Holy Communion

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheOldPipemaker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheOldPipemaker

Guest
Why did the Catholic Church allow the Host to be placed into the persons hand instead of being always placed on their tounge?

God Bless
The Old Pipemaker
Trinity Texas
 
Well, because in days of old–real old, like first millennium old, that’s how it was done. And because U.S. bishops about 20 years ago presented a case that this was something which they thought would foster holiness in many, and which would not interfere with others who would prefer to receive on the tongue.

BTW, the option of receiving on the tongue is still there. It hasn’t gone away.

The U.S. was given the indult of receiving in the hand. Other places do not have this indult.

I prefer to receive on the tongue myself, and so I do. But I don’t think that my neighbor, who receives with reverence in the hand, is wrong, or that the church was wrong in permitting the side-by-side ‘hand’ or ‘tongue’ as legitimate options for individuals in the U.S.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Well, because in days of old–real old, like first millennium old, that’s how it was done. And because U.S. bishops about 20 years ago presented a case that this was something which they thought would foster holiness in many, and which would not interfere with others who would prefer to receive on the tongue.

BTW, the option of receiving on the tongue is still there. It hasn’t gone away.

The U.S. was given the indult of receiving in the hand. Other places do not have this indult.

I prefer to receive on the tongue myself, and so I do. But I don’t think that my neighbor, who receives with reverence in the hand, is wrong, or that the church was wrong in permitting the side-by-side ‘hand’ or ‘tongue’ as legitimate options for individuals in the U.S.
Click to expand...
That is not the whole entirely true story. If you read the “Reform of the Liturgy” by its author, Bugnini, pages 640 - 663 you will see the truth of how this happened- of which I will give you a brief history as I watched the event happen when I was a teenager.

After the imposition of the 1965 Roman Missal disobedient clergy began distributing Holy Communion in the hand without consulting the Holy See. This began in the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and France. It was done in disobedience to the rubrics at that time for reception of Holy Communion. The Catholic Liturgy began to look more and more like the protestant communion services where they received Communion in the hand. So they began to imitate the Protestant practice.

The practice began to spread throughout Europe and initially the Bishops in these countries were at first very much against it however they found it hard to suppress. The Consilium in charge of the reform of the Liturgy in 1965 visited the Netherlands to investigate what was going on.

“After the first visit to the Netherlands, the Consilium wrote to Cardinal Alfrink: “THE TRADITIONAL WAY OF DISTRIBUTING HOLY COMMUNION IS TO BE MAINTAINED” (Oct. 12, 1965)”

it continues…

“The Holy Father does not, think it proper that the Sacred Host be distributed in the hand…He therefore URGENTLY asks the Conference (of Bishops in the Netherlands where the abuse was so widespread) TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS so that the traditional way of receiving Holy Communion (on the tongue) MAY BE EVERYWHERE RESTORED. But this and other reminders had no effect.” [The Reform of the Liturgy - Bugnini P. 641]

Therefore on June 3, 1968 the Secretary of State of the Vatican wrote, “His Holiness thinks the bishops should be reminded of their responsibility to anticipate by timely guidelines any undesireable consequences that may arise and also to control the indescriminate spread of this practice, which in itself is not contrary to doctrine BUT IS NONETHELESS DEBATABLE AND DANGEROUS.”

Indults were granted in 1968 {July 6 to Germany and July 11 to Belgium} where the abuse became very widespread by the Congregation of Rites, however there was also widespread protest from many Catholics and Pope Paul VI discussed the matter with the secretary of the Consilium on July 25, 1968 and then DECIDED TO SUSPEND THE INDULT.

On July 30, 1968 the Consilium reported, “The problem (of communion in the hand) is not exclusively liturgical but has strong pastoral and even more, psychological ramifications.”

