Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

[weepixie71]

Traditonalists tend to be - ahem - obsessive over their theological and disciplinary opinions.

we are not obsessive/we are proud of who we are and where we came from as Catholics and the saints that died for the very mass that we attend. and we make sure we keep our lifestyles and our mass that never lets us forget it.
now some traditionalists may say those Charismatic Catholics are, ahem, careless with their disciplines and their Catholic heritage.

 

[Cluny]

we are not obsessive/we are proud of who we are and where we came from as Catholics and the saints that died for the very mass that we attend. and we make sure we keep our lifestyles and our mass that never lets us forget it.
now some traditionalists may say those Charismatic Catholics are, ahem, careless with their disciplines and their Catholic heritage.

Traditional Catholicism is greater than the Latin Mass and Communion on the tongue.

In fact, traditional Catholicism is greater than the Latin Church, because the Eastern Catholic Churches are traditional as well.

I myself prefer to receive on my tongue. But I am aware of the historical precedents for receiving the Body in one’s hand.

To repeat what I have said elsewhere, only at the Liturgies of Addai and Mari and Byzantine St. James would I receive in my hand, because here it is the received custom and the rubrics call for it. I might receive in my hand at an outdoor mega-mass if it seemed safer to do so. After all, care in not dropping the Holy Gifts is traditional, too.

But devotional notes in prayer books or what you remember Mere Angelique teaching you in the first grade is necessarily tradition–or even historically true.

 

[ncjohn]

In the end, during various different times and for various reasons, the Church has allowed or disallowed communion in the hand. It has been the norm at times and it has been prohibited at times. It is a discipline and, as such, the Church has the authority to regulate it as it sees the need.

One cannot make any kind of logicial argument based on consistency based on either Law or Tradition. It is not a matter of doctrine.

If one prefers to receive only on the tongue, that’s wonderful, but please can’t we stop this constant bickering over something the Church has made a legitimate decision to allow? If one wants to opine as to why one way or the other might be preferable, that’s fine but this is another of those areas where it is totally a subjective preference and to be making judgments about other people, and/or about the Church itself, based on this is just way beyond the pale.

Peace,

 

[Ockham]

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

I’m only familiar with and concerned about the Latin rite, Roman Catholics.

“Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13

 

[pnewton]

I’m only familiar with and concerned about the Latin rite, Roman Catholics.

“Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13

But the Catholic Church is not. Truth does not mean one thing to Latin Catholics and another to Eastern Catholics. The way other rites operate still provides data to confront those that see an objective “right” way to receive communion. If we acknowledge there is no objective right way, which is what I believe, then history is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is what the Church requires at this time.

 

[Cluny]

I’m only familiar with and concerned about the Latin rite, Roman Catholics.

“Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13

You’re simply proving my point–

The Church is BIGGER than the Latin Rite.

Guess what? It’s not the standard for the whole Church, and never has been.

 

[Cluny]

“Because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it, but what is consecrated; hence the corporal and the chalice are consecrated, and likewise the priest’s hands, for touching this sacrament.” - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, III, Q. 82, Art. 13

I forgot to mention this:

Since the Sacrament of Orders is conferred by the imposition of the Bishop’s hands, according to a decree by Pius XII, the new priest’s hands are already consecrated by this act, not by the anointment.

 

[otjm]

If you choose to receive our Redeemer in the Blessed Sacrament in the manner of an indult then go ahead. It goes against hundreds of years of Tradition and teaching and goes along with Luther and other Protestants.

What Tradition? The Tradition of the Catholic Church, or the Tradition (or better, tradition) of the Roman rite of the Catholic Church?

You are misusing the term Tradition, because that refers to faith and morals, not praxis. and if you want to go back to Trent as if it were the defining act of the Church, I would suggest that what has occured since trent was of something in the range of about 400 to 450 years; the last time I checked, that amounted to somewhere betwee 20% and 25 % of the time the Church has been in existence.

