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

[Uncle_Norbert]

Yes, but come on. Receiving the eucharist from the holy father, that would be way too cool. I can not believe that some one wouldn’t think that if they were honest with themselves.

It would most certainly be “way cool”…no doubt about it, but not anymore valid and holy that from any priest, deacon, or Eucharistic Minister.

And, I wouldn’t clamor to receive from the Pope, to the point that it distracted me from the true purpose of receiving.

 

[stmaria]

A short history of communion in the hand from a protestant perspective.

Adventist Review
adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1034
“This is my body” (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19). And we find them at the heart of the Reformation controversies concerning the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

How do we Adventists understand those words? In what follows, I’d like to show that our position on this question grew largely out of that taken by Ulrich Zwingli, the leader of the **Swiss Reformation **in the sixteenth century.

Zwingli asserted that it is a common meal of thanksgiving and remembrance. Is Christ present at Communion? Zwingli’s answer is “yes.” In what form is He present? Spiritually, not physically. He is assuredly present for the believer who will partake of Him by faith. Hence the Supper is a commemoration of the body of Christ that was broken for the sins of the world. It provides a setting for thanksgiving on account of what Christ did for us.

In his reform program Zwingli ordered that Communion bread be carried around by appointed ministers or deacons on large wooden trenchers from seat to seat among the believers. The wine was also to be carried in wooden beakers to all members.It was no longer necessary for each believer** to come and kneel at the altar**, for Communion was not a sacrament. The Lord’s Supper was not a miracle, but a commemoration."

 

[Eilish_Maura]

And for most of the history of the Church, the the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and her Immaculate Conception were not taught as doctrine, only optional belief.

See here and here.

So here are the proofs for my assertions, can you provide proof for yours?

What does the Assumption have to do with what was posted about the tabernacle?

 

[Eilish_Maura]

A short history of communion in the hand from a protestant perspective.

Adventist Review
adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1034
“This is my body” (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19). And we find them at the heart of the Reformation controversies concerning the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

How do we Adventists understand those words? In what follows, I’d like to show that our position on this question grew largely out of that taken by Ulrich Zwingli, the leader of the **Swiss Reformation **in the sixteenth century.

Zwingli asserted that it is a common meal of thanksgiving and remembrance. Is Christ present at Communion? Zwingli’s answer is “yes.” In what form is He present? Spiritually, not physically. He is assuredly present for the believer who will partake of Him by faith. Hence the Supper is a commemoration of the body of Christ that was broken for the sins of the world. It provides a setting for thanksgiving on account of what Christ did for us.

In his reform program Zwingli ordered that Communion bread be carried around by appointed ministers or deacons on large wooden trenchers from seat to seat among the believers. The wine was also to be carried in wooden beakers to all members.It was no longer necessary for each believer** to come and kneel at the altar**, for Communion was not a sacrament. The Lord’s Supper was not a miracle, but a commemoration."

Fine for them.

They are not us.

 

[stmaria]

Fine for them.

They are not us.

They are not us but, Zwingli’ introduced hand communion to show that the Eucharist was only symbolic. He also had the laity distribute the communion bread and he did away with the reverence of kneeling. The exact changes that Bugnini and the reformers did in the New Mass.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

They are not us but, Zwingli’ introduced hand communion to show that the Eucharist was only symbolic. He also had the laity distribute the communion bread and he did away with the reverence of kneeling. The exact changes that Bugnini and the reformers did in the New Mass.

And the exact origin of the practice from the primitive church?

If there was absolutely no history of the practice within the church itself prior to Vat II then maybe, just maybe, the argument would hold some weight.

But there is a history in the church that predates Vat II and Protestantism.

