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

[MrS]

Christ made clear that He came for the ordinary person, not the super holy. Christ offered His Sacrifice for us individuals, not for the Church as an organizatoin or the Priests. This idea that ordinary folks cannot approach God and that only the chosen clergy are ‘in’ with God was one of the errors of Scribes of His time, we shouldn’t repeat it.

Christ, the 2nd Adam did what the first Adam did not…

sacrifice His life for His spouse… the Church

 

[Walking_Home]

Last time I posted on this thread I was annoyed, which resulted in me overstating my postion, i.e. priest have no power, we are deserving to hold the eucharist. I apologize for the lack of charity, but I have decided to come back and try to make my point more clearly.

As I said, I understand that there are some good reasons for and against communion in the hand, but I do not think that the idea that only priests are worthy is one of them.

This goes beyond this topic a bit, and gets into some of the issues I have with some elements of the traditional movement. There is a danger that reverence and a love of tradition will stray into clericalism and gnostism. This particular issue is on the clericism front.

Priests are important and worthy of respect. They have important duties and responsibility and commensurate authority. But they are not demi-gods. They are not Saints. They are no closer to God than the laity. We hope that the average priest is spiritually healthy, and we think he should be healthier than the average layman. But just as doctors are not always in great medical health, and often have unhealthy habits and atttitudes, the same is true of priests. There is a tendency to idolize clergy, and its not healthy.

Christ made clear that He came for the ordinary person, not the super holy. Christ offered His Sacrifice for us individuals, not for the Church as an organizatoin or the Priests. This idea that ordinary folks cannot approach God and that only the chosen clergy are ‘in’ with God was one of the errors of Scribes of His time, we shouldn’t repeat it.

---

No one is making a priest a demi-God. We know a priest can sin, and some can sin gravely. But even with the capability to sin --a priest has the God given grace to do what you and I cannot. Your error is in not recognizing – that without the priest —there is no Holy Sacrifice -no absolution–and we would just be another denomination of protestants.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

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.” It’s the most lame excuse I’ve ever heard, and even Rome is starting to acknowledge that allowing this was rather, for lack of a better word, stupid.

Haha, I’ve never heard it put quite that way before.

 

[ThuribleGuy45]

If communion in the hand was abrogated it would be a start but, for me, doesn’t solve the issue of reverence. Now whenever I attend the OF I always get in the line where I know that I will receive from the Priest… I cannot bring myself to receive on the tongue from a lay person.
I believe that only the consecrated hands of a priest should touch the host. I receive on the tongue out or reverence and to receive on the tongue from the non-consecrated hands of a lay person seems to contradict the idea of reverence. EMHC are here to stay.
This is hypocritical but I could accept it, if I had no other choice, from the non-consecrated hands of a Deacon because at least I know that he is a dedicated lay person that has had several years of study.

As has been posted here frequently, a Deacon is NOT a lay person, but is clergy, is an ordained minister of the Church who has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and by Church law, is considered an “ordinary minister of Holy Communion.”

 

[TMC]

Christ, the 2nd Adam did what the first Adam did not…

sacrifice His life for His spouse… the Church

The Church was born through Christ’s Sacrifice, but the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is not for the Church, the Church is established for the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Church; and the purpose of the Church is to make Christ’s Sacrifice real and present for all of us. The Sacrifice was made for individuals, for us. Christ’s sacrifice was made for the Church in the sense that it was made for all the members of His Church, not for the Church as an institution.

 

[lovesMary]

Don’t get too comfortable with that thought. God will root out the abuse, in His time. 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.” It’s the most lame excuse I’ve ever heard, and even Rome is starting to acknowledge that allowing this was rather, for lack of a better word, stupid.

Exactly.

 

[Joannm]

This is hypocritical but I could accept it, if I had no other choice, from the non-consecrated hands of a Deacon because at least I know that he is a dedicated lay person that has had several years of study.

A deacon is NOT a lay person. He is ordained into the clerical state.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

As I said, I understand that there are some good reasons for and against communion in the hand, but I do not think that the idea that only priests are worthy is one of them.

