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

[paramedicgirl]

1-February-2008 – Catholic World News Brief
Vatican Official Suggests Reconsidering Communion in the Hand

Vatican, Feb. 1, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship has called for reconsideration of the practice of Communion in the hand.

In the preface to a new Italian-language book on the Eucharist, written by a bishop from Kazakhstan and released in January by the Vatican’s official publishing house, Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don suggests that the reception of Communion in the hand has contributed to a general sense of “carelessness” about the Eucharist, as well as some flagrant abuses. The archbishop makes his remarks in the preface to Dominus Est, by Bishop Athanasisus Schneider.

The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not mandated by Vatican II, nor was it introduced in response to calls from the laity, Archbishop Ranjith writes. Instead, he argues, an established practice of piety-- receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue-- was changed “improperly and hurriedly,” and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican.

In light of a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist, the archbishop suggests that it is “high time to review” the policy. While he does not condemn the practice of Communion in the hand, the Vatican official praises Bishop Schneider for arguing in favor of the older practice, saying that it helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety.

 

[Kielbasi]

It might well be the end, but the process of changing traditions that people are accustomed to takes a pretty long time.

Even if your assessment is correct, we probably won’t be around to see the end of communion in the hand as it is entrenched.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

If people are using clowns, then they clearly don’t care about what Rome says. Still, this is good news, since if Archbishop Ranjith succeeds at least people who care about orthodoxy will know what’s right and what’s not.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I received on the hand ONCE when I visited the local Chaldean Catholic church only because it seemed to be their received practice. What do I know about the Assyrian/Chaldean liturgy?

I believe in the Assyrian Church of the East one purifies his hands first by holding them in the smoke of the censer.

 

[kleary]

:extrahappy: All we need now is for the Pope to rescind the Indult given by Rome for Holy Communion to be received in the hand.

Yes Virginia…“Communion in the hand” is an indult…as Ecclesia Dei was also.

Ken

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Wait, Virginia is a special case? I had no idea.

 

[LilyM]

:extrahappy: All we need now is for the Pope to rescind the Indult given by Rome for Holy Communion to be received in the hand.

Yes Virginia…“Communion in the hand” is an indult…as Ecclesia Dei was also.

Ken

Ahh, but he only rescinded Ecclesia Dei to grant the TLM its true place as a norm ALONGSIDE the NO - if he rescinds the indult for communion in the hand he can similarly choose to declare it a normative option alongside communion on the tongue :extrahappy:

 

[Lamb_Serenade]

I normally receive communion on the tongue. I receive in the hand when I am being ravaged by cold sores. I think it is inconsiderate of me to receive on the tongue when I have an active sore on my face, so when I have one (or three as I do right now…ugh!) I practice courtesy to my fellow parishoners by receiving communion in the hand. I keep a travel hand sanitizer pen and I sanitize my hands with before I go up to communion to keep it even more considerate. I also will not receive on the tongue if I’m sick for the same reason.

 

[jj2011]

I pray for abrogation of communion in the hand and of the novus ordo.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I pray for abrogation of communion in the hand and of the novus ordo.

Why?

 

[Yerusalyim]

Why?

Why, because some people are quite tied to the past and seem to equate tradition with Tradition.

The earliest practice was reception in the hand. At the Last Supper Christ didn’t place himself on the tongues of the apostles, but rather, handed himself to them…to include the unworthy hands of Judas Iscariot.

There is no doctrinal or theological basis to demand reception on the tongue. Part of the reason we went to reception on the tongue was because the faithful saw themselves as unworthy to touch Christ. This flies in the face of what Christ taught. The woman who had the courage to reach out and touch Christ was healed. Christ wanted the children to come and sit with him when the dicsiples tried to keep them away. For centuries the practice of reception in the hand was the norm.

The faithful began to see themselves as unworthy to touch Christ and reception on the tongue began…this scrupulicity was carried so far that reception of communion fell off significantly…so much so that the Church mandated the faithful must recieve communion once a year. Do we want to go back to this?

There is no theological or doctrinal problem with recieving either on the tongue or in the hand…and abuses can and have occured with both…I’ve seen people with gum in their mouth recieve on the tongue…people have removed it from their mouth…a cough can send the host flying. The issue is NOT HOW one recieves, but rather, often the problem is poor catechesis.

As to getting rid of the NO mass…why…what good would it do? Again, the problem is not the mass, but abusers of the mass…and abuse would creep in to TLM as well by these same people…based upon poor catechesis.

Much of this is rooted in the nonsense that passed as Catechesis back in the late 60s to the present day…we no longer seem to teach doctrine and the why of doctrine (which was a fault of the Baltimore Cathecism…long on doctrine and discipline…short on explanation. If we improve HOW we instruct the faithful, abuse of or rites and rituals will decrease.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Why, because some people are quite tied to the past and seem to equate tradition with Tradition.

The earliest practice was reception in the hand. At the Last Supper Christ didn’t place himself on the tongues of the apostles, but rather, handed himself to them…to include the unworthy hands of Judas Iscariot.