I would also be very careful about making what seems to be an accusation that any council or pope would have approved the practice if it was openly done to diminish the understanding of the Real Presence.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

First I receive on the tongue 98% of the time. Getting closer to 100%.
I was brought up in the church post VII so have had the option my whole life. I would receive in the hand if i was in the line with the lay minister instead of the Priest the reason being was that most Lay minister look rather uncomfortable giving on the tongue. i have since decided that it was more about how i felt than how they felt so now it does not matter i receive on the tongue. As far the use of lay ministers In my parish we only have one priest and 2 Sunday masses he is also in his mid 60’s with a bad leg. we use 3 lay minister for the host and 4 for the Cup. Is this to many? I would love to have all deacons and Priest for this but it is not possible at this time in our Parish. I receive standing when at Mass in my parish, but if I go to a parish that use the communion rail I kneel as It not a small chore for me to rise from the floor. the elevation of the step at the Communion rail and being able to push up from the rail itself are of tremendous help. other wise I would kneel all the time to receive.

Now on another note and time is my opinion ( which there is evidence to support in past traditions) the Tabernacle belongs at the front of the Church upon the Alter. To say that the Mass is celebrated to God not Jesus is to deny the Trinity for they are one.
If there is Consecrated Host in the tabernacle the God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all present.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Never mind. I found it myself. Quite interesting.

newadvent.org/cathen/14424a.htm

And more information regarding the “when” of the tabernacle- this time from CAF’s Ask an Apologist area:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=71542&highlight=tabernacle

 

[Eilish_Maura]

First I receive on the tongue 98% of the time. Getting closer to 100%.
I was brought up in the church post VII so have had the option my whole life. I would receive in the hand if i was in the line with the lay minister instead of the Priest the reason being was that most Lay minister look rather uncomfortable giving on the tongue. i have since decided that it was more about how i felt than how they felt so now it does not matter i receive on the tongue. As far the use of lay ministers In my parish we only have one priest and 2 Sunday masses he is also in his mid 60’s with a bad leg. we use 3 lay minister for the host and 4 for the Cup. Is this to many? I would love to have all deacons and Priest for this but it is not possible at this time in our Parish. I receive standing when at Mass in my parish, but if I go to a parish that use the communion rail I kneel as It not a small chore for me to rise from the floor. the elevation of the step at the Communion rail and being able to push up from the rail itself are of tremendous help. other wise I would kneel all the time to receive.

Now on another note and time is my opinion ( which there is evidence to support in past traditions) the Tabernacle belongs at the front of the Church upon the Alter. To say that the Mass is celebrated to God not Jesus is to deny the Trinity for they are one.
If there is Consecrated Host in the tabernacle the God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all present.

Please show where the Church does not make this distinction.

Please show where the Church blurs the individuals of the Trinity into some kind of divine mass.

 

[piouswoman]

To start - we offer the sacrifice of Calvary to God and not to Jesus (we don’t offer Jesus to Jesus).

Do I really need to go any further?

In case I do feel free to look at: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=12721&highlight=offer+mass+to+God

and this:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=10918&highlight=offer+mass+to+God

Eilish Maura…have you forgotten this basic Catholic doctrine of the Unity of the Blessed Trinity?

Our catechism teaches us that the three Divine Persons are perfectly equal to one another, because all are one and the same God, with one and the same Divine nature.

Each of the Divine Persons is God.

There are three Persons, but only* one Being*. The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost. The Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is neither the Father nor the Son.

We cannot fully understand how the three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God, because this is a supernatural mystery.

The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is a strict mystery; that is, we cannot learn it from reason nor understand it completely, even after it has been revealed to us.

The mystery of the Blessed Trinity is not a contradiction. We do not say that there are three gods in one God, nor that the three Divine Persons are one Person.

We believe in the mystery of the Blessed Trinity because God Himself revealed it to us.

Hence, we know that the Holy Mass is in the truest sense the continuation of the redeeming sacrifices of Christ. It is the Mass that gives to us the fullest efficacy of Calvary; it brings Calvary within the reach of all souls in every clime and every age. Because of the Mass, here and now we may offer up repeatedly God as our Victim to God, partake of Him for ourselves as a Gift from the Blessed Trinity, and live in intimate and constant union with Him.

 

[Walking_Home]

A short history of communion in the hand from a protestant perspective.

Adventist Review
adventistreview.org/article.php?id=1034
“This is my body” (Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19). And we find them at the heart of the Reformation controversies concerning the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper.

How do we Adventists understand those words? In what follows, I’d like to show that our position on this question grew largely out of that taken by Ulrich Zwingli, the leader of the **Swiss Reformation **in the sixteenth century.

