Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I would be careful of some of these sites because they are innacurate and weaken, instead of stregnthen, the case for Communion on the tongue by foolish arguments and doctored sources.

Spurious and undocumented.

Faulty. He actually supports it. Do a Google search for the full text of Letter 93.

Also faulty.

No such thing. His one reference which is used to support this is from a homily in which he says “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith”. This can apply to any method of reception of Communion

This is mostly true: it did restrict Communion, but not as the present discipline - the higher clergy (from subdeacons onward) could receive in the hand.

Again, incorrect. The 6th Ecumencial Council says nothing about it. The Council of Trullo,regarded as part of the 6th Council by the separated Eastern Churches, but not by us, does have decrees regarding Communion - but again, quite the opposite - they support it, and prescribe excommunication for those who do not receive in the hand, but instead in a dish.

True

Somewhat innacurate quote. The words of Trent are that it is an Apostolic tradition that priests should communicate themselves and laymen receive from a priest. The canon is against self-communicating (still forbidden) not Communion in the hand.

This was the interpretation of the earlier scholars and widely propagated (still is) but was a misreading of the texts. The *dominica *is actually the veil worn by the women - they were to approach the Sacrament with covered heads.

There are many other sources supporting Communion in the hand besides St. Cyril (or pseudo-Cyril) - St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene, Venerable Bede, etc. It is not necessary that the discipline was uniform across all the Churches at the beginning - so for example, while Rouen proscribes it, a little later, we find St. John Damascene still speaking of it as normative for his area. Again while we read of Pope St. Gregory administering it on the tongue, Bede relates the practise in England of receiving in the hand. It was only by around the 10th-11th centuries that it became established almost everywhere.

Both those quotations before St Basil, not just that fathered on Eutychian, are spurious. They’re as genuine as the 13-letter corpus of Ignatius of Antioch, or the Protevangelium of James, or the doctored version of canon six of Nicea I, or other fakes that are sometimes used to support Catholic things. Only a poor case needs “foolish arguments and doctored sources”.​

What does it matter anyway ? The Eucharist was instituted to be eaten, not to be fought over. Trust the Churches to concentrate on anything & everything except what matters.

 

[pnewton]

Regretfully, this topic engenders little but division and I have never understood why. Since this practice is allowed and not mandated, those that object to it are surely free to receive as they want. Some one else’s spirituality is simply not the our business. This topic would be dead if we would keep our noses to ourselves instead of fretting over our fellow Catholics and taking the role of their bishop.

 

[Eucharisted]

Regretfully, this topic engenders little but division and I have never understood why. Since this practice is allowed and not mandated, those that object to it are surely free to receive as they want. Some one else’s spirituality is simply not the our business. This topic would be dead if we would keep our noses to ourselves instead of fretting over our fellow Catholics and taking the role of their bishop.

Traditonalists tend to be - ahem - obsessive over their theological and disciplinary opinions. The topics about receiving on the hand verses on the tongue, the Ordinary Form of the Mass verses the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the continuation of the Papacy, the prophecies of a certain someone who said the antichrist would come after Pope John Paul II, the accusation that the Pope never consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the accusation that the Vatican is secretive and hides things from Catholics (such as the third part of the secret of Fatima), and like topics will always be presented on the Traditional forum. Why? Because people like to think they are clever and can change people’s minds with words. Heck, I’m guilty of this myself (but I pray I don’t do it again) Of course, words can’t change hearts: only God’s grace can. Thus, prayer and sacrifice is necessary for conversion.

But isn’t it interesting how most Traditionalists on this forum like to compare things, as if to say the old wine skins are better than the new wie skins? It’s an attitude that some Protestants have toward the Church as well! Not to say Traditionalists are Protestant, but most do have the Protestant mindset. So let’s pray for them!

 

[weepixie71]

I don’t receive Communion in the hand, I receive it on the tongue. It does NOT go against Tradition, because Tradition with a capital T is immutable and comes to us from the Apostles. Communion on the tongue clearly does not; as has been pointed out, some of the other rites have always practiced Communion in the hand. They, too, have Apostolic roots.

