Hildebrand on Communion in the Hand

[Rau]

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

Sure, but that‘s a different matter.

 

[Anesti33]

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

False, as we have seen the CDWDS ruled during a recent pandemic, Communion on the Tongue is a right not to be abrogated by anyone.

 

[Glennon_P]

False, as we have seen the CDWDS ruled during a recent pandemic, Communion on the Tongue is a right not to be abrogated by anyone.

False.

If the pastor feels there is a danger of profanation he most certainly can refuse to give a person Communion.

 

[Anesti33]

in the hand.

I’m sorry but your bald say-so on this forum carries zero weight. I can produce two Church documents which prove my points and prove you wrong, and you have produced zero Church documents proving anything.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Has the Hole See ever denied a request?

If Holy See automatically gave out those indults why would they even be needed? And Bishops can deny that practice in their diocese even if indult is granted.

Discipline of the Church far outweighs practice of few countries. As I said, I do believe that subjectively receiving in the hand can be equal and sometimes even superior to COTT but objectively Church discipline is not centered on it being equal. If you need indult for one and not for the other it is somewhat clear.

If the pastor feels there is a danger of profanation he most certainly can refuse to give a person Communion.

Sure but in explained scenario if pastor feels there is going to be disrespect in receiving in the hand he can deny communion and mandate receiving on the tongue instead. If pastor feels like there will be disrespect in receiving on the tongue he can deny communion altogether but can’t mandate receiving in the hand nor can he suggest one can receive only in the hand.

Basically three scenarios:
Only COTT is allowed
Both are allowed
None are allowed

There is no instance where only CITH is allowed but COTT is not.

 

[Rau]

If Holy See automatically gave out those indults why would they even be needed?

Good question. Has any country been denied?

 

[Convert3]

As a Catholic of three years, I find it disturbing that there is so much discussion between CITH vs COTT. It creates confusion for those considering becoming Catholic or the recently converted. Every Protestant church I used to attend was always different, but I was taught that the mass in any Roman Catholic Church will be familiar. Is this really worth arguing over? Isn’t it the body and blood of Christ we are consuming. Whether it’s a priest’s hands or an EMCH’s hands putting it in our hand or on our tongue, we are all consuming our Lord. That doesn’t change and one way or the other doesn’t make it any less important or valid.
Please people, we are all followers of Christ, and we are all equal in the eyes of our Lord.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

We might not know even if it was.

Also if you want to base this upon exception, people can receive dispensation to not attend Sunday Mass. Is not attending Sunday Mass equally reverent to attending Sunday Mass? Because in China both is allowed equally so therefore it must be equally reverent. Has any country ever been denied such request? Probably not since Bishop can dispense you from that without asking Holy See. Conclusion is that going to Church on Sunday and not going are equally reverent, by same logic you apply to Eucharist.

Also official norms of the Church matter, not all practical examples. In Middle Ages one could find Priest having children out of wedlock very often. Was that now equally reverent just because it was somewhat common?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Isn’t it the body and blood of Christ we are consuming. Whether it’s a priest’s hands or an EMCH’s hands putting it in our hand or on our tongue, we are all consuming our Lord. That doesn’t change and one way or the other doesn’t make it any less important or valid.
Please people, we are all followers of Christ, and we are all equal in the eyes of our Lord.

Yes. As I keep saying if it is allowed then do what Church allows and choose. But it isn’t allowed globally, it is an exception to the rule and exception is never equal to the norm objectively (it can subjectively be even superior, but not objectively).

 

[Glennon_P]

So a notorious public sinner presents himself for Communion. Or a Satan worshipper.

As long as he seeks to receive on the tongue, the priest MUST give him Communion. Even if the priest knows the Blessed Sacrament will be profaned.

That’s not right.

 

[Convert3]

it is an exception to the rule and exception is never equal to the norm objectively

Never equal? Objectively? So you think for whatever reason you are a superior Catholic to the rest of us?

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

So you think for whatever reason you are a superior Catholic to the rest of us?

Far inferior actually.

Never equal? Objectively?

I am saying that there is rule that only A is allowed and it is allowed under all circumstances. Then Church makes exception that if you ask Vatican, your conference of Bishops allow it, your Bishop allows it, Pastor allows it then and only then you can do B.

Are A and B objectively equal in eyes of the Church? If they are why the difference in approach?

Again I have no problems with communion in the hand if it is allowed. If it isn’t then even Church has a problem with it. I understand that there might be people who will be better off by receiving in the hand and that’s fine if they are allowed to do so. I am just saying that it isn’t true Church holds both forms of receiving our Lord to be equal- if She did then my Bishops would have to allow it. But they don’t so there is some catch there.

