Holy Communion

[latinmasslover]

I hear people say that the pope thinks that receiving Holy Communion in the hand is good and that Jesus gave Holy Communion to the Apostles in the hand. I have two questions:

1. Which Pope since the Second Vatican Council has spoken favorably about Communion in the hand? I do NOT mean simply permitting it, but *encouraging *it.
2. What evidence exists regarding how Christ administered Holy Communion to His ordained?

BTW, these questions are not being asked in a presumptuous spirit, I really want to know.

 

[Lepanto]

Jesus gave Holy Communion to the Apostles in the hand.

Which is fine, of course, since the apostles were the first bishops.

 

[latinmasslover]

Am I to understand that the two claims I addressed that people like to make have no truth in them?

 

[cam100]

I hear people say that the pope thinks that receiving Holy Communion in the hand is good and that Jesus gave Holy Communion to the Apostles in the hand. I have two questions:

1. Which Pope since the Second Vatican Council has spoken favorably about Communion in the hand? I do NOT mean simply permitting it, but *encouraging *it.
2. What evidence exists regarding how Christ administered Holy Communion to His ordained?

BTW, these questions are not being asked in a presumptuous spirit, I really want to know.

Well, you’re making the assumption that people claim that communion in the hand is better, for theological reasons, than communion on the tongue. I’m not sure how many people are really making this claim. I don’t remember ever hearing anyone say this.

The arguments that I’ve heard for communion in the hand are either based on practical issues, or they are just arguments as to why the practice is OK, not that it is better for theological reasons.

I think this may be why no one has responded to your question.

 

[latinmasslover]

Well, you’re making the assumption that people claim that communion in the hand is better, for theological reasons, than communion on the tongue. I’m not sure how many people are really making this claim. I don’t remember ever hearing anyone say this.

The arguments that I’ve heard for communion in the hand are either based on practical issues, or they are just arguments as to why the practice is OK, not that it is better for theological reasons.

I think this may be why no one has responded to your question.

No, I asked what Pope has spoken favorably of this practice, and what evidence is there of Jesus doing it this way. Preference doesn’t matter. No one is providing a source, which leads me to believe (as I already suspected) that there is none. The claims often made are based on hearsay, nothing more.


Anybody?

 

[Sure]

1. Which Pope since the Second Vatican Council has spoken favorably about Communion in the hand? I do NOT mean simply permitting it, but *encouraging *it.

First, I think we can assume that Pope Benedict XVI does not see anything wrong with the practice (note: that does NOT mean he necessarily prefers it) because we see him distributing Communion in this manner all the time.

Second, the Holy Father did state this when he was a Cardinal:

[T]he second objection we wanted to consider was directed against the act of receiving Communion: kneeling–standing, hand–mouth. Well, first of all, I would like to say that both attitudes are possible, and I would like therefore to ask all priests to exercise tolerance and to recognize the decision of each person; and I would further like to ask you all to exercise the same tolerance and not cast aspersions on anyone who may have opted for this or that way of doing it. But you will ask: Is tolerance the proper answer here? Or is it not misplaced with respect to this most holy thing? Well, here again we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing. That does not of course mean that it should always be so. For what is fine, sublime, about the Church is that she is growing, maturing, understanding the mystery more profoundly. In that sense the new development that began after the ninth century is quite justified, as an expression of reverence, and is well-founded. But, on the other hand, we have to say that the Church could not possibly have been celebrating the Eucharist unworthily for nine hundred years. [Emphasis added.]

If we read what the Fathers say, we can see in what a spirit of reverence they received Communion. We find a particularly fine passage in the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, from the fourth century. In his catechetical homilies he tells the candidates for baptism what they should do at Communion. They should make a throne of their hands, laying the right upon the let to forma throne for the King, forming at the same time a cross. This symbolic gesture, so fine and so profound, is what concerns him: the hands of man form a cross, which becomes a throne, down into which the King inclines himself. The open, outstretched hand can thus become a sign of the way that a man offers himself to the Lord, opens hands for him, that they may become an instrument of his presence and a throne of his mercies in this world. Anyone who reflects on this will recognize that on this point it is quite wrong to argue about this or that form of behavior. We should be concerned only to argue in favor of what the Church’s efforts were directed toward, both before and after the ninth century, that is a reverence in the heart, an inner submission before the mystery of God that puts himself into our hands. Thus we should not forget that not only our hands are impure but also our tongue and also our heart and that we often sin more with the tongue than with the hands. God takes an enormous risk–and at the same time this is an expression of his merciful goodness–in allowing not only our hand and our tongue but even our heart to come into contact with him. [Emphasis added.]