We have much in common with Lutherans and other Protestants for the simple reason that they did not jettison everything. Should we abandon the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed or the Our Father because Protestants make use of them?

I object to the characterizations on this thread, as I have to similar ones in the past, because it attempts to constrain the consciences of the faithful in the Name of the Church where the Church has granted a liberty. You’re quite free to say you think Communion in the hand is a bad idea. No one is free to say that it isn’t Catholic or that it is bad in and of itself (since the Church can promulgate nothing against Her Own teaching), at least not without being challenged on it and corrected. If the Holy Father ended the practice tomorrow, that would be fine with me.

It is also very bad scholarship founded on not terribly credible evidence, along the lines of the argument in the thread that St. Peter and Paul established the Latin Mass in Rome while they were there or the absurd argument that the laity may not recieve the Most Precious Blood in Its seperate Species because the Apostles alone could do so (not remotely the practice of the early Church and the lay reception of the Chalice did not completely end until about the 1400s). It’s pure fancy to support a position that is only an opinion and which has an agenda.

all i wanted to do was get help on the history of communion in the hand because i was struggling to find it. i did not want this to be a debate about if it was wrong or right…

 

[weepixie71]

I believe the exact number is 353 of which at least 3 must be Apostles, 3 Doctors of the Church, 20 must have been notable missionaries, 8 the founders of religious orders, 17 dogmatic theologians, 13 sainted pontiffs, and 25 devoted to works of charity. The remaining may be divided up in the ratio 1:1:5:3:2:2:2 among bishop confessors, bishop martyrs, martyrs, confessors, virgins, virgin martyrs and holy women .The existence of no more than 1/5 may be established on the singular basis of unreliable acta or by sermons of other saints, while for the rest it is necessary that their existence be authentically determined. More than 1/9 may not come form the same religious order and no more than 1/12 from the same geographic location, defined as 30 leagues from any major city that possess a cathedral, basilica or collegiate church. Should such edifices be lacking in the territory, then the distance is 75 leagues from any city held major by common estimation of those in the region. Monasteries are exempt from such measurements to a distance of two and a half times

The holy Virgin together with St. John the Baptist and St. Joseph refrain from interfering and thus cannot be invoked save by reliable and attested means in the deposit of public revelation. Apparitions do not count as, being private revelation, they cannot be used.

love this!!!

 

[weepixie71]

The only time I’ve seen a communion rail used, it was exclusively on the tongue, followed by individual communion cups… the mass was said ad orientam, with modern chasuble and stoles, very reverent and very old songs. Just happens also to be a LCMS parish. (Lutherans.)

since luthern is a split from the catholic church and martin luther could even see the importance receiving on the tongue, we know this was his preference, should tell fellow catholics how important it is…

by the way did you ask them what exactly they were kneeling too since their priest is not validly able to consecrate the host?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

all i wanted to do was get help on the history of communion in the hand because i was struggling to find it. i did not want this to be a debate about if it was wrong or right…

That’s ok, very often threads become other than what is intended. As I said, however, people cannot be permitted to attempt to constrain the consciences of the faithful where the Church has granted a liberty.

 

[Aramis]

since luthern is a split from the catholic church and martin luther could even see the importance receiving on the tongue, we know this was his preference, should tell fellow catholics how important it is…

by the way did you ask them what exactly they were kneeling too since their priest is not validly able to consecrate the host?

LCMS teaches consubstantiation, and They believe their priests do confect a valid eucharist.

 

[I_Believe]

Regretfully, this topic engenders little but division and I have never understood why. Since this practice is allowed and not mandated, those that object to it are surely free to receive as they want. Some one else’s spirituality is simply not the our business. This topic would be dead if we would keep our noses to ourselves instead of fretting over our fellow Catholics and taking the role of their bishop.