It has nothing at all to do with the worthiness of the priest. In fact, a fairly large number of priests I have met in my lifetime have been rather base characters spewing hatred for orthodoxy and the institutional Church. Yet they are *priests - *they have been set aside to handle divine things in a way no one else has been, that despite the fact that I wouldn’t trust them farther than I could kick them and would run from their presence given the first chance. They are far less worthy to handle the Eucharist than many others, but by reason of their sacramental configuration to Christ they are permitted to touch His flesh, whereas the laity are (traditionally and in the absence of an indult) not. There is a wonderful anecdote about St. Francis kissing the hands of a priest who was a notorious sinner. Why? It was those hands whence came the Body of his Lord.

 

[latinmasslover]

I would be more impressed with your predictions if you would give a date. Otherwise I don’t know if to give it the credence of a horoscope or credit it to wishful thinking, just like calling communion in the hand an abuse.

I’ll tell you the not only the date, but the hour, minute, and second. **First **you give me the year of Christ’s Second Coming.

 

[latinmasslover]

Last time I posted on this thread I was annoyed, which resulted in me overstating my postion, i.e. priest have no power, we are deserving to hold the eucharist. I apologize for the lack of charity, but I have decided to come back and try to make my point more clearly.

As I said, I understand that there are some good reasons for and against communion in the hand, but I do not think that the idea that only priests are worthy is one of them.

This goes beyond this topic a bit, and gets into some of the issues I have with some elements of the traditional movement. There is a danger that reverence and a love of tradition will stray into clericalism and gnostism. This particular issue is on the clericism front.

Priests are important and worthy of respect. They have important duties and responsibility and commensurate authority. But they are not demi-gods. They are not Saints. They are no closer to God than the laity. We hope that the average priest is spiritually healthy, and we think he should be healthier than the average layman. But just as doctors are not always in great medical health, and often have unhealthy habits and atttitudes, the same is true of priests. There is a tendency to idolize clergy, and its not healthy.

Christ made clear that He came for the ordinary person, not the super holy. Christ offered His Sacrifice for us individuals, not for the Church as an organizatoin or the Priests. This idea that ordinary folks cannot approach God and that only the chosen clergy are ‘in’ with God was one of the errors of Scribes of His time, we shouldn’t repeat it.

By comparing the priest to the doctor you made an excellent point. Sticking with the example, would you perform surgery on yourself? A bit of a stretch, but I think you know what I mean.

Your statement “I do not think that the idea that only priests are worthy is one of them” is correct. They are not worthy, and neither are we; however, our hands are not consecrated, and John Paul II even said that this is a *privilege *of the ordained, not because they’re holy, but because they’re consecrated to God. Jesus never did away with the priesthood, and the job of the priest has always been to bring God to us and us to God. It is the responsibility of the consecrated to handle the consecrated. There’s a better of way of saying this, but that’s my simple take.

 

[TMGallyon85]

Although there are quite a few people who are reverent about it, I think Communion in the Hand should be removed as an Indult. I take the position of we shouldnt be worthy to handle the Lord himself with our bare hands. He should be placed directly on our tongue. It is also a reason why I much prefer the clergy handing out the Eucharist rather then EMHC. The Body and Blood of the lord are at play here. It isnt like we are being handed samples at Wal-mart. This is a practice that began and was made indult and became the “norm” instead of an option just like optional Eucharistic Prayers became the “norm” and superseded the Roman canon almost entirely.

 

[Aramis]

As has been posted here frequently, a Deacon is NOT a lay person, but is clergy, is an ordained minister of the Church who has received the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and by Church law,** is considered an “ordinary minister of Holy Communion.”**

He is only considered an ordinary minister of communion within the Latin Rite and Roman Church and only if a Latin Rite Deacon.

The CCEO allows particular Sui Iuris churches to make that decision individually, as well as whether to allow EMHC’s…

But in the whole of the Catholic church, both East and West, deacons are clerics. It’s explicit in both the CIC and CCEO.

 

[otjm]

Don’t get too comfortable with that thought. God will root out the abuse, in His time.

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.

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.”