From what he said in this statement, I believe he sees both postures as legitimate. He seems to place far more importance on interior disposition, which, of course, is most correct.

Hope this helps.

 

[alessandro]

Check this out:

miserere.org/m/archivedposts/339

 

[elt1956]

No, I asked what Pope has spoken favorably of this practice, and what evidence is there of Jesus doing it this way. Preference doesn’t matter. No one is providing a source, which leads me to believe (as I already suspected) that there is none. The claims often made are based on hearsay, nothing more.


Anybody?

Didn’t Jesus say to Judas something like “He who dips his bread with me (in the bowl) will betray me”? The first rites of the Mass, the Apostles performed were done very closely to the rites used in Judaism which “could” mean a meal like format, although the sanctity and sacrifce of what became the “Mass” was understood by all the Apostles. Do you know if unleavened bread was used? Maybe, since it was the Passover. (Just answered my own question. ) I would strongly suggest the custom of the time was “bread” in the hand. Peace.

 

[elt1956]

Check this out:

miserere.org/m/archivedposts/339

Hello Allesandro. Went to the website. Somehow can’t picture Jews living in a Jewish Community and practicing Judaism receiving what came to be called Communion in way the artist Joos van Wassenhove (Giusto da Guanto), c. 1474, depicts. Remember , van Wassenhove was painting for the time he lived in, not Christ’s.

 

[latinmasslover]

Still no support. As to the quote by St. Cyril, I’ve heard that that likely was not written by him but by his successor who was not very orthodox.

As to how the Apostles received, still no evidence. Let’s say that they did receive Communion in the and, they’re the Apostles, Bishops. They have the authority to touch the Sacred Species.

The quote that is allegedly by St. Cyril (no disrespect intended Sure) is the only defense I ever hear for Communion in the hand in the early Church.

Anybody have anything else?

elt1956, as to your question:
Didn’t Jesus say to Judas something like “He who dips his bread with me (in the bowl) will betray me”?
I will look this up in that book I mentioned earlier to see how we’re misreading it. I looked this up before when I first got it, but at the time the whole book went a bit over my head - it’s VERY detailed!

 

[cam100]

Still no support. As to the quote by St. Cyril, I’ve heard that that likely was not written by him but by his successor who was not very orthodox. !

Can you provide a source for this information? Yes, I’ve also “heard” that the St. Cyril quote wasn’t really from St. Cyril, but I didn’t hear it from any authoritative source. I’m curious about where this information originated. As Sure pointed out, the Holy Father seems to think the St. Cyril quote is genuine.

I’m also curious about the point of this whole thread. It seems like a straw man argument because I really don’t think anyone has tried to argue that communion in the hand is better for theological reasons. Yet the point of this thread seems to be to disprove the position that it is better for theological reasons. So it seems that it is trying to disprove a point that was never made in the first place.

 

[Alethiaphile]

As to how the Apostles received, still no evidence. Let’s say that they did receive Communion in the and, they’re the Apostles, Bishops. They have the authority to touch the Sacred Species.
QUOTE]

When the Apostles received from Jesus, they were communicants, not celebrants. As communicants, they are like any other communicant. The idea that the Apostles could receive by hand but lay communicants can’t is nothing but excessive clericalism. Joe

 

[latinmasslover]

Can you provide a source for this information? Yes, I’ve also “heard” that the St. Cyril quote wasn’t really from St. Cyril, but I didn’t hear it from any authoritative source. I’m curious about where this information originated.

It was discussed on this forum several months ago, a few who supported Communion in the hand even acknowledged that the quote from St. Cyril may not be his. I had the source and reasoning behind this on another computer, so I’ll have to search a bit to find it again. Even still, it’s the only quote I’ve ever seen given in support.

