Hildebrand on Communion in the Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OrbisNonSufficit said:
GIRM is American thing IIRC. GIRM does not apply to me nor my diocese, nor other parts of the world.
Click to expand...
The GIRM is not an American thing. It is universal.
Each country may have adaptations but the GIRM is universal within the Church.
 
Last edited:
OrbisNonSufficit said:
40.png
Montrose:
The GIRM is not an American thing. It is universal.
Click to expand...
From GIRM (Vatican site)

This text is confirmed for use in the Dioceses of the United States of America. Persons from other nations should consult the local Episcopal Conference regarding the appropriate text for their nation.
Click to expand...
For example there is the GIRM with adaptations for Canada, so it is also that way for other countries that adaptations are made to the GIRM.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
For example there is a Canadian GIRM with adaptations for Canada, so it is also the other countries that adaptations are made to the GIRM.
Click to expand...
What we have akin to GIRM in Slovakia specifies communion on the tongue. I would like to see Vatican Original but because communion in the hand is only allowed by indult I doubt it is generally allowed for faithful (because why would Bishops need to ask for it then?) .
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
40.png
Vico:
For example there is a Canadian GIRM with adaptations for Canada, so it is also the other countries that adaptations are made to the GIRM.
Click to expand...
What we have akin to GIRM in Slovakia specifies communion on the tongue. I would like to see Vatican Original but because communion in the hand is only allowed by indult I doubt it is generally allowed for faithful (because why would Bishops need to ask for it then?) .
Click to expand...
I found a list of about 33 countries that have that indult.
The first under H.H. St. Pope Paul VI was Belgium, 31 May 1969 and the last mentioned was Malaysia and Singapore, 3 October 1977.
 
Last edited:
Yeah. 33 countries are quite few but I wouldn’t call it majority. I also found this in GIRM on Vatican site:
  1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host
    slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies,
    Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the
    hand, the choice lying with the communicant    . As soon as the communicant receives the
    host, he or she consumes the whole of it.
    (emphasis mine)
It clearly needs exception to be allowed. Where that exception exists, let people decide. But let us not say it is objectively same and that Bishops beside those of 33 countries are sinning by not allowing it, or that Holy See is sinning by making them ask for indult. If indeed it were equally objectively reverent, Church would in Her wisdom allow it to everyone equally and it wouldn’t be a matter of prudential decision.
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
Yeah. 33 countries are quite few but I wouldn’t call it majority. I also found this in GIRM on Vatican site:
  1. If Communion is given only under the species of bread, the Priest raises the host
    slightly and shows it to each, saying, The Body of Christ. The communicant replies,
    Amen, and receives the Sacrament either on the tongue or, where this is allowed, in the
    hand, the choice lying with the communicant    . As soon as the communicant receives the
    host, he or she consumes the whole of it.
    (emphasis mine)
It clearly needs exception to be allowed. Where that exception exists, let people decide. But let us not say it is objectively same and that Bishops beside those of 33 countries are sinning by not allowing it, or that Holy See is sinning by making them ask for indult. If indeed it were equally objectively reverent, Church would in Her wisdom allow it to everyone equally and it wouldn’t be a matter of prudential decision.
Click to expand...
Yes. Since there are 195 countries in the world is it not the majority of countries.

I am Byzantine Catholic and we do not receive by hand in our parishes, only by spoon.
 
Last edited:
Vico said:
I am Byzantine Catholica and we do not receive by hand in our parishes, only by spoon.
Click to expand...
I’ve been to Divine Liturgy. I honestly liked that form the most… except the part I never know how to descend low enough when receiving our Lord (one time I nearly fell down while bending my knees and my friend who was altar serving at the time laughed , funny times 😃 ) . I started kneeling but then was on these forums that it isn’t necessarily Byzantine practice to kneel… so one can’t say receiving Byzantine Eucharist isn’t controversial 😃 😃 for us Latins who are quite lost in all things Eastern, it can be hard to decide some minor things that you Easterners are just naturally disposed for 😃
 
Cyril of Jerusalem, a Doctor of the Church, wrote instruction as to how one should reverently receive Holy Communion in the hand, in the 4th Century.

Taking the Eucharist from the Hand is not new or just Vatican II, as some will say. Nor is taking the Eucharist on the Tongue. My question to those that believe the Eucharist should be taken only one way, where in scripture does it describe Christ giving the Eucharist on the Hand or Tongue? Thus the reason it’s not a dogma of the Church.
 
I kind of like the ring of that: “Hildebrand on Communion in the Hand!”

What about “Hans Kung on Communion on the Tongue!”

Or “G.K. Chesterton on Communion on the Tongue!”
 
Consecrated hands, unconsecrated hands. A red herring.

Deacons do not have “consecrated hands”. Since the Council, they are Ordinary Ministers of communion. Prior to the Council, they were Extraordinary Ministers of communion.

