Hildebrand on Communion in the Hand

[adamhovey1988]

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.

I personally think people shouldn’t be legalistic about it. What’s more important; that someone receives communion on the tongue, but only believes it’s symbolic? Or that someone receives in the hand, and believes that the Eucharist IS really Jesus?

 

[Genesis315]

Certainly the Church can determine how the sacraments are administered. Below is how the Council of Trent put it:

It furthermore declares, that this power has ever been in the Church, that, in the dispensation of the sacraments, their substance being untouched, it may ordain,–or change, what things soever it may judge most expedient, for the profit of those who receive, or for the veneration of the said sacraments, according to the difference of circumstances, times, and places.

While it is not inherently evil of anything, and the Church surely can permit it, given the longstanding tradition of receiving on the tongue and only the hands of the sacred minister touching the Sacrament, how does switching to Communion in the hand greater profit those who receive or increase the veneration of the sacrament? What was the thought process behind it?

 

[Dovekin]

I think you have captured what I was trying to say. I am working from memories of catechesis in the ‘70s compared to more recent comments advocating COTT. The two views do not exclude one another, but are more like opposite poles with mostly everybody in between.

Let me try something I was thinking about a few months ago. Cardinal Sarah made some comments about humility approaching the Eucharist, where we are like infants who are not worthy to allow the Lord to come. Compare that to the scripture that imspired the non sum dignus, I am not worthy for you to enter:

“For I too am a person subject to authority, with soldiers subject to me. And I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and to another, ‘Come here,’ and he comes; and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
Luke 7:8

This is from the person who said “I am not worthy…” I do not think it is meant in an abject way, like the infant fed by a parent. There is a different kind of faith that promises the use of all one’s authority, gifts, etc. Communion raises up to become that sort of person, using our gifts to serve others as the Body of Christ.

I know I can find dismissive language about the reification of Christ from the 70s. “Service station” churches where you go to get filled up on grace without any transformation. There is something important to the Real Presence, the presence as a thing, that should not be dismissed that way. But there is also something important about treating God as a transforming presence, not just as a thing.

Maybe COTT and CITH are just proxies for these different viewpoints. They feel different to me, the pelican feeding her heart into the helpless baby versus the centurion standing tall with Christ adding to his stature. But that could just be my upbringing.

 

[goout]

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

Thanks for posting that. Obedience and docility to the authority of the Church is of more value than holding to this practice or that.

It really is. Christ is obedient.

 

[gracepoole]

I wonder at what point in the future people will let this issue die.

 

[JulianN]

I wonder at what point in the future people will let this issue die.

 

[gracepoole]

(+10)

 

[JulianN]

Happy Anniversary!

 

[gracepoole]

Thank you!

 

[JulianN]

Communion in the hand was first done by the Lutherans for the explicit purpose to deny transubstantiation

Can you provide a source for this? Since Lutherans believe in the Real Presence, that seems odd.

In any event, it’s not as if Communion in the hand was not typical in the early Church, so it’s hardly an innovation.

 

[Rau]

If one is norm and other is only allowed when Holy See allows it you can see Church has kind of preference.

But it (COTT) is a weak preference - so weak that no reason appears to exist to ever forbid CITH. As a practical matter, it has become the norm. Generations of younger people have never received on the tongue.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

As a practical matter, it has become the norm.

No it hasn’t. Not even majority of countries have it allowed and even there COTT is supposed to be the norm.

Generations of younger people have never received on the tongue.

Generations in some countries. Even then that is exactly what Memoriale Domini tried to prevent. COTT shouldn’t disappear as it is normative way of receiving Eucharist.

no reason appears to exist to ever forbid CITH

In many countries CITH is still forbidden. Are those Bishops wrong? Is Vatican wrong for requiring indult for it?

 

[Anesti33]

OrbisNonSufficit:

If one is norm and other is only allowed when Holy See allows it you can see Church has kind of preference.

But it (COTT) is a weak preference - so weak that no reason appears to exist to ever forbid CITH. As a practical matter, it has become the norm. Generations of younger people have never received on the tongue.

Redemptionis sacramentum:

[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]

Seems like preventing sacrilege is a pretty spiffy reason, which the Church herself gives her pastors, to forbid CITH in favor of COTT, what do you think?

 

[stpurl]

Even if reception took place at some point in the hand, let’s explore a couple of things.

Does CITH foster a sense of reverence? Are people scrupulously careful to receive the Eucharist after making a profound bow, making sure not to dislodge any particles, receiving as if they were receiving the actual Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord? Do they approach the priest or the EHMCs after being sure to confess any mortal sins and having observed the Eucharistic Fast? Do the majority of churches offer many opportunities for reconciliation? Do the majority of Catholics receiving thus know Who they receive? Do they believe?

