Is this the beginning of the end for communion in the hand?

[otjm]

I do not believe that the current practice of Communion in the hand can adequately safeguard the Eucharist given our current state of catechesis.

And I do not say this to be flippant; but it would appear from the conversation that Jesus really didn’t know what He was doing when He instituted the Eucharist the way He did. I say this only to give some perspective. What did He intend? Are we to presume that it (the Eucharist) mattered so little to Him that He left us with what could be categorized, by those who don’t like it, as a sloppy, slovenly and irreverant way of Communicating?

I have been saying for a long time that we need better, more complete and accurate as well as adequate catechesis. From you own comments it would seem that your parish is not doing a very good job at all at catechesis - why? Why are we trying to treat a symptom instead of a disease? Without adequate catechesis, all we are suggesting here is that if everyone received on the tongue, those who feel it is more reverant will have their feelings appeased; nothing else will be changed. The kids who receive “like it was M & Ms” will still be doing so, but all the adults will stand around saying “Oh, aren’t they so reverant?” That amounts to whitewashing the selpulchar, imho.

 

[pnewton]

I have to think the crumb problem is easily corrected. I, too, have never seen one crumb of any size in all the time I have been receiving communion. I know because I always look. The host we use are just not subject to crumbling. I have to think that if some crumbs are found, be that at the fatima crusader laboratories or else where, then the wrong type of wafer is being used.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Well, I turn 62 this month, and looking at my parish, while it is growing younger (because it is increasing in size), we still have a fairly balanced population age-wise. and there seems to be no opposition among the older ones to Communion in the hand; it is not mandated, Communion on the tongue is available to all, and few exercise it.

And so, here I attend in a cathedral parish where Communion on the tongue is the norm and our children are (for lack of a better word) ambidextrous.

That, too could be argued. My point was that it is all too easy to presume that Communion in the hand was eliminated solely and specifically as an issue of reverance.

See, the problem I have with this is the presumption was that Rome eliminated Communion in the hand and that it wasn’t an authentic organic development. I seriously doubt that Rome cared a fig about what was going on in Cantwaraburh (Cantebury) in the late ninth century. Cantebury was more worried about the Danes.

Likewise, do you honestly think the Visigoths in Spain were worried about Rome eliminating Communion in the hand with Islam at their doorstep. Communion on the tongue was the norm until the 1980s. So, we just jetison 1600 years of history and tradition? For an indult?

the good nuns who educated me were not particulary well trained in theology; they were trained as educators. They were given the Baltimore Catechism, and taught to teach it by rote. /they taught Limbo as a doctrine, which it wasn’t, and taught no difference between doctrine and praxis; it was al absolutely immutable and unchangeable. They were teaching grade school children, and while it can be argualby (and I think correctly) said that they should not have been teaching the nuances, many never learned anything beyond the grade school level. How many lost faith because they were taught by good and well meaning nuns that all was absolute and would never change, and then lost faith because change inevitably happened (and would have, even if radical changes, which we all agree were outside the scope of consideration)?

And the good nuns prepared me and formed my conscience so that when I went to 8th grade at a Catholic boys high school in 1964 and was exposed to the “truth” about limbo, etc., my faith was strenghthened. In five years, we never even touched upon the Baltimore Catechism. The brothers built upon the foundation that the good sisters laid such that by 1969 I was able to clearly discern that I a) would submit to the magesterium of HMC and b) I wanted no part of the "a grinnin’ and a’strummin’ that followed.

From my point of view, the baby got thrown out with the bathwater in 1969. I don’t consider myself anything but a Catholic who was properly catechized before 1965. Do I want to go back to the TLM? Not particularly. Do I want the reverence I knew before 1965? You betcha. You can see that reverence reflected on EWTN every day.

No, receiving on the tongue at a communion rail is not going to bring reverence back. Neither will the continued practice of receiving in the hand and treating the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ as a handful of M & M’s.

This forum is entitled “Traditional Catholicism”. I submitted to the Magisterium of HMC forty years ago. I can’t believe I was the only one. I believe I have seen on EWTN on many occassions what the reforms of Vatican II were supposed to be. So, while there are traditonal Catholics who wish to see the Mass returned to its pre-VII form, I am not one of them. Restore the reverence. Restore the tradition. Restore what it meant to be Catholic.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

And I do not say this to be flippant; but it would appear from the conversation that Jesus really didn’t know what He was doing when He instituted the Eucharist the way He did. I say this only to give some perspective. What did He intend? Are we to presume that it (the Eucharist) mattered so little to Him that He left us with what could be categorized, by those who don’t like it, as a sloppy, slovenly and irreverant way of Communicating?

