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

[SacredHeartFan]

i know that i feel like i desicrate jesus when i touch it with my hands. i take it by the mouth but standing.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

I take Communion on the tonque when I manage to get in Father’s line (which is most of the time) But when I find myself in lay person’s line I take it on the hand, because I don’t see the point otherwise.

Am I alone feeling this way?

Because you don’t see what point?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I take Communion on the tonque when I manage to get in Father’s line (which is most of the time) But when I find myself in lay person’s line I take it on the hand, because I don’t see the point otherwise.

Am I alone feeling this way?

That makes sense. One major reason of accepting Communion on the tongue is so only the consecrated hands of the priest touches the Eucharist. This point is rendered moot if the laity is to administer the Sacrament to one another.

No, I do not expect that you are alone in believing this.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

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.

I’m with you here. I believe we are seeing a growing number of bishops waking up to the issue - not very many at all are going to advocate removing the indult at this point, but we will probably slowly see the sentiment spread. Benedict is certainly not going to revoke the indult. He knows how extremely anti-pastoral the liturgical changes of the last half-century were (rapid, unasked for, unconsidered, etc.), and he’s not going to force people through that again. Seeing how entrenched communion in the hand is (even rather ‘theologically interested’ Catholics are often unaware that on the tongue is a right and in the hand is an indult), he would not force people to abandon the practice overnight. The only thing I see him being open for on this front is a) not granting any more indults or b) revoking indults when a bishop specifically requests that his territory no longer enjoy the privilege.

There is no doctrinal or theological basis to demand reception on the tongue.

These sorts of statements really irk me when they seem dishonest. Might I suggest a far more accurate sentence would read:
“There is no doctrinal or theological basis which I find sufficiently convincingto demand reception on the tongue.”

Obviously there’s a theological reason - there’s a well-developed tradition concerning the consecrations of various grades of orders and the levels of contact this allows them to have with the sacred vessels and Our Eucharistic Lord. It’s simply disingenuous to claim, then, that there is no theological warrant whatsoever. Say it’s outmoded, say it’s a medieval innovation, say it was never mainstream (which would, though, be false), say it is not compelling - anything but pretend it doesn’t exist.

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.

I very much understand your sentiments here, but at the same time, as our soldier of Mary began to indicate, there does seem to be a large difference between calling for the abolition of a venerable ancient rite and the abolition of a modern fabrication that has yet to see its fortieth birthday. Yes, as a Catholic rite we have a certain amount of respect we much give to it, but in a long view we can honestly say we’re still dealing with an “experiment.”

Take, for instance, the new rite of exorcism. If we are to believe Fr. Amorth, plenty of exorcists don’t like it and find it less effective. The Church would do nothing wrong if it were to abrogate this thing it had only recently created to try to address a need it can now see is not being met by the attempt. To talk of a real historical example, the idea held by many that “the ancient Church baptized on Easter after a three-year catechumenate” is based on what some liturgists might characterize as a roughly 50-year experiment - yes, an/some ancient church/es tried the model, but they dropped it after roughly as long as we’ve had the NO. Fifty years and then they let it go - and Pius V felt justified in suppressing any usages younger than 200. I think, then, that when we are dealing with a rite of Mass we should be respectful and courteous, but it is certainly within bounds to express the sentiment that the NO is a failed experiment - not invalid, not positively irreverent, not diabolic, but incapable of living up to its expectations.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The traditional Catholicism subforum here has become little more than a place to bash traditional Catholicism.

I’ve not bashed traditional Catholicism in any way. My only issue is that some here confuse tradition with Tradition.

These sorts of statements really irk me when they seem dishonest. Might I suggest a far more accurate sentence would read:
“There is no doctrinal or theological basis which I find sufficiently convincingto demand reception on the tongue.”

Obviously there’s a theological reason - there’s a well-developed tradition concerning the consecrations of various grades of orders and the levels of contact this allows them to have with the sacred vessels and Our Eucharistic Lord. It’s simply disingenuous to claim, then, that there is no theological warrant whatsoever. Say it’s outmoded, say it’s a medieval innovation, say it was never mainstream (which would, though, be false), say it is not compelling - anything but pretend it doesn’t exist.

It might irk you, but it’s true. It’s not about what I THINK, it’s about what the Church TEACHES. A well developed tradition does not a theological or doctrinal reason make. The Church has NO doctrinal or theological issues with either form of reception…the issue surrounds ABUSE.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

That makes sense. One major reason of accepting Communion on the tongue is so only the consecrated hands of the priest touches the Eucharist. This point is rendered moot if the laity is to administer the Sacrament to one another.

No, I do not expect that you are alone in believing this.

I am not sure I get this type of thinking.

You opt for what you see as a more reverent reception if it includes the hands of a priest but when it doesn’t then you, in your own estimation, prefer a less reverent reception?

 

[jay29]

I am not sure I get this type of thinking.

You opt for what you see as a more reverent reception if it includes the hands of a priest but when it doesn’t then you, in your own estimation, prefer a less reverent reception?

Only the PRIEST/DEACON/BISHOP should touch the Eucharist. The laity have no business doing so, in my opinion. I really don’t think they should even open the tabernacle.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Only the PRIEST/DEACON/BISHOP should touch the Eucharist. The laity have no business doing so, in my opinion. I really don’t think they should even open the tabernacle.

So you figure what the hell - it is all shot since a lay person touched it?

BTW - where exactly does is this documented?

 

[jay29]

So you figure what the hell - it is all shot since a lay person touched it?

BTW - where exactly does is this documented?