Yes, but the indult carries conditions. The indult itself has been abused. Conditions of the indult are not being met in many parishes. It is in fact the role of the Bishop to see that the conditions of the indult are being met. If they are not, then how will the abuse be corrected if everyone remain silent ? Abuses in this case border on Sacrilege.

The practice is allowed only if the conditions are being met. Just as you don’t understand the division, I don’t understand the defenders of CITH not being concerned in the least.

Please read the conditions of the indult, and then listen to this Holy Bishop echoing the same concerns and argument I’ve just made. A Bishop in full communion with Rome.

youtube.com/watch?v=0-WlLk-Av90

Eucharisted:

But isn’t it interesting how most Traditionalists on this forum like to compare things, as if to say the old wine skins are better than the new wie skins?

Eucharisted, does this Bishop in the video sound like “most Traditionalists on this forum” ?
Can you dismiss this Bishop’s case for CITH ? Can you also dismiss the conditions of the indult for CITH as mere opinion ?

 

[shuzo1189]

I think this entire topic is Circular. You have the Traditional Crowd saying its an Abuse, even if it’s legally allowed its still an abuse. And you have the non-traditional crowd pointing repeatedly to the fact that an Indult was granted so who cares if it was an abuse, the Church allows it. I mean, you can show any quote from a Saint or a Theologian and it will not matter because “The Church gave us an Indult, thus its allowed”

I mean in 1968 Pope Paul VI sent out a Poll asking his fellow Bishops if Communion in the Hand should be allowed, the answer was a resounding “No”, none the less a few bishops still practicing disobidence continued to petition the Holy Father to grant them the right to adminsister Communion in the Hand. In 1969 the Indult was Granted (catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31755)

 

[Ockham]

‘Lord, wash away my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin’ you mean?

What’s that got to do with Communion on the tongue?

It’s a prayer by the priest as he prepares to confect the Blessed Sacrament, asking that he be as worthy as a sinful human being can be to do such a tremendous thing.

If he said it just before he gave himself Communion, it might be relevant to your argument, but he doesn’t, it’s related to the words of consecration, not to Communion.

I’m sorry, I should have been more specific as to which form I was referring to. Your quote is from the Novus Ordo, the sixties version, liturgy-lite. Here’s the Tridentine version, the one that has been said for hundreds of years:

*"P. I wash my hands in innocence, and I go around Your altar, O Lord, giving voice to my thanks, and recounting all Your wondrous deeds. O Lord, I love the house in which You dwell, the tenting place of Your glory. Gather not my soul with those of sinners, nor with men of blood my life. On their hands are crimes, and their right hands are full of bribes. But I walk in integrity; redeem me, and have pity on me My foot stands on level ground; in the assemblies I will bless You, O Lord.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."*

The priest washes away his sins from his consecrated hands prior to touching the Blessed Sacrament. Why? Why does he go through this prayer if we are only to take the Blessed Sacrament in our sinful, unconsecrated hands,

 

[Sir_Alec]

Traditonalists tend to be - ahem - obsessive over their theological and disciplinary opinions. The topics about receiving on the hand verses on the tongue, the Ordinary Form of the Mass verses the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the continuation of the Papacy, the prophecies of a certain someone who said the antichrist would come after Pope John Paul II, the accusation that the Pope never consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the accusation that the Vatican is secretive and hides things from Catholics (such as the third part of the secret of Fatima), and like topics will always be presented on the Traditional forum. Why? Because people like to think they are clever and can change people’s minds with words. Heck, I’m guilty of this myself (but I pray I don’t do it again) Of course, words can’t change hearts: only God’s grace can. Thus, prayer and sacrifice is necessary for conversion.

But isn’t it interesting how most Traditionalists on this forum like to compare things, as if to say the old wine skins are better than the new wie skins? It’s an attitude that some Protestants have toward the Church as well! Not to say Traditionalists are Protestant, but most do have the Protestant mindset. So let’s pray for them!