I have been saying for a long time that we need better, more complete and accurate as well as adequate catechesis. From you own comments it would seem that your parish is not doing a very good job at all at catechesis - why? Why are we trying to treat a symptom instead of a disease? Without adequate catechesis, all we are suggesting here is that if everyone received on the tongue, those who feel it is more reverant will have their feelings appeased; nothing else will be changed. The kids who receive “like it was M & Ms” will still be doing so, but all the adults will stand around saying “Oh, aren’t they so reverant?” That amounts to whitewashing the selpulchar, imho.

I really think are are being flippant. I fail to see how you equate my position with any implication that our Lord did not know what he was doing. The fact that our Lord knew full well all of the abuses and sacrileges that He would suffer in the Most Blessed Sacrament, but instituted It anyway indeed shows the depths of His love for us. I think we have fallen a long way from the Patristic period where we were instructed to treat the Eucharist more carefully than a handful of gold dust, and to be careful, for losing one particle would be worse than losing a limb! I have, in fact, quoted this instruction by St. Cyril many times, but it obviously hasn’t been enough.

I am not the pastor, and can only do so much to improve catechesis. I have tried to treat the disease, but I have been limited by some DREs who want to use books without substance, many parents who are not practicing (parents are the first and best teachers of their children), and pastors who are not on the same page (though that is the case in my current assignment).

Ritual has meaning, and the increased attention of the sacredness of the Host through the gestures of kneeling and receiving on the tongue, together with the presence of the Communion paten and cloth, would be catechetical in itself!

My bottom line remains: I do not believe that the current practice adequately safeguards the Eucharist.

 

[stmaria]

And we disagree here; on the tongue or in the hand is irrelevant if there is no teaching. What makes you think that being at an altar rail is going to teach True Presence? and what makes you think that if they are taught True Presence, the same reverance will not be shown if they receive in the hand? The issue is catechesis, not process. or are you porposing that there was mass irreverance for the Eucharist for 9 centuries? I don’t.

otjm. Don’t you think that kneeling at an altar rail and receiving on the tongue would give those receiving that something extraordinary is happenning? Something that is not common. Something that is not seen on the street corner?
I can stand in line at a ballgame and have the vendor put a hot dog in my hand any day of the week.
I want the sacredness to return. It make me so said when I go to a Church where the host and chalice are no longer elevated and the bells are no longer rung.
I need those things. I need a beautiful sanctuary with the Tabernacle in full view. I need statues and candles, beautiful tradition music. And I want the priest to face the Tabernacle and the cross, at least during the offertory and consecration.
But for some reason those things have been taken away.
All of these things make the Mass, for the average Catholic, nothing but a common prayer service and over time the sacredness is chipped way and the belief in the Real Presence vanishes.

 

[MrS]

I really think are are being flippant. I fail to see how you equate my position with any implication that our Lord did not know what he was doing. The fact that our Lord knew full well all of the abuses and sacrileges that He would suffer in the Most Blessed Sacrament, but instituted It anyway indeed shows the depths of His love for us. I think we have fallen a long way from the Patristic period where we were instructed to treat the Eucharist more carefully than a handful of gold dust, and to be careful, for losing one particle would be worse than losing a limb! I have, in fact, quoted this instruction by St. Cyril many times, but it obviously hasn’t been enough.

I am not the pastor, and can only do so much to improve catechesis. I have tried to treat the disease, but I have been limited by some DREs who want to use books without substance, many parents who are not practicing (parents are the first and best teachers of their children), and pastors who are not on the same page (though that is the case in my current assignment).

Ritual has meaning, and the increased attention of the sacredness of the Host through the gestures of kneeling and receiving on the tongue, together with the presence of the Communion paten and cloth, would be catechetical in itself!

My bottom line remains: I do not believe that the current practice adequately safeguards the Eucharist.

Thank you Father, and God Bless you…

 

[otjm]

otjm. Don’t you think that kneeling at an altar rail and receiving on the tongue would give those receiving that something extraordinary is happenning? Something that is not common. Something that is not seen on the street corner?

I have both enough experience of and faith in human nature to know that it will impact some and not others. I have been there, done that, and have experience of both means of receiving. I went to Catholic grade scholl where we started each day with Mass; I knew then who wasn’t reverant other than for show. And that was all on the tongue, kneeling down.

I want the sacredness to return. It make me so said when I go to a Church where the host and chalice are no longer elevated and the bells are no longer rung.
I need those things. I need a beautiful sanctuary with the Tabernacle in full view. I need statues and candles, beautiful tradition music. And I want the priest to face the Tabernacle and the cross, at least during the offertory and consecration.
But for some reason those things have been taken away.
All of these things make the Mass, for the average Catholic, nothing but a common prayer service and over time the sacredness is chipped way and the belief in the Real Presence vanishes.