October 2, 1968 - The Consilium met with the Secretaries of the Congregations concerned and decided:
  1. “The practice had become so widespread and difficult to stop and it seemed more preferable to regulate it rather than stop it because the issue was a matter of discipline and not dogma.” Ibid - p 642
  2. “There are extreme dangers of having two methods of distribution of Holy Communion; weakening of the worship of the Eucharist; danger of profanations.” P. 642
When I was a teenager they started this practice in my then parish church. It was around 1976 when I was an altar boy and the priest told me at that time the practice of allowing lay people to distribute Holy Communion and Communion in the hand was “To more onvolve the lay people with the liturgy”. Another person told me, “This is to manifest our own priesthood”. (They told me the nuns used to teach that only a priest could touch the sacred host.)

I cannot wrote anymore for now- but you can see that it started AS AN ABUSE AND IN DIOBEDIENCE TO THE HOLY SEE.

Ken
 
Despite the scandalous refusal of the bishops to exercise their authority, the indignation of large numbers of the faithful at this breach with tradition, and the irreverence or even sacrilege to which it led, prompted Pope Paul VI to act. He polled the bishops of the world upon the issue; they voted overwhelmingly to retain the traditional practice. At this time, 1969, the abuse was still confined to a few “advanced” Western countries. On 29 May 1969, the Instruction *Memoriale Domini *was promulgated by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship. It had been prepared at the special mandate of Pope Paul VI, and was approved by him in virtue of his apostolic authority. This Instruction explained how the earlier practice of Communion in the hand had been superseded:
From a pressing sense of reverence toward this holy sacrament, and of humility which its reception demands, the custom was introduced by which the minister himself would place the piece of consecrated Bread upon the tongue of the communicants.
In view of the state of the Church as a whole today, this manner of distributing Holy Communion must be observed, not only because it rests upon a tradition of many centuries, but especially because it is a sign of reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament, and it is part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s Body.
The Instruction quoted the result of the ballot among the bishops of the world, and warns that the practice of Communion in the hand can lead to: “a lessening of reverence toward the noble Sacrament of the Altar, Its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine.” It adds that:
From the response received it is thus clear that by far the greater number of bishops feel that the present discipline should not be changed at all, indeed, that if it were changed, this would be offensive to the sensibilities and spiritual appreciation of these bishops and of most of the faithful.
After he had considered the observations and the counsel of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed as bishops to rule” the Churches, in view of the seriousness of the matter and the importance of the arguments proposed, the Supreme Pontiff judged that the long-received manner of ministering Holy Communion to the faithful should not be changed.
The Apostolic See therefore strongly urges bishops, priests, and people to observe zealously this law, valid and again confirmed, according to the judgment of the majority of the Catholic episcopate, in the form which the present rite of the sacred liturgy employs, and out of concern for the common good of the Church.
 
Am I to understand that the Holy See at this time REQUIRES Communion to be placed on the tounge? And NOT in the hand? I would like chapter and verse quoted so that I can produce the same when I make such a statement at church.
I had started a reply earlier, and some how lost it, I’m a old man with a mind full of holes due to a stroke, and being just plain dumb at times, or so my bride of 47 years tells me. I am a cradle Catholic, and my wife converted when our first son was born. We both left the church shortly after Vatacian II. I came back due to the influence of a very holy Indian Priest of The Norbertaine Order.
A story for another time, but lets say I’m studying for finals. One heart attack and a stroke, and I’m getting ready.
I was not very happy with what I found when I returned to the Church. Such as the Bishop not speaking out against Catholic politicans who publicly endorsed abortion receiving communion.
You can fill in the rest. No paton under the Host when Communion was served. Drops of Christ’s Precious Blood on the carpet where the Eucharistic Minister spilled it. Again no paton. People talking before Mass as if they were at a family reunion and not in the house of God. I’m getting carried away, and I’m sorry. Forgive me. I do need any reference information to back up any statements in reference to receving communion only on the tounge. Thank you.
God Bless
Bob Moorman
The Old Pipemaker
Trinity Texas
 
Apparently the norm for communion in the U.S. now is in the hand (and thank you kleary for your comments; I must say that I am not particularly surprised that there were ‘undercurrents’ but I still stand that the reason given to Joe and Jane Average Catholic was that it was an older practice being reinstituted. I think that there is a probably a great deal of truth in what you say but I think many honestly believed on top or that, or without knowing it, that the practice was something that had been done and was theologically okay).