 

[otjm]

Saints are entitled to their private opinions. Unless they are a part of the magisterium, ie, the pontiff or the bishops in union with him, their opinions may not ever make something unacceptable (I seem to recall that St. Pio didn’t like women in pants, but St. Gianna Molla wore them). Also, “hand vs. tongue” is a matter of DISCIPLINE, not FAITH AND MORALS, not **DOCTRINE and DOGMA. **Even if one saint were a pope and railed against it, his successors would not be bound to follow him and could change the discipline.

Blessed Mother Teresa supposedly said that the thing that made her saddest in her travels was to see the Lord Jesus received in the hand. She supposedly said this to a priest. The Missionaries of Charity, her order, have gone on record as saying that they never heard her say such a thing, that it didn’t sound like her at all, and they doubt she said it. I don’t believe she said it and I receive on the tongue.

And the priest who said she said it later retracted the statement. Old urban legends take on a sheen of immortality, however.

 

[otjm]

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 what logic? that in splitting from the Catholic Church, he somehow is now sanctified, or raised up on high as to what is and what is not important in the Church?

I will grant him that he was correct that indulgences should not be sold. Beyond that I would hestitate to look too far to him as an expert on much of anything. It was not for no reason that Trent mandated that seminaries have a regularized basis oc training priests. It would seem he may have modeled at leats part of the arguement for such.

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

They kneel out of reverence, as they believe that Christ is present in the Eucharist. Their belief may not be wrong, but be careful of remarking too harshly about their piety to the Lord.

 

[otjm]

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,

It is really quite simple. Sin is not from the hands, it is from the heart. Poetic language does much to teach us our faith, but when one takes poetic language and attempts to make it literal, one misses the point, almost entirely. Further, I believe you may find in the bible the comment about the sinfulness of tongues. You might wish to consider that for a moment before you try to be literal with everything you think supports your position.

 

[otjm]

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!

He has said that Communion in the hand is perfectly permissible and not to be criticized. As to how he distributes Communion, the norm for the Roman rite is till on the tongue, and the indult has not been universally granted. One would expect him to follow the norm more likely than the indult, and doing so is not proof of anything more than a) it is the norm, and b) he is pope of the entire Roman rite, the majority of countries which follow the norm, not the indult. Your proof is not proof of that which you propose.

 

[otjm]

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.

Now that you are done with your rant, let me point out that there is no forum herein where people who attend the OF sound off about the Traditionalists. It is always the Traditionalists who want to play the holier than the pope routine and attack any and all aspects of the OF, Vatican 2, and just about anything they can think of with John Paul 2.

I have been around long enough to have been a candle bearer, server, thurifer and master of ceremonies over the years at Solemn High Masses before Vatican 2. And in that same parish I served Mass for an alcoholic priest who could come in and say the 6:30 weekday Mass in under 15 minutes. The abuses we saw (and they were admittedly not as extensive as those I have seen in the OF) are abuses you will not see now in the EF because the priests, few as they are, who say the EF do so because of a desire to do so. I cannot say the same entirely of that pastor of long ago.

I attend a parish that uses the OF exclusively; we sing songs out of OCP hymnal; we serve the poor (we started a soup kitchen with other, Protestant, churches), we have an active RCIA program in which people are taught what the Church teaches (not the latest theological fad from the cafeteria “Catholic” theologians), we have an active Catholics Returning Home program, we built the first Catholic grade school in 40 years in this diocese a couple of years ago, and we have 24 hour perpetual adoration (which was not something you found before Vatican 2). Perhaps you have had bad experiences in your diocese. That does not make your experience universal, nor do you know quite as much as you think you do.

To make or hint at a statement that Communion in the hand is irreverant or induces irreverance is just poppycock. I have no quarrel with you receiving on the tongue; I do have a quarrel with you looking down the end of your pietistic nose at those who receive reverently in the hand. The vast majority of our parish receives in the hand; and that same group for 15 years has maintained 24 hour adoration. We get it. You don’t.