As Sure pointed out, the Holy Father seems to think the St. Cyril quote is genuine.

Other popes (and saints) disagree (with the concept).

I’m also curious about the point of this whole thread. It seems like a straw man argument because I really don’t think anyone has tried to argue that communion in the hand is better for theological reasons. Yet the point of this thread seems to be to disprove the position that it is better for theological reasons. So it seems that it is trying to disprove a point that was never made in the first place.

I brought it up because these arguments have been made and nobody backs up the claim when asked. They state these things as facts, then when questioned they admit it’s speculation. I don’t think they’re being deceitful; I’ve passed out information that I thought was true when it was just a misunderstanding on my part, or an exaggeration by -----whoever I heard/read it from. I was wondering if anyone else might know if the claims were true and what evidence there was to support it. Apparantly, there is none, which is what I figured…just thought I’d give the benefit of the doubt.

 

[latinmasslover]

latinmasslover;3599891:

As to how the Apostles received, still no evidence. Let’s say that they did receive Communion in the and, they’re the Apostles, Bishops. They have the authority to touch the Sacred Species.
QUOTE]

When the Apostles received from Jesus, they were communicants, not celebrants. As communicatns, they are like any other communicant. The idea that the Apostles could receive by hand but lay communicants can’t is nothing but excessive clericalism. Joe

Not really, priests today self communicate when they’re not celebrating and ee don’t. “Excessive clericalism?” That particular argument doesn’t stand.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Alethiaphile;3600140:

Not really, priests today self communicate when they’re not celebrating and ee don’t. “Excessive clericalism?” That particular argument doesn’t stand.

Priests self-communicate when they’re not celebrating or concelebrating? That’s a new one on me. How exactly would that work- does the non-celebrating priest walk up to the altar after the consecration and take a wafer and consume it? In 23 years of being Catholic, I don’t remember observing anything like that. Joe

 

[latinmasslover]

latinmasslover;3600160:

Priests self-communicate when they’re not celebrating or concelebrating? That’s a new one on me. How exactly would that work- does the non-celebrating priest walk up to the altar after the consecration and take a wafer and consume it? I’ve never observed anything remotely like that. Joe

He goes down the communion line like everyone else and takes the Holy Eucharist (wafer’s a little disrespectful, don’t you think?). You’ve never seen this? Have you ever seen a priest attend a Mass where he wasn’t con/celebrating? I don’t see it often, but when I do this is what happens.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Alethiaphile;3600231:

He goes down the communion line like everyone else and takes the Holy Eucharist (wafer’s a little disrespectful, don’t you think?). You’ve never seen this? Have you ever seen a priest attend a Mass where he wasn’t con/celebrating? I don’t see it often, but when I do this is what happens.

So he receives it like everyone else, right? Then he doesn’t “self-communicate” as you asserted. Btw, no disrespect intended. I should have said “the Host”. Joe

 

[latinmasslover]

latinmasslover;3600251:

So he receives it like everyone else, right? Then he doesn’t “self-communicate” as you asserted.

No, no, no! *He goes down the communion line *like everyone else, but he takes the Host himself, with his own hands. The celebrating priest does not give him the Eucharist.

Btw, no disrespect intended. I should have said “the Host”. Joe

I figured, I’m just picky about that sort of thing, tend to catch it very easily.

 

[Alethiaphile]

Alethiaphile;3600299:

No, no, no! *He goes down the communion line *

like everyone else, but he takes the Host himself, with his own hands. The celebrating priest does not give him the Eucharist.

Does someone (either the priest or deacon or EM) hold up the host and chalice before him and say “The body (blood) of Christ” and then he takes it (the Host or the Chalice) from their hands? If so, that is NOT “self-communicating”. Joe

 

[latinmasslover]

latinmasslover;3600306:

Does someone (either the priest or deacon or EM) hold up the host and chalice before him and say “The body (blood) of Christ” and then he takes it (the Host or the Chalice) from their hands? If so, that is NOT “self-communicating”. Joe

I am aware of what self communicating is. The non-celebrating priest takes the Host himself, not from the hand of the distributer.