However, one may receive on the tongue. It is a legitimate option in the U.S. and the only option in many other places I am told. One may not be** forced** to receive in the hand. (Vice versa, one may not be forced to receive on the tongue in the U.S. either). If that is the way you wish to receive, you are perfectly free to do so.

I receive on the tongue at my church; most often I am one of only two who do so (the other is my mother), although now and then we have a visitor who does so as well. But most receive in the hand, and reverently enough to my perception and certainly I’m sure to their perception!
 
TheOldPipemaker said:
Am I to understand that the Holy See at this time REQUIRES Communion to be placed on the tounge? And NOT in the hand? I would like chapter and verse quoted so that I can produce the same when I make such a statement at church.
I had started a reply earlier, and some how lost it, I’m a old man with a mind full of holes due to a stroke, and being just plain dumb at times, or so my bride of 47 years tells me. I am a cradle Catholic, and my wife converted when our first son was born. We both left the church shortly after Vatacian II. I came back due to the influence of a very holy Indian Priest of The Norbertaine Order.
A story for another time, but lets say I’m studying for finals. One heart attack and a stroke, and I’m getting ready.
I was not very happy with what I found when I returned to the Church. Such as the Bishop not speaking out against Catholic politicans who publicly endorsed abortion receiving communion.
You can fill in the rest. No paton under the Host when Communion was served. Drops of Christ’s Precious Blood on the carpet where the Eucharistic Minister spilled it. Again no paton. People talking before Mass as if they were at a family reunion and not in the house of God. I’m getting carried away, and I’m sorry. Forgive me. I do need any reference information to back up any statements in reference to receving communion only on the tounge. Thank you.
God Bless
Bob Moorman
The Old Pipemaker
Trinity Texas
Click to expand...
Even in St Peters itself people are permitted to receive in the hand if they so wish.

In spite of patens, droppages and spillages most likely weren’t unknown before Vatican 2 either - certainly my first church used them all during my childhood and there was the odd (admittedly very rare) incident.

Although conceivably patens could be used even if communion is given in the hand. Or a large cloth like the Eastern churches sometimes do. :hmmm:

I must say I’ve never seen drops of Precious Blood spilled - ministers of the cup in our neck of the woods are very careful to clean the cup up with a corporal between communicants.

As for chatter in the church - way too common. Perhaps a guerrilla campaign of posting anonymous notes on the church doors (politely) requesting silence in the presence of God might be the way to go.
 
I think I’m just getting too grouchy in my old age. As my son used to say many years ago, Dad, chill out. On a lighter note, we had a visiting Priest this morning at Mass, as out priest is on vacation in Purto Rico with his daughter and grand daughter. Another good story there don’t you know.
This young Priest, they are all young to me now a days, was of Eastern decent, and had very good English, in fact, was enjoyable to listen to, as if he was actually singing to you, but in a very suttle way, and you didn’t realise it. That may be hard to understand, and I can’t make it any plainer. You could listen to him for days on end, like you were listening to Jesus maybe? When it came to consecrating the bread and wine into The Body and Blood of Christ, he sang the words, in such a beautiful way that I will never forget it, nor the look on his face as he did so. Most moving. I have never seen it done that way. One other thing that I noticed is that I never saw him look at the Mass book, he had the complete Mass memorized. Every word and motion were perfect, and showed great emotion. Jesus gave me an extra gift today for which I’m very grateful.

I see no one has offered to show me where the Holy See has mandated that we receive Holy Communion on the toung only. So I assume The Vatican approves of things as they are.

God Bless
Bob Moorman
The Old Pipemaker
Trinity Texas
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Well, because in days of old–real old, like first millennium old, that’s how it was done. And because U.S. bishops about 20 years ago presented a case that this was something which they thought would foster holiness in many, and which would not interfere with others who would prefer to receive on the tongue.