Zwingli asserted that it is a common meal of thanksgiving and remembrance. Is Christ present at Communion? Zwingli’s answer is “yes.” In what form is He present? Spiritually, not physically. He is assuredly present for the believer who will partake of Him by faith. Hence the Supper is a commemoration of the body of Christ that was broken for the sins of the world. It provides a setting for thanksgiving on account of what Christ did for us.

In his reform program Zwingli ordered that Communion bread be carried around by appointed ministers or deacons on large wooden trenchers from seat to seat among the believers. The wine was also to be carried in wooden beakers to all members.It was no longer necessary for each believer** to come and kneel at the altar**, for Communion was not a sacrament. The Lord’s Supper was not a miracle, but a commemoration."

---

—That sounds like the Neocatechumenals. To them the Mass is a meal (no Holy Sacrifice) – and communion is taken to them and distributed from seat to seat.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

Eilish Maura…have you forgotten this basic Catholic doctrine of the Unity of the Blessed Trinity?

Our catechism teaches us that the three Divine Persons are perfectly equal to one another, because all are one and the same God, with one and the same Divine nature.

Each of the Divine Persons is God.

There are three Persons, but only* one Being*. The Father in neither the Son nor the Holy Ghost. The Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is neither the Father nor the Son.

We cannot fully understand how the three Divine Persons, though really distinct from one another, are one and the same God, because this is a supernatural mystery.

The doctrine of the Blessed Trinity is a strict mystery; that is, we cannot learn it from reason nor understand it completely, even after it has been revealed to us.

The mystery of the Blessed Trinity is not a contradiction. We do not say that there are three gods in one God, nor that the three Divine Persons are one Person.

We believe in the mystery of the Blessed Trinity because God Himself revealed it to us.

Hence, we know that the Holy Mass is in the truest sense the continuation of the redeeming sacrifices of Christ. It is the Mass that gives to us the fullest efficacy of Calvary; it brings Calvary within the reach of all souls in every clime and every age. Because of the Mass, here and now we may offer up repeatedly God as our Victim to God, partake of Him for ourselves as a Gift from the Blessed Trinity, and live in intimate and constant union with Him.

This blurring would have us killing God on the cross.

Basic Catholic doctrine does not blur all three together - each Divine person is separate.

Jesus offered HIS death - not the Father’s death, not the Holy Spirit’s death - for the redemption of mankind.

The Father did not send himself to die for our salvation nor did he send the Holy Spirit to die for us.

We recognize the Real Presence as the true and real Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ - Son of God and 2nd member of the Blessed Trinity.

I would like to see where the Church teaches that the Real Presence is the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I would also be very careful about making what seems to be an accusation that any council or pope would have approved the practice if it was openly done to diminish the understanding of the Real Presence.

I agree with you. I have no doubt that if the those members of the VII
had any way known that some of the changes that would be made in the name of the counsel would take place they would have been more concise in the wording of thing. VII in and of itself is conflicts with non of what is thought of as traditional Catholic practice or teaching. However as has been stated by those in the Vatican abuses have arose out of the miss understanding of the counsel. The more or less ban on the TML for one. Thank Pope Benedict for making it available once more.

Ecclesiastes 1:9-14 There Is Nothing New Under The Sun.

So everything that we are going through right now the church has dealt with before. That is how we arrived at the Ritual of the Mass before and that is how we will end up back to the Ritual as prescribed pre VII. In doing so It will be what it was with what the Leaders and embers of the Counsel had in mind.

 

[Walking_Home]

And more information regarding the “when” of the tabernacle- this time from CAF’s Ask an Apologist area:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=71542&highlight=tabernacle

---

The tabernacle evolved from the early Church. The Blessed Sacrament went from being kept in a niche in the wall of a church (4th–5th century) to the type of tabernacle in use today. It did not all of sudden pop up the last 500 yrs.

 

[stmaria]

=Eilish Maura;3280832]

f there was absolutely no history of the practice within the church itself prior to Vat II then maybe, just maybe, the argument would hold some weight.

But there is a history in the church that predates Vat II and Protestantism.

From Pope Paul:
" It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant."

