 

[Roguish]

What’s there to comment? This was Von Hildebrand’s view of Communion in the hand. You either agree with it or you don’t. It’s clear that the RCC at large decided a long time ago that it does not agree with Von Hildebrand on this matter. Me personally, I do agree with him, especially his point that it’s rather strange that the priest (who is already a consecrated man) must still ritually cleanse and consecrate his hands to touch the host, but then an unconsecrated layman is allowed to receive the same host in his uncleansed, unconsecrated hands. (And in his left hand, for crying out loud, which is considered the dirty hand in many cultures across the world.) It’s irreverent and makes no sense.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

especially his point that it’s rather strange that the priest (who is already a consecrated man) must still ritually cleanse and consecrate his hands to touch the host, but then an unconsecrated layman is allowed to receive the same host in his uncleansed, unconsecrated hands.

EMCHs nor Deacons cleanse their hands. They touch Eucharist even when communion on the tongue is in place.

It’s clear that the RCC at large decided a long time ago that it does not agree with Von Hildebrand on this matter.

Technically norm is still COTT but CITH is allowed as an exception. In Slovakia CITH came with corona and will disappear with corona. CITH is against canon law unless there is indult from Holy See.

 

[Maximian]

What’s there to comment? T

He actually asks a question. Id like to know if there is a thoughtful answer

 

[BartholomewB]

The claim that contact with the hand makes the host more real is certainly pure nonsense.

I agree that it’s nonsense, but has anyone ever made that claim? I had never heard that until now.

The reverent reception of the Body of Christ on our tongues, from the consecrated hand of the priest, is much more conducive to the strengthening of this consciousness than reception with our own unconsecrated hands.”

Here Hildebrand seems to be describing his subjective experience: “I find it more conducive.” Others would disagree. Personally, and speaking subjectively, I find both forms equally conducive.

 

[CaptFun]

I think she is a very holy lady.

I take communion on the tongue ALMOST always.

But, ok, despite agreeing with Mrs. von Hildebrand (who with her late Theologian husband may one day be canonized together), I can give some “arguments” in favor of the “other side”.

PROBABLY at the Last Supper Jesus did not take the host and place it on the apostles’ tongues.

The “take and eat” command doesn’t specify how … and I can see them taking the body by hand and taking it to their mouths … much more easily than taking it directly to their tongues from His hand or the hand of the apostle passing the Eucharist to them.

The cup? Well THAT seems likely passed, then self administered as we do today.

In this time I went to communion JUST before the covid close downs and the Eu-minister-ess asked me - after saying “Body of Christ”, but before placing it on my tongue - to extend my hands. I just said “please” and she deftly did place it on my tongue (per my right - but perhaps one I needn’t have insisted upon - if INSIST I actually did).

I do think receiving on the tongue prevents those who might try to desecrate a Eucharist to have a harder time.

And even per covid … one less set of hands touching the Eucharist before inception is at least a mitigation of any “hands are better” rules.

Today I saw 4 little boys receive their first communions. Beautiful.

Even on a weekday half empty church instead of a Sunday – with a Churchful of relatives and a bigger class of kids.

I received MY first communion 62 years ago.

Kneeling.

At an altar rail.

From a priest.

Attended by an altar boy dutifully holding a golden patent beneath my chin

to care for each SPECK of Eucharist that might accidentally fall.

I still try to quickly genuflect (forward) before receiving … standing … to kneel at least that much before my God (and after getting back to my seat/pew … even if there’s no kneelers), when I can.

If the Eucharist is GOD … and it is … I should act like it, I feel.

It’s a part of the PUBLIC worship Jesus more than deserves.

Especially now, when due to covid and my age I am dispensed for now from even HAVING to go to Sunday Mass and keep holy the Lord’s Day that way …

and my terribly sloppy “attendance” at cyber masses ( on my bed, sipping COFFEE, pausing the broadcast to … whatever??!) …

Taking the Alice von Hildebrand preference of communion on the tongue versus the (more profane?) option of in the hand IS my preference. To me more fittingly formal and helpful to my efforts at reverence.