No, it isn’t. Again, I suggest others more knowledgeable than you have said otherwise.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

I whole-heartily agree with the Archbishop that we need to re-think Communion in the hand. While I think there are many augments to be made in favor of Communion on the tongue, for me, the bottom line is respect for the Eucharist. Granted, Communion in the hand was the practice of the Church in Patristic times. However, it was eventually replaced by Communion on the tongue. We accept development of doctrine as a valid principle of the Catholic faith, but why are we so quick to deny that there could be development of practice inspired by movements of the Holy Spirit as well? 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.

I had been taught as a child to receive in the hand. Before I was ordained, I came to the conclusion in my early 20’s that I had to stop receiving in the hand, because every time I did, I examined my hand, and there were normally one or two fragments of the Host adhering to my palms (the Priest used to use one of those large Hosts that divides up into about two dozen pieces, and there were always an abundance of particles).

Many of these problems, I believe, would be eliminated if we returned to the practice of receiving on the tongue, and kneeling at the altar rails.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

 

[otjm]

I whole-heartily agree with the Archbishop that we need to re-think Communion in the hand. While I think there are many augments to be made in favor of Communion on the tongue, for me, the bottom line is respect for the Eucharist. Granted, Communion in the hand was the practice of the Church in Patristic times. However, it was eventually replaced by Communion on the tongue. We accept development of doctrine as a valid principle of the Catholic faith, but why are we so quick to deny that there could be development of practice inspired by movements of the Holy Spirit as well? 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.

I had been taught as a child to receive in the hand. Before I was ordained, I came to the conclusion in my early 20’s that I had to stop receiving in the hand, because every time I did, I examined my hand, and there were normally one or two fragments of the Host adhering to my palms (the Priest used to use one of those large Hosts that divides up into about two dozen pieces, and there were always an abundance of particles).

Many of these problems, I believe, would be eliminated if we returned to the practice of receiving on the tongue, and kneeling at the altar rails.

God bless,

Fr. Boyd

Your comment about 1 in 3 Catholics believing in Transubstantiation is an issue that needs to be examined more closely. James Akin has done an interesting analysis of the polls, and the results indicate more of an issue of catechizing specific doctrinal expanations than it does in belief; that is, it appears more Catholics believe in the True Presence, but many are unable to give the Church’s expanation as they were not specifically taught it.

I don’t agree that there is any more denial that the Holy Spirit may have lead the Church to one conclusion centuries ago than there is that the Holy Spirit could be leading the Church in another direction. The post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement that because we have Communion in the hand, we have poor catechesis does not follow. Catechesis started drastically downhill before Communion in the hand occured. But saying the two are related without more of a showing simply relies on “after…thus”.

I come from a parish that has 24 hour Adoration, and the vast majority of the congregation receive in the hand. To imply that there is a necessary correlation between Communion in the hand and poor catechesis simply doesn’t fly.

And as to the woman who walked away, is it not possible that she simply did not know what to do, as opposed to presuming that she had no idea what or Who she was receiving? People who are caught in a situation that is embarrassing and confusing to them often respond in a way that shows no more than their confusion of how to respond. I would make no presumption that she did or did not believe in the True Presence.

Putting people at an altar rail and sticking the Host on their tongue is not going to solve the problem we have, which is two generations and now going on to three generations who have been so poorly catechized. It will not fill their head with knowledge, but simply be one more change they don’t understand, one more example of what they see as a constantly changing liturgy.

Given the speed with which the Church grew in the 5th through 9th centuries (which started with Constantine in the mid to late 300’s), it is entirely possible that the change from Communion in the hand to on the tongue was not so much lead by an issue of reverance as it was in terms of logistical handling of communicants. Too often we presume that one factor caused a change when it was other factors at work.

And as to the issue of particles, I can recall twice when I have had any identifiable particle in my hand, and that was from receiving a part of the large host used at the Consecration, rather than one of the smaller ones. The smaller ones that are available simply don’t shed particles. The whole issue is resolvable through the type of host used.

 

[brotherhrolf]

I come from a parish that has 24 hour Adoration, and the vast majority of the congregation receive in the hand. To imply that there is a necessary correlation between Communion in the hand and poor catechesis simply doesn’t fly.

