Once Upon a Time There Was Communion in the Hand

[pcoffey1]

pcoffey1:
Someone wrote that there is no written rule preventing a change to the Gregorian Rite - how about Quo Primum of Pius v ; parts quoted here;

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

…Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.

…Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

Given at St. Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.

 

[Aramis]

Actually, the 1917 CIC provided for Deacons to distribute communion, and in rare cases, ordained subdeacons, in both cases as EMHC’s…

 

[pnewton]

Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.

…and

very large Fonts!

 

[pcoffey1]

Guess not, seeing as though some of the local powers that be have continued the suppression of the Gregorian Rite despite the SC. And I don’t have any comment on the recent phenomenon of people asking why those discussing Latin Rite-specific issues are not mentioning the Eastern Rites.

There is that crazy phenomenon again. What is your point ? What does the doings of the Eastern Rites have to do with the Latin Rite ? You proposing we de-latinize Rome ?

Where can one find these official statements ? I read the Summorum Pontificum. Where are these other comments to be found ?

i believe ’ quoted’ in #141 that there is no written rule preventing a change to the Gregorian Rite - how about Quo Primum of Pius v ; parts quoted here; sorry about the fonts- new user!

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

…Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.

…Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.]

Given at St. Peter’s in the year of the Lord’s Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.

 

[pnewton]

Quo Primum does not, can not bind another Pope. I know it is hard to understand something that is centuries old. Perhaps that is one of the problems with laity always trying armchair theology. Any way, the Mass had changed in the previous 1500 years and then subsequent Popes had no issues with making changes, even though they were smaller. The diference is degree, not fact. Equals can not bind equals in these matters of discipline. Since Pope Paul VI was an equal to Pius V, one can not bind another. The authority of the Pope over such issues ends on his death and passes to his successor. Even if one goes into the document, that despite the firm language, it allows exceptions even at that time, for groups with other rites older than 200 years.

Finally Pope Benedict XVI sees no conflict. Why worry what bloggers say? Indeed when one accepts the legitimacy of the Pope, then one accepts the authority that goes with the office.

 

[I_Believe]

excellent quote of the cardinal - spot on!! Regarding merging of the two- ; how about 1 reading - Epistle and Gospel if not collect ] in the vernacular from a good approved translation - also a more defined time of silence post communion as part of the ablutions for thanksgiving, contrition,adoration, and supplication to name 2 possibilities - not sure where BXVI sees this going or wants to take it- I just know he has verbalized a vision of a melded rite- I agree, again with you , that 2 will not survive . the merge won’t happen in my lifetime i’m 58] ; we’ve lost a full generation and a half to this awful Pauline/ Bugnnini experiment; my 14 yr old prefers th eLTM to the NO : young people are flocking with their little ones to our LTM - Great is the Holy Ghost! ad multos annos ad BXVI

IMO, the TLM should be left alone for now. And the calendar as well. H.H. BXVI has already made a gesture of understanding toward the Jewish Faith by rewording the Good Friday prayer.

And the main concern for me, and it’s just my opinion, is the fact that the TLM has only been freed of indult for such a short time. The priests that are training to pray the TLM are learning to pray it according to the '62 missal. All the available materials and resources are for the '62. The laity that have become aware that the TLM is now an option are expecting their first TLM to be as they have seen it on the various television programs, Youtube, and so forth.

The TLM is the Mass that wouldn’t die. It was suppressed for such a long time, and now that so many Catholics, both clergy and laity, are rediscovering the ancient Gregorian Rite, the most precious treasure of HMC, I feel we should let the Mass do what it did for such a long time. Which is build Faith. It’s chock full of Doctrine, Reverence, and is such a fitting expression of our Faith. It can and has seen organic change in rubrics and such, but it’s hard to argue, imo, that it can be improved.

I feel it should be left alone, and let it be rediscovered. To start tinkering with it would not be organic growth. Certainly after being suppressed for so long. It’s the Mass that was prayed throughout the centuries while the Church saw vocations keep pace with the demand for priests.

Would we have a priest shortage today if the NO were never introduced ? Actually, it may be worse. I say that, because there is a good chance there would be fewer lapsed Catholics.