So as far as the Church goes, the consecration or not of hands has never been an obstacle to handling the Host.
 
Maximian said:
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?
Click to expand...
Reverence lies in the heart - not on the tongue or in the hand. It is the heart that distinguishes false piety from a genuine love of Christ. Where our Church teaches that both methods are acceptable, CITH vs. COTH is irrelevant to “deepening” or “renewal.” Clearly, we Catholics need to be scratching below that surface, yes?
 
In his OP, @Maximian was not requesting factual information about what it says in the GIRM or which national bishops’ conferences have taken what action in response to a certain CDW ruling. He was requesting comments on certain statements found on a certain page of a certain book by a certain German theologian. @Maximian quoted a brief extract from the book, of which the last two sentences were these:
Maximian said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Hildebrand is here giving his answer to the (unasked) question, “Which of two actions, receiving on the tongue or receiving in the hand, is more conducive to the strengthening of the consciousness, which is only attainable by faith, that the Host in reality has become the Body of Christ?”

This question may be generalized in the following terms: “Which of two actions, A or B, is more conducive to a certain state of mind, C?” As I see it, any question of this kind is primarily a question pertaining to the field of psychology, not of theology. Consequently, one may legitimately inquire, “What evidence can Hildebrand adduce to support his finding that action A is more conducive than action B to that state of mind?”
 
OrbisNonSufficit said:
… I started kneeling but then was on these forums that it isn’t necessarily Byzantine practice to kneel…
Click to expand...
Yes kneeling is penitential and not to be done on Sundays, the day of the Resurrection. However there is kneeling in kneeling Vespers and in the Divine Liturgy of Saint Gregory (Presanctified Gifts) which is done on certain weekdays during Lent.

In these COVID days the priest cleans the spoon in grain alcohol between each persons reception. Only the priests and deacons receive in the hand.
 
CaptFun said:
I think she is a very holy lady
Click to expand...
Dietrich von Hildebrand is the husband. Alice is the wife.

I think the op is by Dietrich.

Also, since he passed away in 1977, perhaps he was referring to those receiving in the hand without permission.

I made first communion in 1977, in the same archdiocese Dietrich Von Hildebrand was located. Communion in the hand wasn’t practiced yet .
 
BartholomewB said:
This question may be generalized in the following terms: “Which of two actions, A or B, is more conducive to a certain state of mind, C?” As I see it, any question of this kind is primarily a question pertaining to the field of psychology, not of theology.
Click to expand...
There is a prior theological question which is important to this discussion. What is the “consciousness, which is only attainable by faith, that the Host in reality has become the Body of Christ“? This usually is the dividing line in this type of discussion.

COTT promotes an idea of the Host as a thing (a re of our re-ality) that is the Body of Christ. CITH emphasizes the “become what you eat” idea St Augustine taught. Neither position is wrong, nor does either exist on its own. The first emphasizes humility in the presence of the divine Lord, the other emphasizes transformation into the Body of Christ, who gives himself for others.
 
Dovekin said:
COTT promotes an idea of the Host as a thing (a re of our re-ality) that is the Body of Christ. CITH emphasizes the “become what you eat” idea St Augustine taught.
Click to expand...
Thank you,@dovekin. Please see if I am drawing the correct conclusion from your information.

Catholic communicants may be broadly divided into two categories, whom we may label “reists” and “Augustinians”.

The probable answer to Hildebrand’s unasked question, then, is that, in the case of a communicant who is a reist, COTT, rather than CITH, will be more conducive to the desired state of mind and that, conversely, CITH, rather than COTT, will be more conducive in the case of a communicant who is an Augustinian.
 
Last edited:
You know, I joined the conversation midstream without reading the original post.

Saw von Hildebrand and assumed it was Alice since Dietrich is long departed … and Alice, though many in years today, still seems to pop up on Cathlic sites, very coherent and insightful. Thanks for the detail correction.
Or should I say Dietrich? 😇
 
The priest ritually cleanses his hands to offer the Holy Sacrifice… which goes beyond simply receiving communion.
 
Maximian said:
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.)
Click to expand...
Those who receive Communion may receive either in the hand or on the tongue, and the decision should be that of the individual receiving, not of the person distributing Communion. If Communion is received in the hand, the hands should first of all be clean. If one is right handed the left hand should rest upon the right. The host will then be laid in the palm of the left hand and then taken by the right hand to the mouth. If one is left-handed this is reversed. It is not appropriate to reach out with the fingers and take the host from the person distributing.

The person distributing Communion says audibly to each person approaching, “The Body of Christ.” This formula should not be altered, as it is a proclamation which calls for a response of faith on the part of the one who receives. The communicant should audibly respond, “Amen,” indicating by that response his or her belief that this small wafer of bread, the wine in this chalice are in reality the body and blood of Christ the Lord.

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-wor...t/the-reception-of-holy-communion-at-mass.cfm

Peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top