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

[TOP]

Opting between receiving on the tongue and receiving in the hand is personal preference - the Church has not declared one reverent and and the other not reverent.

DID YOU NOTICE some say they what is in their opinion a ‘more’ reverent form if receiving from clergy than if receiving from a layperson? Maybe if you were not into baiting me you would have seen this …

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” (Serm. 91.3) Furthermore, in the ninth century the Roman Ordo clearly shows that Communion on the tongue was the manner of reception. The oft-quoted reference of St. Cyril of Jerusalem is quite suspect, because what follows his famous quote is odd, superstitious, and even irreverent to Catholic thought. This has led scholars to question the authenticity of the text, that perhaps the saint’s successor was really responsible for this odd statement, the Patriarch John, who succeeded St. Cyril. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy, which we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So if the quote is genuine, it most likely is attributed to the Nestorian Patriarch John, which would explain the oddity of the text. The fact that St. Cyril is quoted to the exclusion of Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope St. Sixtus I, the Council of Trent, and centuries of Church tradition, is a prime example of the historical revisionism and dumbing-down of the modernists. Just a sampling of reliable historical evidence is enough to demonstrate the consistent position of the Church regarding Communion in the hand:

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus);

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” (Serm. 91.3) Furthermore, in the ninth century the Roman Ordo clearly shows that Communion on the tongue was the manner of reception. The oft-quoted reference of St. Cyril of Jerusalem is quite suspect, because what follows his famous quote is odd, superstitious, and even irreverent to Catholic thought. This has led scholars to question the authenticity of the text, that perhaps the saint’s successor was really responsible for this odd statement, the Patriarch John, who succeeded St. Cyril. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy, which we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So if the quote is genuine, it most likely is attributed to the Nestorian Patriarch John, which would explain the oddity of the text. The fact that St. Cyril is quoted to the exclusion of Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope St. Sixtus I, the Council of Trent, and centuries of Church tradition, is a prime example of the historical revisionism and dumbing-down of the modernists. Just a sampling of reliable historical evidence is enough to demonstrate the consistent position of the Church regarding Communion in the hand:

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus);

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

Council of Trent: “To omit nothing doctrinal on so important a subject, we now come to speak of the minister of the Sacrament, a point, however, on which scarcely anyone is ignorant. The pastor then will teach, that to priests alone has been given power to consecrate and administer the Holy Eucharist. That the unvarying practice of the Church has also been, that the faithful receive the Sacrament from the hand of the priest, and that the priest communicate himself, has been explained by the Council of Trent; and the same holy Council has shown that this practice is always to be scrupulously adhered to, stamped, as it is, with the authoritative impress of Apostolic tradition, and sanctioned by the illustrious example of our Lord himself, who, with His own hands, consecrated and gave to His disciples, His most sacred body. To consult as much as possible, for the dignity of this so August a Sacrament, not only is its administration confided exclusively to the priestly order; but the Church has also, by an express law, prohibited any but those who are consecrated to religion, unless in case of necessity, to touch the sacred vessels, the linen or other immediate necessaries for consecration. Priest and people may hence learn, what piety and holiness they should possess who consecrate, administer, or receive the Holy of Holies.” (Council of Trent, Session 13, Chapter 8)

This reminds me of the call I had to make about a problem with our Xbox 360 - they were insistent about giving information that DID NOT APPLY to the problem raised.

Now can you explain how all that verbiage addresses what some have said they believe - that if they receive from a layperson they do not show the same level of reverence as when they receive from clergy?

 

[MrS]

Opting between receiving on the tongue and receiving in the hand is personal preference - the Church has not declared one reverent and and the other not reverent.

DID YOU NOTICE some say they what is in their opinion a ‘more’ reverent form if receiving from clergy than if receiving from a layperson? Maybe if you were not into baiting me you would have seen this …

You really do make me smile… thanks… I think.

Now, if I had just lived back at the time of the Last Supper, and had been privileged to receive, I guess I could have waited for an EMHC… no big diff.