Different people respond to different stimuli. I do not say yours are wrong. I say that society as a whole has become calloused, casual, secualrized and desensitized to much of anything, including anything religious, and what happens in society usually spills over to those sitting in the pews.

Reverance is as reverance does. It doesn’t matter if it is the most beautiful cathedral in the world, or near the field of battle; how the priest says Mass (as in, with reverance or lacking it) has more to do with the attitude of reverance than the most beautiful robes, or a stole over battle dress; a guilded altar or a cloth over the ammunition crate; the most ornate of taberncles or no tabernacle at all.

I have yet to meet a Catholic who faithfully attends Mass each week who thinks that the current Mass is a common prayer service; but if you feel this way then maybe I have met the first one. I have attended Mass in beautiful cathedrals, and near the field of battle in Viet Nam. And frankly, the one on the ammunition crate was most definitely very reverant.

If you need all of those things to make the Mass reverant, so be it. I don’t. I do not say they have no meaning; simply that they are not in and of themselves necessary for reverance in my experience.

Some here say that Communion in the hand is not reverant; they certainly seem to imply that it either can’t be, or maybe could make the grade only in the most limited circumstances. They also say, or seem to say, that it is the source of lack of reverance. That is neither my experience, nor is it a necessary conclusion. It is an assumption, one that imho is driven more by personal feelings than any logical analysis of what has happened over the last 40 years, and a separation out of what is cause from what is effect, and what is neither cause nor effect but simply simultaneous occurance. I have encountered altogether way too many people who reverantly receive in the hand to believe that it is the cause of irreverance. That one can receive irreverantly in the hand is not a question; but it is my position that the irreverance is not because of the means of receiving but rather because reverance has not been taught. Catechesis went into the toilet long ago, and then someone flushed. We suffer the results of the twits who decided that teaching doctrine did not instill faith, and decided that “faith experiences” were how one was to become educated as to becoming Catholic.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I have to think the crumb problem is easily corrected. I, too, have never seen one crumb of any size in all the time I have been receiving communion. I know because I always look. The host we use are just not subject to crumbling. I have to think that if some crumbs are found, be that at the fatima crusader laboratories or else where, then the wrong type of wafer is being used.

I have no desire to support the Fatima Crusader, but the “particle study” that is reported there isn’t that bad, from a scientific point of view (I have a Ph.D. in physical chemistry). If I were judging it for a science fair, the only comment I would make is that he only ordered one box, so the question would be whether or not the results were typical.

There are things you can do to reduce fragments. I usually tap the host lightly within the ciborium before placing It on the Communicant’s hand or tongue. The Cavanaugh altar breads are very widely used; they are perhaps the best available. I have used several brands, including Cavanaugh; you simply cannot buy altar bread that produce no particles.

After distributing Communion, I always have fragments on my fingers and left within the ciborium.

 

[latinmasslover]

9 centuries? It is only your presumption that Communion in the hand is an abuse; the Fathers of the Church seem to hold otherwise. If I had to bet between you and them, I would not be putting money on you. Further, one of the most brilliant theologians of the day, the one we now call pope, has waded in on the issue to the contrary of your opinion. again, my money is on him. No, it isn’t. Again, I suggest others more knowledgeable than you have said otherwise.

Your argument is inadequate. Yes, and those more knowledgable than me who disagree; there are also those who know more than you who disagree. Unless you’re saying the Pope and Cardinals can *never *make a mistake, you can’t use that argument. I’ll say it again:

Approving Communion in the hand is the equivalent of an adult saying “I don’t have to kneel in the presence of God because I didn’t have to do it when I was two.”

If you don’t like it, throw your tantrum with Luther and Calvin; they didn’t like it either.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I have no desire to support the Fatima Crusader, but the “particle study” that is reported there isn’t that bad, from a scientific point of view (I have a Ph.D. in physical chemistry). If I were judging it for a science fair, the only comment I would make is that he only ordered one box, so the question would be whether or not the results were typical…

Additionally, there is no reason why the particles on the “minister”'s fingers would be lost, so the total is artificially high.

 

[Walking_Home]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrRJBoyd
I really think are are being flippant. I fail to see how you equate my position with any implication that our Lord did not know what he was doing. The fact that our Lord knew full well all of the abuses and sacrileges that He would suffer in the Most Blessed Sacrament, but instituted It anyway indeed shows the depths of His love for us. I think we have fallen a long way from the Patristic period where we were instructed to treat the Eucharist more carefully than a handful of gold dust, and to be careful, for losing one particle would be worse than losing a limb! I have, in fact, quoted this instruction by St. Cyril many times, but it obviously hasn’t been enough.