I would also be very careful about making what seems to be an accusation that any council or pope would have approved the practice if it was openly done to diminish the understanding of the Real Presence.

The Council had nothing to do with it. Bishop Jean Bluyssen, who worked with Bugnini as a member of the Consilium started communion in the hand and allowed the laity to distribute communion in 1964. Pope Paul sent Bugnin to the Netherlands on two occassions to have the practice stopped. He was ignored.
On May 29,1969 he ruled that communion in the hand would not be allowed.
Under pressure from the reformers he granted an indult only to certain groups in the Netherlands. The reformers made sure that it spread, out of control. They got what they wanted.
Was their reason for doing so because they believed the Eucharist was merely symbolic? I don’t believe so.
The main reason was because this fostered, “active participation of the faithful” which was their principle aim of the reform of the Mass.
Pope Paul’s insight was correct when he said the communion in the hand " carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: **the danger of a loss of reverence **for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."
Today less than 40% believe in the Real Presence. Communion in the hand is one of the reasons.

 

[Ailina]

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.

Hmmm…but if you’re taking communion on the tongue, aren’t you sticking your tongue out at Jesus? I just don’t get why it is wrong tto take it in the hand. Unless Jesus personally fed each apostle by laying the bread on their tongues that original night? Somehow, I doubt it happened that way. I think there’s a bigger chance of dropping it if it is taken on the tongue.

 

[piouswoman]

This blurring would have us killing God on the cross.

Basic Catholic doctrine does not blur all three together - each Divine person is separate.

Jesus offered HIS death - not the Father’s death, not the Holy Spirit’s death - for the redemption of mankind.

The Father did not send himself to die for our salvation nor did he send the Holy Spirit to die for us.

We recognize the Real Presence as the true and real Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ - Son of God and 2nd member of the Blessed Trinity.

I would like to see where the Church teaches that the Real Presence is the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.

This blurring that you refer to is taken directly from the No. 3 Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism and from the 1941 translation of the New Testament. You need to slow down and try to grasp the Doctrine as taught us by Jesus Christ.

When we speak of the “Persons” in God, we do not use the term in exactly the same way we use it when speaking of people. We use it only for lack of another to show our meaning better.

The Blessed Trinity is one and the same God in three Divine Persons.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

From Pope Paul:
" It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.
Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant."

The Council had nothing to do with it. Bishop Jean Bluyssen, who worked with Bugnini as a member of the Consilium started communion in the hand and allowed the laity to distribute communion in 1964. Pope Paul sent Bugnin to the Netherlands on two occassions to have the practice stopped. He was ignored.
On May 29,1969 he ruled that communion in the hand would not be allowed.
Under pressure from the reformers he granted an indult only to certain groups in the Netherlands. The reformers made sure that it spread, out of control. They got what they wanted.
Was their reason for doing so because they believed the Eucharist was merely symbolic? I don’t believe so.
The main reason was because this fostered, “active participation of the faithful” which was their principle aim of the reform of the Mass.
Pope Paul’s insight was correct when he said the communion in the hand " carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: **the danger of a loss of reverence **for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine."
Today less than 40% believe in the Real Presence. Communion in the hand is one of the reasons.

Before today I wonder how many would ever admit to not believing.

Pope Paul’s “insight” does not show that this was done to deliberately deny the Real Presence.

 

[Eilish_Maura]

This blurring that you refer to is taken directly from the No. 3 Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism and from the 1941 translation of the New Testament. You need to slow down and try to grasp the Doctrine as taught us by Jesus Christ.

When we speak of the “Persons” in God, we do not use the term in exactly the same way we use it when speaking of people. We use it only for lack of another to show our meaning better.

The Blessed Trinity is one and the same God in three Divine Persons.

So the Baltimore Catechism teaches that God the Father died for our Salvation?

That the Blessed Sacrament is the body, blood, soul and divinity of God the Father?

 

[stmaria]

Before today I wonder how many would ever admit to not believing.

Pope Paul’s “insight” does not show that this was done to deliberately deny the Real Presence.

I didn’t say he did. But he understood the consequences and the dangers of communion in the hand.
“It carries **certain dangers **with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the **danger of a loss of reverence **for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”