 

[I_Believe]

Well, for starters, the EF would be enhanced if it followed the OF in the increase in Scripture readings.

We have two sources of our faith - Scripture and Tradition. Adding more Scripture to the EF certainly is not going to harm the EF or those who attend.

I say leave it be and let it be rediscovered. Tinkering with it is not organic growth. H.H. already reworded a prayer. Which is fine imo, because it still implies the same thing. It wasn’t a change, addition, or deletion.

And that’s what the problem with the NO is. Those at the bottom of the ladder deciding what’s worth a try. And doing it without approval from Rome before hand.

That’s another about face. Traditionally, Rome introduces changes to the Liturgy and rubrics.

" Your Holiness, in my diocese, we have found that the inclusion of … is well received by the flock. We ask your approval to continue this practice ".

What’s wrong with that picture ? That’s exactly what happened with CITH.

 

[AJV]

now some traditionalists may say those Charismatic Catholics are, ahem, careless with their disciplines and their Catholic heritage.

Just an aside note: but this may not really be fully true. I’ve not had very much experience with Charismatic communities in the USA but in some parts of Asia the Charismatic communities are the sometimes most orthodox on doctrinal issues, and lean more to traditional praxis e.g. encourage practices like COTT and kneeling or bending ones knees, regular Eucharistic Adoration, rosary, etc. even while they also have other things like speaking in tongues and the like. It’s not always very clear-cut.

 

[Ockham]

Again, given that there is continual history of Communion in the hand in the Church, I find such a conclusion doesn’t hold water.

That is not a “one is better than the other” issue, it is primarily a cultural issue. So your constant comeback to lack of reverance also doesn’t carry water.

Your argument is based on the earliest Christians and Eastern Catholics so that’s what’s not holding or carrying water here. My argument is whether it is proper - the most reverent. This isn’t a matter of personal preference as the CITH supporters make it out to be, it’s about receiving our Lord and Redeemer. Our modern day society with its “me” generation of instant gratification, short attention spans, ultra-choice, lack of consideration for others and overly extended sense of self-worth perfectly describe the mindset of those feeling equal enough to God to hold Him in their grubby little hands. Perhaps your references to water are symbolic on a psychological basis.

When Pope Paul VI bent to this modern novelty the word “reverent” was of clear priority:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/communion_in_hand.htm

"The doctrine of transubstantiation remained intact. Yet, it no longer meant the same. Prior to the liturgical reform, this doctrine was dramatized by the repetitive stress placed on the ineffable sacredness of the Host. For in the wafer raised by the priest to the ringing of bells and the beating of breasts was the actual Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the spotless Victim that could not be touched by unconsecrated hands. A great part of the Tridentine liturgy assumed the form of progressive obeisance to a thing untouchable. A priest could raise the Host only with his canonical digits - the thumb and first finger - which had been consecrated for the purpose. After consecrating the bread, the priest had to keep his canonicals joined as he performed the other necessary functions. The paten and chalice, for example, had to be lifted with the third and fourth fingers.

Moreover, the priest constantly had to sweep his paten for unseen specks of the sacred bread. For each part was the whole, each crumb a communion in itself. When the priest administered communion to the faithful at the altar rail he was always accompanied by an altar boy who carried a special communion catcher - another paten, the one with a long handle. The acolyte carefully placed the catcher under the chin of each receiver the prevent the catastrophe of Christ falling from someone’s tongue to the floor. The thin wafers - so difficult to swallow - always stuck to the roof of the mouth. And it would be detestable - an unthinkable - sacrilege to scrape it off with one’s finger.

But with the sacramental changes, Catholics were permitted to do the unspeakable. Suddenly, in many progressive parishes, the sacred Body was placed in their unholy hands. Worse yet, in some instances it was even administered by laymen who dipped their unholy fingers into the sacred chalice. Though they cringed, horrified Catholics were told that it was permissible to chew it, to receive it standing instead of kneeling, even to drink from the chalice. Was Christ as truly present in the tangible bread as He had been in the untouchable wafer? Was this the same Body of Christ that they were allowed to chew?

No, the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was never officially changed. But psychologically it never meant the same. The change in practice had produced a change in perspective. The sacred no longer seemed as sacred as it once was. Even the spotless Host had been sullied by human hands."