There is no doctrinal or theological basis to demand reception on the tongue. Part of the reason we went to reception on the tongue was because the faithful saw themselves as unworthy to touch Christ. This flies in the face of what Christ taught. The woman who had the courage to reach out and touch Christ was healed. Christ wanted the children to come and sit with him when the dicsiples tried to keep them away. For centuries the practice of reception in the hand was the norm.

The faithful began to see themselves as unworthy to touch Christ and reception on the tongue began…this scrupulicity was carried so far that reception of communion fell off significantly…so much so that the Church mandated the faithful must recieve communion once a year. Do we want to go back to this?

There is no theological or doctrinal problem with recieving either on the tongue or in the hand…and abuses can and have occured with both…I’ve seen people with gum in their mouth recieve on the tongue…people have removed it from their mouth…a cough can send the host flying. The issue is NOT HOW one recieves, but rather, often the problem is poor catechesis.

As to getting rid of the NO mass…why…what good would it do? Again, the problem is not the mass, but abusers of the mass…and abuse would creep in to TLM as well by these same people…based upon poor catechesis.

Much of this is rooted in the nonsense that passed as Catechesis back in the late 60s to the present day…we no longer seem to teach doctrine and the why of doctrine (which was a fault of the Baltimore Cathecism…long on doctrine and discipline…short on explanation. If we improve HOW we instruct the faithful, abuse of or rites and rituals will decrease.

AMEN!!!

 

[stmaria]

=Yerusalyim;3271446]Why, because some people are quite tied to the past and seem to equate tradition with Tradition.

The earliest practice was reception in the hand. At the Last Supper Christ didn’t place himself on the tongues of the apostles, but rather, handed himself to them…to include the unworthy hands of Judas Iscariot.

Rethinking Communion in the Hand
By Jude A Huntz

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

1. The Last Supper
   But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a** traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, **which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

 

[MrS]

Rethinking Communion in the Hand
By Jude A Huntz

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

."

I have posted this link a few times lately… I wish more would take the time to consider what is said. Any one of the reasons are good enough to shun in the hand reception.

Thanks for posting the link again.

.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have posted this link a few times lately… I wish more would take the time to consider what is said. Any one of the reasons are good enough to shun in the hand reception.

Thanks for posting the link again.

.

And here is some support for reception of Communion in the Hand from some Fathers of the Church.

“In approaching therefore, come not with thy wrists extended, or thy fingers spread; but make thy left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed thy palm, receive the Body of Christ, saying over it, Amen. So then after having carefully hollowed thine eyes by the touch of the Holy Body, partake of it; giving heed lest thou lose any portion thereof; for whatever thou losest, is evidently a loss to thee as it were from one of thine own members. For tell me, if any one gave thee grains of gold, wouldest thou not hold them with all carefulness, being on thy guard against losing any of them, and suffering loss? Wilt thou not then much more carefully keep watch, that not a crumb fall from thee of what is more precious than gold and precious stones?” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 23:21).

“Tell me, would you choose to come to the Sacrifice with unwashen hands? No, I suppose, not. But you would rather choose not to come at all, than come with soiled hands. And then, thus scrupulous as you are in this little matter, do you come with soiled soul, and thus dare to touch it? And yet the hands hold it but for a time, whereas into the soul it is dissolved entirely” (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Ephesians).

“Wherefore, if any one wishes to be a participator of the immaculate Body in the time of the Synaxis, and to offer himself for the communion, let him draw near, arranging his hands in the form of a cross, and so let him receive the communion of grace. But such as, instead of their hands, make vessels of gold or other materials for the reception of the divine gift, and by these receive the immaculate communion, we by no means allow to come, as preferring inanimate and inferior matter to the image of God” (Quintsext Synod of Trullo, Canon CI).

“[Caedmon] accordingly went [to the house to which those that were sick, and like shortly to die, were carried], and conversing pleasantly in a joyful manner with the rest that were in the house before, when it was past midnight, he asked them, whether they had the Eucharist there? They answered, ‘What need of the Eucharist? for you are not likely to die, since you talk so merrily with us, as if you were in perfect health.’ *‘However,’ said he, ‘bring me the Eucharist.’ Having received the same into his hand, he asked, whether they were all in charity with him, and without any enmity or rancour?” (St. Bede the Venerable, Ecclesiastical History of England, 4:24)

“Let us draw near to [the Eucharist] with an ardent desire, and with our hands held in the form of the cross let us receive the body of the Crucified One: and let us apply our eyes and lips and brows and partake of the divine coal, in order that the fire of the longing, that is in us, with the additional heat derived from the coal may utterly consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that we may be inflamed and deified by the participation in the divine fire” (St. John Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa Book IV, ch. XIII).

These are drawn from this article, I Make a Terrible … (On Communion in the Hand)

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I pray for abrogation of communion in the hand and of the novus ordo.

Very sad indeed. What an uproar we would have if someone posted that they were praying for the abrogation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and yet there is hardly even a whimper for this outrageous statement.