First of all, from what I’ve seen here, Traditionalists (and even folks with some serious misgivings about what they see going on in local parishes) are outnumbered by apologists for every practice that resulted from the VII reforms. And, for all of the talk about trads being judgemental and obsessed, I see a lot more posts like this one that have a pretty judgemental, superior attitude towards those who have issues with what they perceive as practices that diminish respect for the Real Presence. You should look in the mirror once in awhile and ask yourself if you aren’t guilty of the very things that you accuse others of.

I don’t see anyone trying to bind the consciences of other people. But trads and other concerned Catholics have a right to make known our concerns about the current state of the liturgy in the average Catholic parish. We’re not living in 1976 anymore. Pope Benedict shares many of these same concerns, himself prefers giving Communion on the tongue, and also believes that many modern liturgies lack the reverence and transcendent nature that the liturgy is supposed to possess. The Mass is, after all, the making present of the Sacrifice of Calvary. It does demand some respect and reverence and reflection from us. The Mass isn’t all about you, or me. It’s about God.

I thank God that Cardinal Ratzinger was made Pope, and can’t help but think that some of the apologists for many modern practices resent the fact that His Holiness has allowed Traditionalists to have a voice in the modern Church. Ad Multos Annos!

 

[malphono]

First of all, from what I’ve seen here, Traditionalists (and even folks with some serious misgivings about what they see going on in local parishes) are outnumbered by apologists for every practice that resulted from the VII reforms. And, for all of the talk about trads being judgemental and obsessed, I see a lot more posts like this one that have a pretty judgemental, superior attitude towards those who have issues with what they perceive as practices that diminish respect for the Real Presence. You should look in the mirror once in awhile and ask yourself if you aren’t guilty of the very things that you accuse others of. …

Quite well put.

 

[Cluny]

I’m sorry, I should have been more specific as to which form I was referring to. Your quote is from the Novus Ordo, the sixties version, liturgy-lite. Here’s the Tridentine version, the one that has been said for hundreds of years:

*"P. I wash my hands in innocence, and I go around Your altar, O Lord, giving voice to my thanks, and recounting all Your wondrous deeds. O Lord, I love the house in which You dwell, the tenting place of Your glory. Gather not my soul with those of sinners, nor with men of blood my life. On their hands are crimes, and their right hands are full of bribes. But I walk in integrity; redeem me, and have pity on me My foot stands on level ground; in the assemblies I will bless You, O Lord.

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."*

The priest washes away his sins from his consecrated hands prior to touching the Blessed Sacrament. Why? Why does he go through this prayer if we are only to take the Blessed Sacrament in our sinful, unconsecrated hands,

Actually, he’s washing away last-minute dirt, including any gunk from the censer. Only Christ washes away sins.

In the Byzantine liturgy, the Lavabo (with the same Psalm) is done by the Priest and Deacon immediatly after they vest.

ALL of us have consecrated hands (and everything else) as a result of our Baptism.

 

[pickguard1]

Traditonalists tend to be - ahem - obsessive over their theological and disciplinary opinions. The topics about receiving on the hand verses on the tongue, the Ordinary Form of the Mass verses the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the continuation of the Papacy, the prophecies of a certain someone who said the antichrist would come after Pope John Paul II, the accusation that the Pope never consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the accusation that the Vatican is secretive and hides things from Catholics (such as the third part of the secret of Fatima), and like topics will always be presented on the Traditional forum. Why? Because people like to think they are clever and can change people’s minds with words. Heck, I’m guilty of this myself (but I pray I don’t do it again) Of course, words can’t change hearts: only God’s grace can. Thus, prayer and sacrifice is necessary for conversion.

But isn’t it interesting how most Traditionalists on this forum like to compare things, as if to say the old wine skins are better than the new wie skins? It’s an attitude that some Protestants have toward the Church as well! Not to say Traditionalists are Protestant, but most do have the Protestant mindset. So let’s pray for them!

OUCH!