The geographical parish in which I reside has a 24 hour Adoration chapel as well. There is another parish in my diocese which has one too. There is a discernable difference between the parish in which I reside and the other parish. The majority of the people in my geographic parish receive in the hand while the majority of the other parish is on the tongue. I would have to ask the question if both have an Adoration Chapel why is the praxis so different in these two parishes. And I don’t just mean reception of Communion. It is evident in all parts of parish life.

Putting people at an altar rail and sticking the Host on their tongue is not going to solve the problem we have, which is two generations and now going on to three generations who have been so poorly catechized. It will not fill their head with knowledge, but simply be one more change they don’t understand, one more example of what they see as a constantly changing liturgy.

How many of us are over 50 and grew up receiving on the tongue? At 56, I have never received in the hand. What would happen if the communion rail was made available and folks like me could lead by example?

Given the speed with which the Church grew in the 5th through 9th centuries (which started with Constantine in the mid to late 300’s), it is entirely possible that the change from Communion in the hand to on the tongue was not so much lead by an issue of reverance as it was in terms of logistical handling of communicants. Too often we presume that one factor caused a change when it was other factors at work.

The speed in which the Church grew between the 5th and 9th centuries was mainly on paper. The following tribes should be remembered in consideration of the Roman Empire in the 5th, 6th, and 7th century - Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Huns, Angles, Saxons, Jutes. In the 8th and 9th centuries - Danes, Norse, and, of course, Islam. Logistical handling of communicants? When at any time a raidiing force could be at the church’s door? Or rather a profound sense of how fragile life is and how precious the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

And as to the issue of particles, I can recall twice when I have had any identifiable particle in my hand, and that was from receiving a part of the large host used at the Consecration, rather than one of the smaller ones. The smaller ones that are available simply don’t shed particles. The whole issue is resolvable through the type of host used.

Ah! I see. And that is why we children received such stringent catechisis in 1958 about the sanctity of the Body of Christ and why we all received on the tongue (kneeling) [first line of defense], with a gold paten under our chin [second line of defense], and a communion rail cloth [third line of defense].

I’m afraid I have to agree with Father. I have the evidence of my own eyes and 40 years of exerience upon which to draw. I have seen far too many children receive in the hand and treat the Precious Body as so many M & Ms.

 

[FrRJBoyd]

Your comment about 1 in 3 Catholics believing in Transubstantiation is an issue that needs to be examined more closely. James Akin has done an interesting analysis of the polls, and the results indicate more of an issue of catechizing specific doctrinal expanations than it does in belief; that is, it appears more Catholics believe in the True Presence, but many are unable to give the Church’s expanation as they were not specifically taught it.

I don’t agree that there is any more denial that the Holy Spirit may have lead the Church to one conclusion centuries ago than there is that the Holy Spirit could be leading the Church in another direction. The post hoc, ergo propter hoc arguement that because we have Communion in the hand, we have poor catechesis does not follow. Catechesis started drastically downhill before Communion in the hand occured. But saying the two are related without more of a showing simply relies on “after…thus”.

I come from a parish that has 24 hour Adoration, and the vast majority of the congregation receive in the hand. To imply that there is a necessary correlation between Communion in the hand and poor catechesis simply doesn’t fly.

And as to the woman who walked away, is it not possible that she simply did not know what to do, as opposed to presuming that she had no idea what or Who she was receiving? People who are caught in a situation that is embarrassing and confusing to them often respond in a way that shows no more than their confusion of how to respond. I would make no presumption that she did or did not believe in the True Presence.

Putting people at an altar rail and sticking the Host on their tongue is not going to solve the problem we have, which is two generations and now going on to three generations who have been so poorly catechized. It will not fill their head with knowledge, but simply be one more change they don’t understand, one more example of what they see as a constantly changing liturgy.

Given the speed with which the Church grew in the 5th through 9th centuries (which started with Constantine in the mid to late 300’s), it is entirely possible that the change from Communion in the hand to on the tongue was not so much lead by an issue of reverance as it was in terms of logistical handling of communicants. Too often we presume that one factor caused a change when it was other factors at work.

And as to the issue of particles, I can recall twice when I have had any identifiable particle in my hand, and that was from receiving a part of the large host used at the Consecration, rather than one of the smaller ones. The smaller ones that are available simply don’t shed particles. The whole issue is resolvable through the type of host used.

