It is not within the competence of the priest to refuse to give Communion in the hand to a communicant who wishes to receive according to that method.I think if I ever became a priest I wouldn’t give communion on the hand at all /…/
Yes the early Christians received in hand.Did they receive on the hand?
Cardinal Ratzinger (prior to being Pope Benedict XVI) notes that it was the practice of the Early Church to receive in the hand.
He notes in God and the World: “It was done in the early Church” (pg 410)
And in another work
“…we know that until the ninth century Communion was received in the hand, standing.”
Cardinal Ratzinger “God Is Near Us” Ignatius Press Pg 70 2001
I also recall but have not found it at the moment-- that he gave an answer as Pope in a Q & A session with Priests that was similar…
He certainly knows of what he speaks.
Depends on what exactly you mean by “Early”Did they receive on the hand? Is receiving on the hand that modern?
Did they partake of the chalice?
THANK YOU!This is not correct at all. He is required by law to do so, provided the person is not prohibited by law from receiving.
*Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.*
it is pretty interesting that most African conferences do not have communion on the hand and their churches are usually free of these long arguments.It is not within the competence of the priest to refuse to give Communion in the hand to a communicant who wishes to receive according to that method.
The priest has a serious obligation to submit, in complete docility, to what is established by the successors to the apostles. He is ordained as a subordinate co-worker with the Order of Bishops. He must be prepared to set aside his personal preferences in order to carry out the will of his superiors.
I’ve attended a Mass where the priest did not give Holy Communion to the faithful.This is not correct at all. He is required by law to do so, provided the person is not prohibited by law from receiving.
*Can. 912 Any baptized person not prohibited by law can and must be admitted to holy communion.
Can. 918 It is highly recommended that the faithful receive holy communion during the eucharistic celebration itself. It is to be administered outside the Mass, however, to those who request it for a just cause, with the liturgical rites being observed.*
He had a serious obligation to make the sacrament available to you, as the canon makes clear. The law besides provided for you to receive twice since you would be assisting at the later Mass as well as the earlier one.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]
I’ve attended a Mass where the priest did not give Holy Communion to the faithful.
It was essentially a private Mass that the priest was celebrating with another priest, and a seminarian (and a couple of others) and we happened to turn up as just before it started.
As this was part of a large day of celebrations where at a later event the bishop would be saying Mass, the priest said that due to that fact he would rather not distribute Communion at this Mass and asked us if that was OK. Which of course we said it was.
The priest in question is, in my opinion, one of the most reverent priests I have ever see say Mass.
sub utraque = under bothDid they receive on the hand? Is receiving on the hand that modern?
Did they partake of the chalice?
To be fair to the priest I think he actually said, “Would we mind if …”, rather than, “I would rather…” and I think that if we had said, “Actually we would like to receive Communion” then he would have given us Communion. So I think then that he wasn’t in breach of Canon Law, as I am fairly sure we would not have been denied if we had then presented ourselves for Communion.He had a serious obligation to make the sacrament available to you, as the canon makes clear. The law besides provided for you to receive twice since you would be assisting at the later Mass as well as the earlier one.
The mindset demonstrated is a regrettable one. What he would “rather” do is immaterial.
My archdiocese certainly permits communion in the hand but my pastor will absolutely NOT give anyone communion in the hand.But not where the diocese permits it. Most dioceses will
There is an inherent danger in comparing what goes on in one country with another, and that is that cultural differences are not taken into account.it is pretty interesting that most African conferences do not have communion on the hand and their churches are usually free of these long arguments.
If such is true, the priest should be reported to the archdiocese so that action maybe taken against him.My archdiocese certainly permits communion in the hand but my pastor will absolutely NOT give anyone communion in the hand.
Then you have erred in what is a most elementary point of canon law.As for the receiving Communion twice in a day, I always assumed that it was in exceptional circumstances.