Or when B16 comes to this country, I can now understand why no one should prefer to receive from him if possible

Or next Sunday, I better settle for the Deacon’s wife as EMHC. After all, it is allowed.

Strange that practically no one leaves the parish because of the use of an EMHC… yet there are many who would leave if this “right” were eliminated at the pastor’s choice.

Bottom line… some support the “choice” if it suits them. Some prefer to support the “greater sign of reverence” even if it does not suit them.

Do it the old way, I am out of here… Do it my way and I will stay.

.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

You really do make me smile… thanks… I think.

Now, if I had just lived back at the time of the Last Supper, and had been privileged to receive, I guess I could have waited for an EMHC… no big diff.

Or when B16 comes to this country, I can now understand why no one should prefer to receive from him if possible

Or next Sunday, I better settle for the Deacon’s wife as EMHC. After all, it is allowed.

Strange that practically no one leaves the parish because of the use of an EMHC… yet there are many who would leave if this “right” were eliminated at the pastor’s choice.

Bottom line… some support the “choice” if it suits them. Some prefer to support the “greater sign of reverence” even if it does not suit them.

Do it the old way, I am out of here… Do it my way and I will stay.

.

**All that carry-on has absolutely NOTHING to do with the concern raised.

Why avoid the issue that some prefer to do what they consider LESS REVERENT when receiving from a layperson?? Isn’t the Blessed Sacrament the same from the hand of a priest or deacon as from a lay EMHC??

BTW - I NEVER said anything about ‘leaving’ - I don’t appreciate you inserting something so inflammatory into the discussion.
**

 

[MrS]

All that carry-on has absolutely NOTHING to do with the concern raised.

Why avoid the issue that some prefer to do what they consider LESS REVERENT when receiving from a layperson?? Isn’t the Blessed Sacrament the same from the hand of a priest or deacon as from a lay EMHC??

BTW - I NEVER said anything about ‘leaving’ - I don’t appreciate you inserting something so inflammatory into the discussion.

touchy are we… I did not infer that you would leave… I do not claim to know your feelings, your intentions or your agenda if you even have one.

Yes Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That does not mean He was treated the same by His Apostles, his followers (including the one who only could touch His cloak), or all those who claimed to believe in Him.

Personally I just find it strange that one would not WANT TO show maximum reverence.
Personally I just don’t find it strange that one simply does not know better.
Personally I just don’t find it strange that many priests go with the flow.

More of Him, less of me.

.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

touchy are we… I did not infer that you would leave… I do not claim to know your feelings, your intentions or your agenda if you even have one.

Yes Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever. That does not mean He was treated the same by His Apostles, his followers (including the one who only could touch His cloak), or all those who claimed to believe in Him.

Personally I just find it strange that one would not WANT TO show maximum reverence.
Personally I just don’t find it strange that one simply does not know better.
Personally I just don’t find it strange that many priests go with the flow.

More of Him, less of me.

.

Don’t play games – you place the remark in your response TO me AND it had nothing to do with what I asked.

The balance of your ‘answer’ says NOTHING regarding the question I raised.

If you don’t want to address it fine - but why waste everyone’s time dragging in other things especially personal side swipes. TIA

 

[pnewton]

Strange that practically no one leaves the parish because of the use of an EMHC… yet there are many who would leave if this “right” were eliminated at the pastor’s choice.
.

I have never heard of anyone who would leave the Church if EMHC’s were eliminated. Is this common in your parish? I have met a few who have left the Church here and have mentioned communion in hand, EMHCs, and liturgical changes as the reason.

 

[MrS]

I have never heard of anyone who would leave the Church if EMHC’s were eliminated. Is this common in your parish? I have met a few who have left the Church here and have mentioned communion in hand, EMHCs, and liturgical changes as the reason.

Perhaps it is one symptom of the “problem” we call “active participation” And by leave I should say, leave the parish.