 

[Ockham]

Actually, he’s washing away last-minute dirt, including any gunk from the censer. Only Christ washes away sins.

In the Byzantine liturgy, the Lavabo (with the same Psalm) is done by the Priest and Deacon immediatly after they vest.

ALL of us have consecrated hands (and everything else) as a result of our Baptism.

Why don’t the laity wash away last minute dirt then?

A priest’s hands are consecrated at his ordination. Look it up. Why do you think the Sacrament of Holy Orders contains this feature?

 

[Cluny]

Why don’t the laity wash away last minute dirt then?

A priest’s hands are consecrated at his ordination. Look it up. Why do you think the Sacrament of Holy Orders contains this feature?

The anointing of the hands is only in the Latin rite.

It’s not done in the Byzantine or any other Eastern Church (whether in union with Rome or not).

Or would you say that on the basis of this, Byantine Catholic priests aren’t “real” priests?

In all liturgical rites of the Church, the Mystery of Holy Orders is conferred by the imposition of hands of the Bishop, not by anointment, which actually confers nothing.

Pius XII defined this in the 50’s.

Or did you know that?

Look it up.

 

[Aramis]

Then again, byzantine chrismation includes anointing of the hands… (and feet, eyes, ears, mouth, and chest…)

 

[weepixie71]

augh!!! this is frustrating… everyone sounds so mean to each other. this “i’m right your wrong” stuff sounds like bickering children on a playground.

i dont know why some people, feel the need to come into a “traditional catholic” forum and then get upset when we say we dont like what the people have done to the “new mass”. we are traditionalists because we see the harm modernists have done and so does this pope. are there not enough traditional catholics in your parish to bully?

your mass is valid… yippeeeee!!! to be honest the very fact that it is valid is why i personally get so upset. if it wasnt valid i would know more care what you did during church service than i would at a baptist or lutheran. you dont care how people dress, worship, praise. the more you worship and take on protestant ways including stripping your churches the happier you are. and dont give me this … our parish cant afford it bull dookie… poor poor poor neighborhoods were often known for having gorgous guilded churches at one time, ah hem before vatican II. i live in one of the more wealthier parishes just outside of peoria il. the money coming into that church is ridiculous and it is as bare as a newborn. to modernists, your catholic songs, disciplines, traditions just dont matter. traditionalists all of these things matter. we love being Catholic and we will NOT give up one thing about it. when you walk into a traditional catholic church you know it and we are proud of it… if one took out your tabernacle can you tell me the same about your church built in the last 30yrs?

my opinion of a true traditionalist… . just because a bishop says we can strip a discipline doesnt mean we will or even consider wanting to. to strip a discipline is to strip an honor from Jesus Christ and a tradition of His Church.

so please if you come into a traditional catholic forum and you are not a traditional catholic SHOW SOME RESPECT. im not saying you can not disagree, just do it tastefully.

now am i a better catholic than you because you attend a “novus ordo” ?NO!!! we just find your mass pitifully relaxed and empty. if this offends you, too bad. its how we see it. period. this does not in anyway mean you love Jesus Christ less than us. we acknowledge that. it seems you want us to except something we feel in our souls is wrong and look the other way because a liberal bishop says so regardless what the pope himself has to say of his feelings for it.

we both know now, as far back as we can go historically about the mass that the mass was done both ways. CITH and receiving on the tongue. i would like to believe that over time the Catholic Church grasped the true importance of this miraculous gift Jesus gave us and so made a change in a way they thought would be pleasing to God.

one thing no one has touched on this topic are the miracles associated that our PRIESTS witnessed because they were giving Communion on the tongue. i cant help but wonder if these miracles are for the priests to remind them of the gravity of what they are doing.

maybe it would help traditional catholics to hear of some of the miracles excepted by the Church that have taken place with Communion in the hand.

 

[weepixie71]

LCMS teaches consubstantiation, and They believe their priests do confect a valid eucharist.

how sad for them to not know the truth!!!