Was there a time before this when the Catholics who received COTT did not receive reverently? When they were careless with the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of our Lord? Did they not go to confession before receiving, and refrain from reception until sacramental confession? Did they not observe a Eucharistic fast, from 3 hours in the 1950s, or from midnight for the 20th century until the 1950s? Did the majority of people receiving not truly know and believe that Jesus Christ was truly present?

If one is honest, the staggering difference between the Catholic of the 1950s, receiving at the TLM, kneeling, on the tongue, knowing full well the Eucharist was the Real Presence and being sure to make frequent use of confession . .

And the Catholic of 2020, receiving most often at an OF which varies widely from diocese to diocese, parish to parish, in which at least 70% of the people believe the Eucharist is symbolic only, who often receive in objective or actual mortal sin and argue that, as ‘Catholic”, they ‘deserve’ to take it, who line up, omit any bow or gesture, ‘pop’ the host or pocket to consume later or to ‘give’ to nonCatholic friends, children under 7, etc., often while slurping coffee or nibbling at the kid’s chip stash brought to assuage their ‘boredom,’ checking the smartphone or watch, chatting away, All the while convinced that because they support this or that trendy cause THEY are ‘far more Catholic’ than those rigid stupid sheep who want to drag us back to the Dark ages. We’re woke! The Spirit is moving us to women priests and one-religion and not caring about ‘trifles’ like dogma or doctrine’. It’s all about how we feel and how WE understand something.

I am sorry if it ruffles feathers, but the whole attitude that encompasses ‘CITH” and the reasons thereof has led over the last 40 some years not to a better educated, more devout Catholic, but a nearly illiterate in the faith, lax, sloppy and disobedient Catholic.

 

[Rau]

In many countries CITH is still forbidden. Are those Bishops wrong? Is Vatican wrong for requiring indult for it?

Has the Hole See ever denied a request? It is somewhat misleading to characterise a region that has not proposed it to have forbidden it.

 

[Rau]

Seems like preventing sacrilege is a pretty spiffy reason, which the Church herself gives her pastors, to forbid CITH in favor of COTT, what do you think?

I don’t understand. Does granting CITH equate to granting sacrilege? Of course not. Has the Holy See ever denied a request to introduce CITH?

 

[PilgrimMichelangelo]

In any event, it’s not as if Communion in the hand was not typical in the early Church, so it’s hardly an innovation.

Yes, but we err gravely in comparing ourselves to those in the early Church, for the Early Church was the Church of Martyrs and their levels of holiness, asceticism and devotion are something we shall never be able to come close to.

In the Orthodox Church there is the understanding that the farther we get along in history, the weaker Christians become, such that those who came before us endured far greater crosses and tribulations, and lived holier lives. But God’s mercy is increased to match our weakness during these latter times, so that many who would not have been saved according to the previous standards of holiness will be saved merely for “enduring to the end” as Christians.

Regarding Communion on the tongue or in the hand: the Latin Church in her wisdom saw fit to protect the Precious Gifts in the weaker times by reserving communion in the hand to clergy and allowing the laity to commune via the tongue. This had a twofold effect; firstly it protected the Host from desecration as it was instantly consumed by the faithful, second it emphasized liturgically the holiness of the Unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass by reserving communion in hand to the clergy and communion on the tongue as something to be reverently received, not taken of one’s own accord.

This holy hierarchy is seen clearly in the Divine Liturgy, where the priest communes the faithful under both kinds from a single chalice with a golden spoon. In the Orthodox East one would never dream about actually touching the Holy Mysteries with our hands unless we were called to be clergy, and even then, with fear and trembling, for it is the LORD God of the Universe these sinful human hands touch, not mere bread!

 

[Rau]

I am sorry if it ruffles feathers, but the whole attitude that encompasses ‘CITH” and the reasons thereof has led over the last 40 some years not to a better educated, more devout Catholic, but a nearly illiterate in the faith, lax, sloppy and disobedient Catholic.

That’s quite a damning legacy you paint of the bishops of the church…

 

[Anesti33]

Anesti33:

Seems like preventing sacrilege is a pretty spiffy reason, which the Church herself gives her pastors, to forbid CITH in favor of COTT, what do you think?

I don’t understand. Does granting CITH equate to granting sacrilege? Of course not. Has the Holy See ever denied a request to introduce CITH?

It’s not that high-level. Any pastor may deny CITH at any time, if he feels there is a danger of profanation.

 

[Glennon_P]

Any pastor may deny Communion at any time if there is danger of profanation…in the hand or on the tongue.