 

[AJV]

Rethinking Communion in the Hand
By Jude A Huntz

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

1. The Last Supper
   But surely the apostles received Communion in the hand at the last supper? It is usually presumed that this was so. Even if it were, though, we would point out that the apostles were themselves priests, or even, bishops.

But we must not forget a** traditional practice of middle-eastern hospitality, **which was practiced in Jesus’ time and which is still the case: one feeds one’s guests with one’s own hand, placing a symbolic morsel in the mouth of the guest. And we have scriptural evidence of this as well: our Lord dipped a morsel of bread into some wine, and gave it to Judas. Did he place this wet morsel into Judas’s hand? That would be rather messy. Did he not perhaps extend to the one whom he addressed later in the garden as “Friend” the gesture of hospitality spoken of above? And if so, why not with Holy Communion, “giving himself by his own hand.”

It would indeed be good if the author had cited some evidence for this practice and where exactly and how common it is. I am slightly quizzical on why in all the controversies earlier when Catholic authors and liturgists (proper ones who had even made visits to the Holy Land) were defending Communion on the tongue they never mentioned this.

The article though speaks slightly innacurately in some areas- for example, it is customary in the Eastern Churches, and in several Western monastic uses to allow priests, even if not celebrating, to receive in the hand. Of course, their hands are consecrated, so its a minor point. Trent is of no use to be quoted, because the laity receive Communion from the priest whether in the hand or in the mouth. St. Leo is not wholly conclusive proof since he could apply either way. St. Basil has been half-quoted. It is really funny that the Council of Trullo is cited since it actually supports Communion in the hand. As for the Patriarch John (a) his suspect instructions are repeated by St. John Damascene (b) he was accused (and really one should look into the story why) of Origen -ism. Now if someone wants to tell me how that influences Communion reception, I’m very interested.

I can definitely see the authors point on the legends of mediaevel piety, and the effects of CITH, etc. I’m not a fan of CITH myself. But I feel she could be a little more careful with some bits of the other evidence.

 

[KofC_SirKnight]

Very sad indeed. What an uproar we would have if someone posted that they were praying for the abrogation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and yet there is hardly even a whimper for this outrageous statement.

Ah, but Brother David - far too many Catholics thought that this had been done out of Vatican II. That was never the case. I had been into many a discussion on the Extraordinary Form previous to the Pope’s MP of last year, when they used Vatican II against my thinking.

Richard

 

[jj2011]

Very sad indeed. What an uproar we would have if someone posted that they were praying for the abrogation of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and yet there is hardly even a whimper for this outrageous statement.

The impugned statement could simply mean that what we see in our American churches does not correspond with what was decreed in the liturgy constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, and consequently the novus ordo should be abrogated. What’s so extreme about that?

 

[AJV]

Why, because some people are quite tied to the past and seem to equate tradition with Tradition.

The earliest practice was reception in the hand. At the Last Supper Christ didn’t place himself on the tongues of the apostles, but rather, handed himself to them…to include the unworthy hands of Judas Iscariot.

There is no doctrinal or theological basis to demand reception on the tongue. Part of the reason we went to reception on the tongue was because the faithful saw themselves as unworthy to touch Christ. This flies in the face of what Christ taught. The woman who had the courage to reach out and touch Christ was healed. Christ wanted the children to come and sit with him when the disciples tried to keep them away. For centuries the practice of reception in the hand was the norm.

The faithful began to see themselves as unworthy to touch Christ and reception on the tongue began…this scrupulosity was carried so far that reception of communion fell off significantly…so much so that the Church mandated the faithful must receive communion once a year. Do we want to go back to this?

There is no theological or doctrinal problem with recieving either on the tongue or in the hand…and abuses can and have occured with both…I’ve seen people with gum in their mouth recieve on the tongue…people have removed it from their mouth…a cough can send the host flying. The issue is NOT HOW one recieves, but rather, often the problem is poor catechesis.

As to getting rid of the NO mass…why…what good would it do? Again, the problem is not the mass, but abusers of the mass…and abuse would creep in to TLM as well by these same people…based upon poor catechesis.

Poor catechesis is definitely a factor- but I think even subjectively, there is a difference between receiving on the tongue and receiving in the hand that at least partially compensates for catechesis. Perhaps because in daily life we don’t have people putting food directly in our mouths. Objectively, there is no real difference between the tongue and the hand, but subjectively there is a lot, I feel, in popular consciousness.

Indeed Christ himself mingled with all types. But we adopt certain forms of reverence that are fitting for us and that ebenfit the dignity of the mystery. Christ did not reject marks of honour. We wouldn’t support someone receiving the Eucharist with a dirty hand. Neither would we if we were wading throguh muck, place the sacrament under the muck even if Christ walked in the gutter and got his feet dirty. I think in some these measures are necessary for us also. Reverence, is, as you say, primarily a state of mind, but it is not entirely divorced from our actions both for ourselves and for others.

It is quite possible I think, in our modern day and age, to maintain the respect of receiving on the tongue as well as the frequent reception of holy Communion. It was, after all, only some centuries after reception on the tongue began that there was a decline in frequent Communion.