I am not the pastor, and can only do so much to improve catechesis. I have tried to treat the disease, but I have been limited by some DREs who want to use books without substance, many parents who are not practicing (parents are the first and best teachers of their children), and pastors who are not on the same page (though that is the case in my current assignment).

Ritual has meaning, and the increased attention of the sacredness of the Host through the gestures of kneeling and receiving on the tongue, together with the presence of the Communion paten and cloth, would be catechetical in itself!

My bottom line remains: I do not believe that the current practice adequately safeguards the Eucharist.

Thank you Father, and God Bless you…

---

I second that — Yes thank you and may our Lord always be at your side.

 

[Eisenhorn]

I used to recieve on the hand… until I learned Who it was that I was recieving. My catechesis was horrible growing up. I left to go out into the world not knowing anything of the Faith other than learning a strong dislike for anything fish, especially on Fridays. Since then I have not gone on a crusade to rid our world of “hand-receptor-heretics” but when asked or the discussion comes up in conversation I lay out the following proposal for thought:

*"If you were to take yourself back to the time of Christ and found yourself in the street as He passed by, knowing what you know about Him right now, that He is the Son of God and is God Himself as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, would you feel worthy to touch, to soil with your sinful hands even the very hem of His cloak? Could you find yourself in any other condition but face down in obeisance to His glory and majesty?

Knowing that John 6 and Matthew 26 lay down the utter truth of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist I would ask that you take some time and think about recieving our Lord in your hand and ask yourself if there is in fact an alternative that will not expose the Sacrament accidental defilement?"*

Using this utlitarian approach many have come to recind their practice of using their hands and have found their hearts moved even further, recieving on the tounge as a method of showing devotion.

I do not knock recieving on the hand because it is allowed for by Holy Mother Church. I simply have found that my interior disposition will no longer allow for it and have found occaisions to share how this came to be. If others have listened and have been prompted to change their manner of reception, so be it. If they have not been prompted to change, so be it.

 

[otjm]

Your argument is inadequate. Yes, and those more knowledgable than me who disagree; there are also those who know more than you who disagree. Unless you’re saying the Pope and Cardinals can *never *make a mistake, you can’t use that argument. I’ll say it again:

Approving Communion in the hand is the equivalent of an adult saying “I don’t have to kneel in the presence of God because I didn’t have to do it when I was two.”

If you don’t like it, throw your tantrum with Luther and Calvin; they didn’t like it either.

Tantrums? Interesting you should bring that up…

No, I have no tantrums. But I do listen to the Pope, and I certainly am not going to be one who might make a veiled suggestion that changes he makes to prayers, or issues he approves of, have any connection to fornication by another Pope.

 

[latinmasslover]

I really think are are being flippant. I fail to see how you equate my position with any implication that our Lord did not know what he was doing. The fact that our Lord knew full well all of the abuses and sacrileges that He would suffer in the Most Blessed Sacrament, but instituted It anyway indeed shows the depths of His love for us. I think we have fallen a long way from the Patristic period where we were instructed to treat the Eucharist more carefully than a handful of gold dust, and to be careful, for losing one particle would be worse than losing a limb! I have, in fact, quoted this instruction by St. Cyril many times, but it obviously hasn’t been enough.

I am not the pastor, and can only do so much to improve catechesis. I have tried to treat the disease, but I have been limited by some DREs who want to use books without substance, many parents who are not practicing (parents are the first and best teachers of their children), and pastors who are not on the same page (though that is the case in my current assignment).

Ritual has meaning, and the increased attention of the sacredness of the Host through the gestures of kneeling and receiving on the tongue, together with the presence of the Communion paten and cloth, would be catechetical in itself!

My bottom line remains: I do not believe that the current practice adequately safeguards the Eucharist.

Will you put in a transfer to my parish?! God Bless you and your ministry. keep it up:thumbsup:

 

[TMGallyon85]

Being that communion in the Hand is an INDULT in the United states. The Norm is on the tongue in many parts of the world. We also have to remember that as Catholics we believe we are recieving the LORD himself! It isnt like a Protestant communion service. We have to take it seriously whether particles fall on the floor or the precious blood spills into carpets. This should be an instance when you should be scrupulous.

 

[pnewton]

After distributing Communion, I always have fragments on my fingers and left within the ciborium.