I can only cite my experience as a Priest; in teaching 8th grade catechesis, I have found that, at the exam I give at the beginning of the year, typically only about one third of the students know that Jesus is God and that the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of the Lord. Most are not going to Mass regularly, so catechesis through homilies does not reach them. Keeling and receiving on the tongue would not solve the problem of poor catechesis, but it would go a long way in emphasizing the solemnity of what is occurring at Communion. The woman who walked away with the Host was unknown to me; it was a special Mass for the beginning of religious education one year. A lot can be derived from tone and attitude; she did not seem flustered; rather, she seemed unconcerned and somewhat surprised that I had to go after her to inquire about the Host.

At any rate, I believe you completely missed the thrust of my argument, which is whether or not the Eucharist is lost through neglected particles. I am happy that you are conscientious about checking, but you are the exception rather than the norm. And after purifying thousands of ciboria, I can tell you that even the small hosts do make fragments. I do not believe that the current practice of Communion in the hand can adequately safeguard the Eucharist given our current state of catechesis.

 

[laudamus_te]

And as to the issue of particles, I can recall twice when I have had any identifiable particle in my hand, and that was from receiving a part of the large host used at the Consecration, rather than one of the smaller ones. The smaller ones that are available simply don’t shed particles. The whole issue is resolvable through the type of host used.

You are making a statement based on your own limited experience. I believe a priest has a better grasp of the reality of the situation. Perhaps you have not seen this:
fatimacrusader.com/cr83/cr83pg8.asp

The results of this test was 92 naked-eye particles from 25 “communions” using high quality communion wafers with “a carefully molded sealed edge which prevent crumbs.”

 

[otjm]

The geographical parish in which I reside has a 24 hour Adoration chapel as well. There is another parish in my diocese which has one too. There is a discernable difference between the parish in which I reside and the other parish. The majority of the people in my geographic parish receive in the hand while the majority of the other parish is on the tongue. I would have to ask the question if both have an Adoration Chapel why is the praxis so different in these two parishes. And I don’t just mean reception of Communion. It is evident in all parts of parish life.

With no more information, I can’t even guess. I can say that my parish certainly does not seem to be having the problems that others presume exist everywhere, or almost everywhere. What is evident in my parish is a congregation which really loves the Lord. and that doesn’t seem to be an issue re: Communion in the hand, which is why I say I do not believe others who tell me that Communion in the hand is the culprit.

How many of us are over 50 and grew up receiving on the tongue? At 56, I have never received in the hand. What would happen if the communion rail was made available and folks like me could lead by example?

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.

The speed in which the Church grew between the 5th and 9th centuries was mainly on paper. The following tribes should be remembered in consideration of the Roman Empire in the 5th, 6th, and 7th century - Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Vandals, Huns, Angles, Saxons, Jutes. In the 8th and 9th centuries - Danes, Norse, and, of course, Islam. Logistical handling of communicants? When at any time a raidiing force could be at the church’s door? Or rather a profound sense of how fragile life is and how precious the Body and Blood of Our Lord.

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.

Ah! I see. And that is why we children received such stringent catechisis in 1958 about the sanctity of the Body of Christ and why we all received on the tongue (kneeling) [first line of defense], with a gold paten under our chin [second line of defense], and a communion rail cloth [third line of defense].

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)?

I’m afraid I have to agree with Father. I have the evidence of my own eyes and 40 years of exerience upon which to draw. I have seen far too many children receive in the hand and treat the Precious Body as so many M & Ms.

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]

You are making a statement based on your own limited experience. I believe a priest has a better grasp of the reality of the situation. Perhaps you have not seen this:
fatimacrusader.com/cr83/cr83pg8.asp

The results of this test was 92 naked-eye particles from 25 “communions” using high quality communion wafers with “a carefully molded sealed edge which prevent crumbs.”

My limited experience includes being 62 years old, having been in the seminary, and having known personally a large number of priests. It is not simply my opinion, but also is a result of numerous conversations I have had with numerous priests. It is a little less limited than some of those having differing opinions herein. That does not make me right.

And neither does it make me wrong.