BTW, the option of receiving on the tongue is still there. It hasn’t gone away.

The U.S. was given the indult of receiving in the hand. Other places do not have this indult.

I prefer to receive on the tongue myself, and so I do. But I don’t think that my neighbor, who receives with reverence in the hand, is wrong, or that the church was wrong in permitting the side-by-side ‘hand’ or ‘tongue’ as legitimate options for individuals in the U.S.
Click to expand...
Well yes, true they did receive in the hand in the old, old days in the “pure pristine” primitive church, but the Father or Husband as the case was, then took the Host back to his family in the assembly or back home for consumption. Women did not receive nor did children. Communion Wafers were not used, instead, the unconsecrated Host was normally a large piece of wheat bread, of which pieces were broken off for distribution.The Host was not consumed at the altar in the majority of cases. There were also very specific instructions on how to wrap the Host, usually in a white piece of cloth, so that it would not be eaten by mice.👍 The Eastern Churches. some of them, still use a cloth instead of a Paten, remember them? That is a leftover from those days when the Host was immediately wrapped up and carried out.

These are facts which the supporters of receiving in the hand usually neglect to bring up in their zeal to return to a more “pure” practice of receiving Holy Communion.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Apparently the norm for communion in the U.S. now is in the hand (and thank you kleary for your comments; I must say that I am not particularly surprised that there were ‘undercurrents’ but I still stand that the reason given to Joe and Jane Average Catholic was that it was an older practice being reinstituted. I think that there is a probably a great deal of truth in what you say but I think many honestly believed on top or that, or without knowing it, that the practice was something that had been done and was theologically okay).
Click to expand...
Actually, it is the reverse. The universal norm, including the United States, is reception on the tongue. Reception in the hand is the option, and is at the discretion of the bishop. Any bishop in America or elsewhere could legitimately ban reception in the hand within his diocese, but could not stop reception on the tongue. The vast majority of Americans, however, seem to receive exclusively in the hand, and the only diocese that I know of where this has been forbidden is Rome. As was earlier posted, however, it hasn’t stopped people in Rome from doing it. Red traffic signals have little effect there too.
 
Cavaille-Coll said:
Actually, it is the reverse. The universal norm, including the United States, is reception on the tongue. Reception in the hand is the option, and is at the discretion of the bishop. Any bishop in America or elsewhere could legitimately ban reception in the hand within his diocese, but could not stop reception on the tongue. The vast majority of Americans, however, seem to receive exclusively in the hand, and the only diocese that I know of where this has been forbidden is Rome. As was earlier posted, however, it hasn’t stopped people in Rome from doing it. Red traffic signals have little effect there too.
Click to expand...
Sorry to disagree with with you but:

General Instruction of the The Roman Missal, #160: The consecrated host may be received on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant.

The norm is “either” as approved by the USCCB and Holy See.
 
Cavaille-Coll said:
Actually, it is the reverse. The universal norm, including the United States, is reception on the tongue. Reception in the hand is the option, and is at the discretion of the bishop. Any bishop in America or elsewhere could legitimately ban reception in the hand within his diocese, but could not stop reception on the tongue. The vast majority of Americans, however, seem to receive exclusively in the hand, and the only diocese that I know of where this has been forbidden is Rome. As was earlier posted, however, it hasn’t stopped people in Rome from doing it. Red traffic signals have little effect there too.
Click to expand...
In the Holy See itself, from the hands of the Pope, communicants can receive in the hand, if they wish. And when the law permitting reception in the hand was given, I think it was said that once they began, they couldn’t forbid it in the future (I know the Pope could) to people who were accustomed to receiving that way and wished to continue to do so.
 
JKirkLVNV said:
In the Holy See itself, from the hands of the Pope, communicants can receive in the hand, if they wish. And when the law permitting reception in the hand was given, I think it was said that once they began, they couldn’t forbid it in the future (I know the Pope could) to people who were accustomed to receiving that way and wished to continue to do so.
Click to expand...
Communion in the hand can be withdrawn if there is any risk of profanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top