 

[Montrose]

People may voice a preference for receiving on the tongue or in the hand but they have no right to say one is more reverent than the other. The Church does not do this.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

they have no right to say one is more reverent than the other. The Church does not do this.

Church does. Communion in the hand is allowed as exception. Conference of Bishops needs to ask Holy See for permission to allow it. Communion on the tongue is automatically allowed and the norm always.

If one is norm and other is only allowed when Holy See allows it you can see Church has kind of preference. If you tried receiving in the hand in Slovakia you would not be able to (before covid crisis that is).

 

[InThePew]

1. Communion of the hand was practised in the Early Church. That doesn’t make it superior or preferable but simply shows that the Fathers didn’t consider this a problem.
2. A deacon’s hands aren’t consecrated yet they are ordinary ministers of communion.
3. The Church allows it - Rome has spoken.

Rather than worrying about our manner of reception our concern should instead be our disposition - not whether we’re spiritually pure but whether we’re willing to undertake what Christ wants us to do as a result of receiving Him - to take what we have received out into the world.

 

[Montrose]

Church does. Communion in the hand is allowed as exception. Conference of Bishops needs to ask Holy See for permission to allow it. Communion on the tongue is automatically allowed and the norm always.

Where does the Church state one is more reverent than the other. You are privately interpreting.

 

[1ke]

I would very much like to hear a thoughtful response from a supporter of communion in the Hand to this paragraph of Dietrich von Hildebrand:

The Church says otherwise. The end.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Where does the Church state one is more reverent than the other.

Memoriale Domini. Read it. Of course it states objective reverence is higher… subjective reference may not actually be higher.

If indeed both forms were equal why does one need permission from Holy See to implement one of them in their area? Of course once implemented nothing stops you from receiving that way but it indeed isn’t objectively equal form of receiving Christ according to Church. Again keyword “objectively”.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The Church says otherwise. The end.

In most areas of the world communion in the hand is still forbidden (or perhaps was before covid crisis). Church doesn’t exactly say otherwise. Church permits as exception the “otherwise”. That’s all.

The Church allows it - Rome has spoken.

As an exception. That says something. I am not saying one shouldn’t receive in the hand or anything like that, it is private decision but that decision can only be made if indeed Holy See allows Conference of Bishops to implement that. No Bishop can deny communion on the tongue under normal circumstances, but Bishops can deny you communion in the hand if they so wish. That shows both forms aren’t necessarily equal and prudential decision is to be made about communion in the hand (showing there can therefore be some sort of danger if implemented wrongly) and not about communion on the tongue.

 

[Montrose]

Memoriale Domini

Memoriale Domini. Read it. Of course it states objective reverence is higher… subjective reference may not actually be higher.

If indeed both forms were equal why does one need permission from Holy See to implement one of them in their area? Of course once implemented nothing stops you from receiving that way but it indeed isn’t objectively equal form of receiving Christ according to Church. Again keyword “objectively”.

The key part in that document is this: " It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

Since receiving in the hand became widespread has the Church actually stated that in the hand is less reverent. Danger of loss of reverence is not the same as yes it is less reverent.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Since receiving in the hand became widespread has the Church actually stated that in the hand is less reverent. Danger of loss of reverence is not the same as yes it is less reverent.

If one form carries danger of loss of reverence and other does not, which form is objectively less reverent? Again, objectively. As with any pastoral decision there might even be occasion where for certain person, receiving in the hand is more reverent and therefore that should be preferred form for said person. But that would be subjective. Objectively Church hasn’t changed those statements AFAIK.

 

[Montrose]

If one form carries danger of loss of reverence and other does not, which form is objectively less reverent? Again, objectively. As with any pastoral decision there might even be occasion where for certain person, receiving in the hand is more reverent and therefore that should be preferred form for said person. But that would be subjective. Objectively Church hasn’t changed those statements AFAIK.

In short the Church has NOT stated that receiving in the hand is less reverent.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

In short the Church has NOT stated that receiving in the hand is less reverent.

The key part in that document is this: " It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."