I had a thought on that. Do the wrappings have crumbs in the packages after the wafers have been transferred? I know with other items the greatest source of crumbs is shipping. Not that it matters, but it may be that the wafers aren’t crumbling at all, but having crumbs cling to them. It could explain why they appear more in the ciborium than anywhere else.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I had a thought on that. Do the wrappings have crumbs in the packages after the wafers have been transferred? I know with other items the greatest source of crumbs is shipping. Not that it matters, but it may be that the wafers aren’t crumbling at all, but having crumbs cling to them. It could explain why they appear more in the ciborium than anywhere else.

The wrappings do contain crumbs, and you do have to be careful that, when you transfer unconsecrated hosts into the ciborium to be consecrated, you do not needlessly include crumbs, which will become consecrated fragments. However, it is impossible to avoid having some fragments. What we do with them is one way which shows how much we care about our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

 

[CradleCath]

Since returning to the “primitive” practice of Communion in the hand, what fruits have we seen? Only one in three Catholics in the U.S. believe in Transubstantiation. Fragments are hardly ever looked for by the recipient of Holy Communion in the hand, yet every fragment is truly Transubstantiated --it is the Lord! I have personally seen Communicants brush their hands together to remove “crumbs” after receiving Holy Communion. One woman, after dropping the Host, was walking away without consuming It. When I asked her whether or not she was going to consume the Host, she replied, “No; it fell on the floor;” --as if it had been a potato chip that fell on the floor and was good for nothing but to be thrown away in the trash! I took the Host back from her. Since being ordained, I have had to walk after literally dozens of Communicants who did not consume the Host. Some returned It to me. And all this happened in parishes that have been catechized regarding the Real Presence and how to receive the Eucharist; I normally speak on this in my homilies two to four times a year.
God bless,

Fr. Boyd

It is so great to read the opinion of a priest on this, or any other custom/Tradition or tradition of the Church. Thank you, Father.

 

[LilyM]

I used to recieve on the hand… until I learned Who it was that I was recieving. My catechesis was horrible growing up. I left to go out into the world not knowing anything of the Faith other than learning a strong dislike for anything fish, especially on Fridays. Since then I have not gone on a crusade to rid our world of “hand-receptor-heretics” but when asked or the discussion comes up in conversation I lay out the following proposal for thought:

*"If you were to take yourself back to the time of Christ and found yourself in the street as He passed by, knowing what you know about Him right now, that He is the Son of God and is God Himself as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, would you feel worthy to touch, to soil with your sinful hands even the very hem of His cloak? Could you find yourself in any other condition but face down in obeisance to His glory and majesty?

Knowing that John 6 and Matthew 26 lay down the utter truth of the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist I would ask that you take some time and think about recieving our Lord in your hand and ask yourself if there is in fact an alternative that will not expose the Sacrament accidental defilement?"*

Using this utlitarian approach many have come to recind their practice of using their hands and have found their hearts moved even further, recieving on the tounge as a method of showing devotion.

I do not knock recieving on the hand because it is allowed for by Holy Mother Church. I simply have found that my interior disposition will no longer allow for it and have found occaisions to share how this came to be. If others have listened and have been prompted to change their manner of reception, so be it. If they have not been prompted to change, so be it.

Very moving - and yet it was the women who DID dare to touch the hem of His cloak, and even His sacred feet, with their sinful soiled hands, who were the ones who were healed and forgiven, was it not?

And I don’t doubt that there’s only a small number of Catholics who believe in the Real Presence. The question is has it ever been any different? If the majority of the population of England were, as they seem to have been, more than willing to give up en masse any pretence to a belief in the Real Presence under Henry VIII and Edward VI, how deeply can such belief have been rooted in them?

At the court of the Most Catholic King of France, Louis XIV, there were numerous courtiers and hangers-on who indulged in Satanic rituals and profanation of the Eucharist, including those closest to the King himself. Again, how much did all the catechising they were undoubtedly given, the many Masses they undoubtedly assisted at, the many Communions they undoubtedly received or saw distributed in the hand, inspire them with not only understanding, but much more importantly LOVE, of the Eucharist?

 

[KathleenElsie]

I am correct and you are wrong. All material from “My Catholic Faith” is taken from the No.3 revised edition of the Baltimore Catechism and from the 1941 translation of the New Testament. Now, if you think that you know better than those two sources, then you are simply not Catholic. Please study a catechism of the Catholic Faith.

angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/3006/my-catholic-faith
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/4004/baltimore-catechism-number-3
angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8175/the-new-testament

You have tended to call many of us “not Catholic” or poorly taught. Your charity and ability to teach seems limited to making personal and derogatory comments. I will keep you in my “poorly” taught prayers that you become more charitable in you postings.