I don’t think they should touch the Lord’s Body in the first place.

 

[brotherhrolf]

BTW - where exactly does is this documented?

At the very least it is documented in the memories of those of use who were catechized before Vatican II. One of the greatest fears we had was that our hands should profane the Body of our Lord. When we were prepared to make our First Communion we were taught to dislodge a stuck host with our tongues.

Great care was taken back then that the host should not fall. There was the altarboy with the paten, the communion rail, and the communion cloth. And, if by some chance the host did manage to make it to the ground, everyone knew that only the priest should retreive the sacred host from the ground.

I don’t believe you know in what reverence those of us my age hold the Holy Eucharist. It has been 50 years since I made my First Communion and I have never received in the hand. I don’t believe that I am alone in this. Communion in the hand is optional in my parish - most of us prefer to receive on the tongue.

 

[lak611]

I don’t think they should touch the Lord’s Body in the first place.

Should the homebound be denied the Eucharist since there are not enough priests or deacons to visit them?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

At the very least it is documented in the memories of those of use who were catechized before Vatican II. One of the greatest fears we had was that our hands should profane the Body of our Lord. When we were prepared to make our First Communion we were taught to dislodge a stuck host with our tongues.

Great care was taken back then that the host should not fall. There was the altarboy with the paten, the communion rail, and the communion cloth. And, if by some chance the host did manage to make it to the ground, everyone knew that only the priest should retreive the sacred host from the ground.

I don’t believe you know in what reverence those of us my age hold the Holy Eucharist. It has been 50 years since I made my First Communion and I have never received in the hand. I don’t believe that I am alone in this. Communion in the hand is optional in my parish - most of us prefer to receive on the tongue.

Before Vat II folks were also taught not to let their teeth touch the Host and not to chew it.

Personal memories is not the same as official teaching - and if these boards teach us anything the push is for official teachings (and please - not old stuff especially since folks don’t tend to limit what is and is not Ok to draw on - what has been affirmed in a reasonable time frame).

 

[brotherhrolf]

I am not one to cite chapter and verse although I am sure I could find an appropriate link for pre-Vatican II times. However, to the best of my recollection, communion in the hand was permitted for North America sometimes in the 80s. To this day, it is not mandated (although individual parishes have tried to do so).

I’m sorry you don’t believe that personal memories don’t count…it seems to me that sacred tradition is pretty much based on personal memories. If you want to receive in the hand, by all means, feel free to do so. But I should also be allowed to receive on the tongue as I have all of my life. Would that I might kneel.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

.

I’m sorry you don’t believe that personal memories don’t count…it seems to me that sacred tradition is pretty much based on personal memories. .

Hey I used to believe they counted till more senior members of this forum ‘corrected’ me.

Same thing with who can and cannot speak with any sense of authority. Shoot I have seen posts by CAF Apologists denigrated if it suited some here.

I figure what is good for the goose is good for the gander right?

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I am not sure I get this type of thinking.

You clearly don’t.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

You clearly don’t.

Yep - I don’t get it because I don’t think the Blessed Sacrament changes because the hands distributing it to me are ordained or not.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Yep - I don’t get it

We are in full agreement here. Moving on…

 

[Yerusalyim]

Only the PRIEST/DEACON/BISHOP should touch the Eucharist. The laity have no business doing so, in my opinion. I really don’t think they should even open the tabernacle.

Well, I’m happy you acknowledge this is your opinion and not the position of the Church. One of our honored saints is St. Tarcisius, a young acolyte, was martyred in 3rd century Rome while taking the eucharist to prisoners. So, if a layman was deemed by God to be worthy of martyrdom while carrying the eucharist, why should we deem only priests, deacons and bishops worthy to touch the eucharist?

 

[jay29]

Well, I’m happy you acknowledge this is your opinion and not the position of the Church. One of our honored saints is St. Tarcisius, a young acolyte, was martyred in 3rd century Rome while taking the eucharist to prisoners. So, if a layman was deemed by God to be worthy of martyrdom while carrying the eucharist, why should we deem only priests, deacons and bishops worthy to touch the eucharist?

They should only be used in EXTRAORDINARY circumstances, not a matter of course.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It might irk you, but it’s true. It’s not about what I THINK, it’s about what the Church TEACHES. A well developed tradition does not a theological or doctrinal reason make. The Church has NO doctrinal or theological issues with either form of reception…the issue surrounds ABUSE.

Well, the Church allows laymen to witness marriages - with special permission. But that doesn’t mean the Church has no theological reasons for considering the situation inferior, she simply recognizes that those concerns are not enough to entirely exclude the inferior option.

The same goes for Confirmation - the Latin Church’s theology views the bishop as the overwhelmingly preferred minister of the sacrament but it recognizes that priests are capable of conferring the sacrament. So despite its theologically oriented preference for one option, it allows priests to confirm in a limited set of circumstances (by law) or at other times by special permission.

You seem to think that theological reasoning creates a zero-sum game. As if we see no distinctions whatsoever amongst the options we present, or else we wouldn’t allow them. That’s simply false. “Theological reasons” can be preferences developed based off of Church teaching which the Church nevertheless recognizes do not amount to necessary conclusions. The Latin church has “theological reasons” for using unleavened bread in the Eucharist, whereas most Eastern churches have their own theological reasons for using leavened bread. The fact that both exist in Catholic praxis does not mean there is no theological reasoning behind them. To deny the theological basis of those claims would be absurd - just as absurd as denying anything theological basis whatsoever to forms of receiving Holy Communion.