If a pastor is of the mind to make “liturgical changes” each one rubs a nerve and results in someone leaving. I do not think it unusual that the first to leave would be some of the EMHCs if they lost their priviledge. (I also find it strange that a priest who wants to be more social/horizontal/modern is less likely to receive resistance than one who wants to return to the “old” ways.)

Our parish even had some leave when Adoration was first being discussed - just discussed (the first was a 72 yr old man who said he was once a Benedictine priest for 8 years), and some more when the Chalice Veil was brought back, and others when Patens were put into use. Although no one protested (that I am aware of) the introduction of cassock and surplice, there were those who left when girl altar boys were discouraged. (they are being grandfathered out… or grandmothered ) …

To be fair, if a pastor was assigned who preferred the new “norms” to the more traditional liturgy…I would look elsewhere. Sunday Mass is not a choice, it is an obligation. Both Old and New Testament teach us that… and if it is important to God… well, enough said.

.

 

[AJV]

With respect, I feel there are some erros in these sources

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” (Serm. 91.3)

Which is still a bit ambiguous because the Blessed Sacrament is received in the mouth whether by the communicant’s hand or the priest’s hand.

Furthermore, in the ninth century the Roman Ordo clearly shows that Communion on the tongue was the manner of reception. The oft-quoted reference of St. Cyril of Jerusalem is quite suspect, because what follows his famous quote is odd, superstitious, and even irreverent to Catholic thought. This has led scholars to question the authenticity of the text, that perhaps the saint’s successor was really responsible for this odd statement, the Patriarch John, who succeeded St. Cyril. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy, which we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So if the quote is genuine, it most likely is attributed to the Nestorian Patriarch John, which would explain the oddity of the text.

The text is not as suspect as some apologists for COTT make it out to be. St. John Damascene repeats the same thing, more or less.

Secondly, I don’t know who came up with the idea that John was Nestorian. He was not and clearly history demonstrates that since Nestorius became Patriarch of Constantinople and started his heresy after him.

The fact that St. Cyril is quoted to the exclusion of Pope St. Leo the Great, Pope St. Sixtus I, the Council of Trent, and centuries of Church tradition, is a prime example of the historical revisionism and dumbing-down of the modernists. Just a sampling of reliable historical evidence is enough to demonstrate the consistent position of the Church regarding Communion in the hand:

Pope St. Sixtus I ( 115-125): “it is prohibited for the faithful to even touch the sacred vessels, or receive in the hand”;

The decree attributed to him does not say anything about reception in the hand. The attribution is in the Liber Pontificalis, which, as you know, is widely regarded as inaccurate on mentioning the decrees of early Popes but accurate for the later ones.

Origen (185-232 A.D.): “You who are wont to assist at the divine Mysteries, know how, when you receive the body of the Lord, you take reverent care, lest any particle of it should fall to the ground and a portion of the consecrated gift (consecrati muneris) escape you. You consider it a crime, and rightly so, if any particle thereof fell down through negligence.” (13th Homily on Exodus);

How ironic that Origen should be quoted…Patriarch John was accused of adherence to aspects of his teachings.

St. Basil the Great (330-379), one of the four great Eastern Fathers, considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault (Letter 93);

A letter which says “And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.”? Where si the grave fault?

The Council held at Saragozza (380), it was decided to punish with excommunication anyone who dared to continue the practice of Communion in the hand;

Canon?

The local council at Rouen, France (650) stated, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths”;

True.

The Council of Constantinople (692) which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves. It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon;

Yet Trullo said

“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. But if any one shall be found imparting the immaculate Communion to those who bring vessels of this kind, let him be cut off as well as the one who brings them.”

 

[Elizabeth2]

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.

.

Thank you. I’m seriously considering changing to Communion on the tongue this Lent.

 

[kwitz]

First off, I will do whatever is mandated by the Church. If I’m told to go back to tongue only, I will immediately. I truly understand why some people feel that receiving on the tongue is more reverent.