Paul Williams latin-mass-society.org/comsoc.htm

 

[Ockham]

"Communion in the hand was never a universal custom or practice in the history of the Church. Popes St. Sixtus (115-165 A.D.) and St. Euchtyian (275-283 A.D.) both forbade the faithful from receiving communion in the hand; St. Basil (330-379 A.D.) permitted this practice only in times of persecution; St Leo the Great teaches, “one receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” Eventually, communion in the hand was forbidden universally because, as Paul VI states, “with the passage of time as the truth of the eucharistic mystery, its power, and Christ’s presence in it were more deeply understood the usage adopted was that the minister himself placed the particle of the consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant” [Memoriale Domini, 8].

If Catholics did not believe in the Real Presence, then to argue over which mode was more reverent would be superfluous and ridiculous. The Protestant Reformers themselves were keenly aware of the great significance attached to receiving the Eucharist on the tongue-witness how Martin Bucer ordered Cranmer to change the rubric in his 1552 Common Book of Prayer by enjoining the faithful to adopt the new rite of receiving in the hand because to do otherwise (i.e. on the tongue) would be to fall prey to Romish superstition (i.e. belief in the Real Presence).

Throughout the centuries, the prevailing opinion of the Church has been that greater reverence is shown to the Blessed Sacrament when one receives on the tongue. Has the Church changed her opinion on this matter of discipline?
In 1965, Cardinal Suenans, Archbishop of Belgium, introduced the practice of receiving communion in the hand to his diocese. Pope Paul VI addressed this flagrant act of disobedience in 1969 with the release of his encyclical Memoriale Domini. Pope Paul VI explains in his encyclical why communion on the tongue is the norm of the Church and enumerates the many dangers attached to receiving communion in the hand. Communion on the tongue is the preferred norm of the Church because it “more effectively ensures that communion is distributed with the required reverence, decorum, and dignity; that there is less danger of disrespect for the Eucharistic elements…[and so] caution is exercised which the Church has always counseled regarding the particles of the consecrated bread”[11].

In addition to Pope Paul VI’s concern for the safety of the Eucharistic elements, by receiving communion directly on the tongue one also recognizes and gives reverence to the consecrated hands of the priests (“because out of reverence towards this sacrament, nothing touches it but what is consecrated”[Aquinas, S.T.,VIII,Q.82, Art.13])."

media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml

 

[Ockham]

"It is the law of the universal Church in the Latin Rite (to which most of us belong) that we receive Communion in the traditional manner. To receive on the hand is only an “indult,” or concession that is in effect here and there. It does not exist in the greater part of the world. For example, for a while it was allowed in the Philippines, but then the bishops there changed their minds, and rescinded the permission.

Another way of illustrating this same point is to recall that in those countries where the indult for Communion in the hand has been granted by the Holy See, an individual bishop may forbid the practice. But, no bishop has the authority to forbid the traditional way of receiving Communion: on the tongue. Thus from the point of view of liturgical law, the two are very far from equal.

It must be further noted that the relevant legislation “strongly urges and exhorts” us all to receive Communion in the traditional manner, which is officially described as “more reverent.” One will search in vain for any encouragement of Communion in the hand on the part of the supreme authority of the Church. Indeed, the only time that it is mentioned in official documents is in a cautionary way. It can be done reverently, but be careful!

…]

The history of Communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up-to-date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.

…]

It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1

A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.

Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion. …"

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Ockham]

Communion in the Hand
and Similar Frauds
by Michael Davies

The Significance and Practice of Communion in the Hand

The Significance of Communion in the Hand

The particular significance of the imposition of Communion in the hand is that it is the epitomization of the “Spirit of Vatican II”, the spirit which pervades the “Conciliar Church” to which Archbishop Lefebvre has been ordered to submit. A careful study of the factual background to this innovation should provide any Catholic still capable of breaking free from his conditioning with the impetus necessary to take this salutary step. This would not make life easier; to recognize the truth incurs the obligation of acting upon it. Life is far less complicated for those who are happy to remain conditioned
but, surely, no price can be too high for an individual to pay to regain his personal integrity.