If something carries danger of loss of reverence, objectively speaking it has less reverence than what does not carry danger. That’s logical conclusion. Communion in the hand is forbidden in most parts of the Church. It is forbidden by the Church but dispensations from that rule happen.

Tell me, is it objectively more reverent for me to come to Mass every Sunday or is it as reverent as not coming since people in China have dispensation from that because it would endanger their lives? Does that mean both not coming and coming to Mass each Sunday equally reverent objectively? Because some people can rightfully choose both without incurring sin at all that would surely mean that it is equally reverent in both cases in objective standard… or else that argument falls apart.

If indeed communion on the tongue and communion in the hand are equally reverent then Slovak Bishops are sinning by not allowing communion in the hand and are objectively making bad rules. According to Thomas Aquinas I would have right to disobey them. Holy See could be notified to intervene. That has huge implications. Church can not make bad discipline. Officially Church forbids communion in the hand but gives indult to some countries so that they can allow it But again, officially Church forbids communion in the hand.

 

[CaptFun]

Aw, I do SO have the right to say on the tongue is more reverent (to me and for me). I’m not making rules or countermanding church given options.

Today some Bishops have I think mandated “in the hand” … perhaps for practical reasons. Hope that’s temporary.

I “had to” do a face to face confession last Saturday if I wanted one. The privacy option, generally an option, and FAVORED by me personally … was not offered. I went face to face. Too good a deal to pass up still. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

I also prefer a visible tabernacle, front and center and PRIME focus of the worshippers, at least equal to the altar as the latter is often “emptied” of the Eucharist while tabernacle is full.

Both altar and tabernacle front and center is possible and to me preferable. Jesus off to the side … not as good. Jesus further hidden. Worse.

Less genuflections in the best direction and result … Eucharist seems demoted. In favor of !!!

Q: shall we worship as BEST we can … or be more actively seeking the next “easier way” or more “popular, novel” way to worship?

To me, the former is better … even if I DO sometimes look for the shortest, quickest, nearest mass said at the most convenient time for me.

 

[Montrose]

If something carries danger of loss of reverence, objectively speaking it has less reverence than what does not carry danger. That’s logical conclusion. Communion in the hand is forbidden in most parts of the Church. It is forbidden by the Church but dispensations from that rule happen. Tell me, is it objectively more reverent for me to come to Mass every Sunday or is it as reverent as not coming since people in China have dispensation from that because it would endanger their lives? Does that mean both not coming and coming to Mass each Sunday equally reverent?

Danger of loss of reverence is NOT the same as less reverent. Again your private interpretation.
You are also wrong to say receiving in the hand is forbidden in most parts of the Church. It is global and widespread. I have been to Mass all over the world and have never been to a Mass where receiving on the tongue was the only way to receive.
The GIRM makes it absolutely clear that the method of receiving is the decision of the communicant.
Personally I receive on the tongue but my daughter receives on the hand.

GIRM 160:

When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

The GIRM makes it absolutely clear that the method of receiving is the decision of the communicant.
Personally I receive on the tongue but my daughter receives on the hand.

GIRM is American thing IIRC. GIRM does not apply to me nor my diocese, nor other parts of the world. If GIRM allows it, Americans can do it validly, licitly and even subjectively find more reverence in it. But that does not make it objective. I am not by any means saying receiving in the hand is a sin, I am not saying it is subjectively less reverent in all situations. I am saying it is objectively less reverent and proof of that is that Church does not allow it officially and only makes exceptions to allow it.

You are also wrong to say receiving in the hand is forbidden in most parts of the Church. It is global and widespread. I have been to Mass all over the world and have never been to a Mass where receiving on the tongue was the only way to receive.

And yet it is only allowed by indult. Anyway indult needs to be asked for, granted by Holy See and then implemented. Perhaps more and more countries are doing so, but officially speaking indult is when one is allowed to break rules. It is not the rule. As I said, in Slovakia you can’t receive in the hand except during this covid crisis. That would mean Slovak Bishops are being unfaithful to Church and would make them deposed.