From my personal perspective though, I just don’t get it. What makes the tongue so much more “holy”? I know that I personally sin much more with my mouth than my hands.

And I have a hard time getting around the symbolism of sticking out my tongue like a bratty 5 year old.

Kris

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

First off, I will do whatever is mandated by the Church. If I’m told to go back to tongue only, I will immediately. I truly understand why some people feel that receiving on the tongue is more reverent.

From my personal perspective though, I just don’t get it. What makes the tongue so much more “holy”? I know that I personally sin much more with my mouth than my hands.

And I have a hard time getting around the symbolism of sticking out my tongue like a bratty 5 year old.

Kris

Agreed !!

Some seem to think that receiving Communion on the tongue from the Pope is somehow “more holy” than receiving Communion by hand from “the Deacon’s wife”…

What difference does it make? You’re receiving the Blessed Sacrement either way…the Precious Body and Blood of Christ!

 

[laudamus_te]

Thank you. I’m seriously considering changing to Communion on the tongue this Lent.

Lovely! I will pray that you do so, and continue to do so after Lent.

And I have a hard time getting around the symbolism of sticking out my tongue like a bratty 5 year old.

Oh, don’t think of it that way! It is good to humble oneself, and it can be very humbling to be fed by another. I heard of a priest saying that he loved to see the faithful, lined up like chicks, waiting to be fed.

 

[vflibunao]

I’m very thankful that this subject is open for discussion, and we do hope that our theologians and Bishops will give us a clear explanation about this matter and guide us how to properly receiving the Holy communion during Sunday Mass.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Agreed !!

Some seem to think that receiving Communion on the tongue from the Pope is somehow “more holy” than receiving Communion by hand from “the Deacon’s wife”…

Some think that receiving from the Pope is ‘more holy’ than receiving from the local parish priest.

 

[laudamus_te]

Some think that receiving from the Pope is ‘more holy’ than receiving from the local parish priest.

My conclusion would be that some think it is a greater honor to receive from the Pope. You really need to quit accusing people of “holier than…” issues. That is a very tired old non-argument. When you can’t think of something intelligent to say which is helpful to the discussion, it’s best to say nothing.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

My conclusion would be that some think it is a greater honor to receive from the Pope. You really need to quit accusing people of “holier than…” issues. That is a very tired old non-argument. When you can’t think of something intelligent to say which is helpful to the discussion, it’s best to say nothing.

That is NOT what I have heard people actually say (the last time was when JPII came to the NYC area).

 

[BasilMan]

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?

Please refer to

liturgicalspreadsheet.tripod.com/catholicspreadsheet.pdf

 

[Uncle_Norbert]

My conclusion would be that some think it is a greater honor to receive from the Pope.

Really?..I would think the focus should/would be on the Blessed Sacrement, rather that who was disbursing it.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Really?..I would think the focus should/would be on the Blessed Sacrement, rather that who was disbursing it.

The focus should indeed be upon the Blessed Sacrament. I have never received the Eucharist in my hand. I would really, really like to kneel. Why? Because this is how I was catechized. I have never forgotten that catechisis.

1958 - From the very beginning of second grade till we made our first communion after Easter in 1959. We made ourselves worthy to welcome a King. The sanctity and holiness of what we were about to receive was reinforced over and over and over again. The horrors of receiving unworthily were explained and then emphasized. The Communion hymns were quite different - “Humbly We Adore Thee”; Jesus, My Lord, My God, My All…

Feel free to argue catechisis from 1968 and 1978. I will tell you this…my seven year old heart knew that I was receiving the savior of the world and that I was not worthy. I would die before I would unworthily receive Our Lord. Fifty years later, I freely admit that I am no saint. I have never received communion in the hand nor have I received unworthily. I am not tooting my own horn or beating my breast about how wonderful am I.

No. It’s not any of that. It is a simple statement of faith. It is the faith in which I was raised. I approach the Eucharist with the same faith that I had as a 7 year old…Domine non sum dignus.