 

[Aramis]

What Tradition? The Tradition of the Catholic Church, or the Tradition (or better, tradition) of the Roman rite of the Catholic Church?

You are misusing the term Tradition, because that refers to faith and morals, not praxis. and if you want to go back to Trent as if it were the defining act of the Church, I would suggest that what has occured since trent was of something in the range of about 400 to 450 years; the last time I checked, that amounted to somewhere betwee 20% and 25 % of the time the Church has been in existence.

And the “Unchangable Mass” was revised 4 or 5 times between Trent and Vatican II…

 

[I_Believe]

… I do have a quarrel with you looking down the end of your pietistic nose at those who receive reverently in the hand. …
…We get it. You don’t.

Hypocrisy rising.

Trouble with your pompous attitude is that we have Archbishops making the same arguments as trads. But you will ignore that won’t you ?

Your # is 6 in the Hear no, Speak no, See no Truth club.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/11/26/23372611.jpg

 

[I_Believe]

Speaking of Bishops who argue in favor of COTT recently, where are the recent articles and interviews by Bishops arguing in favor of CITH ? :ehh:

 

[pnewton]

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”.

Better to ask why some topics posted here have nothing to do with Traditional Catholic spirituality. Last I heard one could only receive on the tongue at the TLM. If you find the answer to one question, you will find the answer to both.

 

[Ockham]

Hypocrisy rising.

Trouble with your pompous attitude is that we have Archbishops making the same arguments as trads. But you will ignore that won’t you ?

Your # is 6 in the Hear no, Speak no, See no Truth club.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/11/26/23372611.jpg

How appropriate; a Catholic making use of a clown on a CITH thread. That pretty much sums up the arguments presented over the last two pages. pnewton thinks there is no objective truth and history is irrelevant, cluny thinks if the Eastern Catholics do something then it’s automatically correct, and otjm remembers a pre-Vatican II priest saying Mass intoxicated and yet still under fifteen minutes so everything done in the "spirit of Vatican II’ is groovy. Everybody dance.

I’m not sure what I Believe actually believes in but here are the facts. The Catholic Church is in decline. The majority of Catholics are not Traditional, Progressive, or Neutral, they are Lapsed. The majority of people who actually attend Sunday Mass don’t believe in the Real Presence. Although I’m not aware of any surveys of Tradional Catholic belief in the Real Presence I’m willing to wager it is nearly if not completely perfect. If you can’t admit to the connection between Vatican II/Novus Ordo and our current state then you are either obtuse or harbouring an ulterior motive.

It’s sad that I thought of liturgical abuse the moment I saw this clown picture. Progressives will talk about abuse occuring pre-Vatican II with drunk priests and express Masses. I suppose alcoholism may be easier to hide in the EF than OF but this is a red herring isn’t it? If the tempo of the Mass is the worst abuse that occurred pre-Vatican II then I believe the clown mass trumps it. CITH is another liturgical abuse and its affects are clearly described in the above paragraph.

 

[Cluny]

…Last I heard one could only receive on the tongue at the TLM. …

I don’t know where you got this idea.

I receive Communion on the tongue whenever I go to the Pauline Mass.

I’ve seen people receive thus on the daily Masses on EWTN.

I’ve even seen Pope Benedict himself give Communion on the Tongue in the Pauline Mass.

 

[japhy]

It’s one of MANY adaptations to the universal law that were approved as particular law for U.S. dioceses. You can read about it here: usccb.org/liturgy/girm/fil2.shtml Note there’s no mention of “indult.” …

It is an indult! It was an indult when it was granted and it remains so. Because of the indult, our local law may reflect the change in practice.

Universal law (i.e. the Latin original) does not require that communion be received on the tongue in the paragraph (160) that the U.S. bishops received approval for the noted adaptation.

Latin GIRM 161: Communicandus respondet: Amen, et Sacramentum recipit, ore vel, ubi concessum sit, manu, pro libitu suo.