 

[InThePew]

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.

All it shows is that it’s a local decision best made by those most familiar with the pastoral circumstances of the area. If the Holy See wanted to they could prohibit it - just as has been done with things like communicants receiving from each other.

 

[puer.dei]

As a Catholic of three years, I find it disturbing that there is so much discussion between CITH vs COTT. It creates confusion for those considering becoming Catholic or the recently converted. Every Protestant church I used to attend was always different, but I was taught that the mass in any Roman Catholic Church will be familiar. Is this really worth arguing over? Isn’t it the body and blood of Christ we are consuming. Whether it’s a priest’s hands or an EMCH’s hands putting it in our hand or on our tongue, we are all consuming our Lord. That doesn’t change and one way or the other doesn’t make it any less important or valid.
Please people, we are all followers of Christ, and we are all equal in the eyes of our Lord.

I’m more like 30 years, and I’m right there with you.

 

[Maximian]

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?

Those aren’t the choices. People who receive On the tongue are much more likely to believe that the Eucharist IS really Jesus.

 

[Diaconia]

Here’s your response - Dietrich had an opinion on this matter, just like many other people do. Since he died before it was a common practice his opinion means less today: Taking an opinion out of context by viewing it through the prism of a later time and circumstance is anachronistic.

Hers a similar example - The Cure of Ars taught his people that drinking and dancing were wrong and sinful. He went into the local tavern and admonished people, and drug many of them out scolding them.

John was a wonderful, holy man, a beloved saint, a renowned confessor, yet what he taught about drinking and dancing was incorrect. To his time and circumstance he believed he was right. He had an opinion contrary to what the Church taught.

Dietrich was still a wonderful theologian, St. John Vianney was still a great priest; but that doesn’t mean they got everything right. Even St. Thomas Aquinas, the smartest guy ever, got things wrong once in a while.

There is nothing wrong with Communion received in the Throne of your hands.

There is nothing wrong with receiving Communion from unconsecrated hands.

If your priest or bishop has said, for now, you are not to receive on the tongue, just be happy you have a priest to give you the Eucharist at all. Many places can’t receive at all. Be grateful for the true bread from heaven, rather than resentful because you can’t receive Him the way you want.

The pandemic will pass, and you can return to receiving on the tongue soon enough.

Deacon Christopher

PS: And please, in Christian charity, quit hectoring on about bishops who aren’t doing as you wish. (There are multiple threads with this tenor). Their jobs are thankless.

 

[Rau]

We might not know even if it was.

Perhaps. I guess all we can say is we know of many where CITH has been approved and are yet to be aware of any where a request was declined.

Also if you want to base this upon exception, people can receive dispensation to not attend Sunday Mass. Is not attending Sunday Mass equally reverent to attending Sunday Mass?

That’s a rather poor attempt at an analogy. Perhaps the question should be asked whether there is an important distinction between 2 forms of the mass? This is another matter that should not be used to “segregate” the flock…

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

All it shows is that it’s a local decision best made by those most familiar with the pastoral circumstances of the area.

I agree. But since prudential decision is needed for CITH and not COTT then there is a difference in application.

I guess all we can say is we know of many where CITH has been approved and are yet to be aware of any where a request was declined.

So because we don’t know we assume it was never denied…? Rather than assuming that if Holy See views it necessary to ask for indult it isn’t automatical? Interesting approach.

That’s a rather poor attempt at an analogy.

Why? Exception to the rule is equal to the rule itself as in your argument for reception of Eucharist.

Perhaps the question should be asked whether there is an important distinction between 2 forms of the mass?

There is important distinction. They aren’t same form of the Mass. But to say one is superior to another objectively is incorrect. Subjectively? Sure. EF has higher chance to be celebrated with regards to rubrics. Does that make it superior? No. We don’t judge by practice of some who make exceptions to the rule but by rules themselves. Same as with reception of the Eucharist.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Those aren’t the choices. People who receive On the tongue are much more likely to believe that the Eucharist IS really Jesus.

I checked the document and before allowing flock to receive in the hand there is supposed to be catechesis on the matter of Real Presence. So according to rubrics (assuming they are followed) this can’t be true. What you are describing is abuse of practice not practice itself. When describing objective reality we need to explain the norm not the abuse.

 

[Mac]

I’m not sure I can agree with you. The Church does have a preference. Communion on the toung is the universal LAW of the Church.

Communion on the hand is an exception to the LAW. And only granted under strict conditions , virtually none of them are followed today

So I think it’s a mistake to say they are equal in the Church.

Pope Paul 6 had a list of strict conditions that were supposed to be followed as a condition for the indult. This can be looked up on line , read them then ask your self if they are being followed in a typical American parish.