It will be proved in this study that the reception of Communion in the hand never formed part of the program of the papally-approved liturgical movement: it was not mentioned in any official document of Vatican II: it was introduced in the 16th century by the Protestant Reformers specifically to repudiate belief in the Catholic Priesthood and the Real Presence; it was re-introduced after Vatican II by rebel priests in Holland and has spread throughout the world from there; it is being imposed upon the faithful by techniques involving distortion of the truth, outright deceit, and even intimidation. And what will be shown concerning Communion in the hand could also be shown of so many other post-conciliar innovations which Archbishop Lefebvre correctly designates as unacceptable to Catholics:

"In effect, all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to a naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the universities, in the seminaries, in Catechetics: an education deriving from Liberalism and Protestantism which had been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church. 
"No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries." 2

catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion2.htm

 

[weepixie71]

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.

i am very much aware that being a traditional catholic is way more than receiving on the tongue. its also way more than what mass you attend. being a traditional catholic is a lifestyle.

 

[weepixie71]

Let me clarify for everyone. One can not receive in the hand at the TLM. Reception in the hand is not part of Traditional Catholic spirituality. Yet it is frequently a topic discussed here in the forum of Traditional spiritiuality. Thus, when one questions why non-traditionalists post here, I like to look at the rules and scratch my head. This forum is defined by the topic, not the posters.

why do you think pnewton that it is not allowed to receive Communion in the hand during a TLM? after all is not one Consecrated Host just as magnificent as the other? do you think tradition has anything to do with it?
at the TLM they do not just receive on the tongue, they kneel. they bow their heads till the priest comes before them. they recognize when the priest shows us the Host, God is right in front of them. present and hole. they kneel because they are unworthy and lowly and do not deserve to stand before God Himself.
even if you can rationalize receiving in the hand, how do you rationalize just standing there?

 

[weepixie71]

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.

yeah and ive had priests say a novus ordo mass w/ communion being over in 20min because of a football game he wanted to watch.
ive attended a novus ordo where the priest letter people come up to mic for prayers of the faithful and let people pray for femal priests and exceptance of homosexuality.
ive been to novus ordo mass where girls dressed like hookers and boys dressed like they just rolled out of bed.
i do not look down on the mass itself… i look down on how others except what the disrespectful and lack of Catholic mass the novus ordo has become. not all… i recognize that… but they are getting harder and harder to find.

 

[withwind]

I wonder how was the disciples receive the Communion when Jesus was with them? Did Jesus feed them straight to the tongue?

 

[weepixie71]

Newt, consider this; prior to discovering a nearby TLM I received Communion in hand from an EMHC at my local NO parish. Discovering the TLM and the learning I’ve done in the past year has opened my eyes to a very different Catholicism then the one I knew. As a post-Vatican II child I was taught to receive Communion in hand and no one I ever noticed received on the tongue. The reasons for CITT are sound and the reasons for CITH are dubious at best. In looking back I now feel cheated in my Catholic education and instruction as I feel I was doing it wrong all those years. Perhaps other Traditionalists feel the same way and so speak up regularly against CITH.

that is exactly how i feel BINGO. spit firing CHEATED out of my faith. that my parents paid good money expecting priests and nuns to teach me. if my parents would not have taken notice of my knowledge of my Cahtolic faith… i have no doubt i would have left not only the Catholic Church but church altogether. after all, why bother if all the other religions were wrong too.

 

[malphono]

I wonder how was the disciples receive the Communion when Jesus was with them? Did Jesus feed them straight to the tongue?

This has been said in the past in other threads, but bears repeating: although it is not specified in scripture, it’s not beyond reasonable possibility that He did so, given the ethno-cultural mores of the Middle East. To this day, similar things happen during family gatherings: the host (or, sometimes, the hostess) will feed a bite to each person gathered. Among other things, it’s a symbol of (a) welcome, (b) love, (c) inclusion, etc. It doesn’t happen at every gathering, nor in every family, but it does happen. It’s somewhat analogous to the cook feeding a taste of dinner to a visitor who happens to pop into the kitchen.

 

[weepixie71]

lol, there are many like that on You Tube.

I like this one. Very moving.
youtube.com/watch?v=I4ogntA0y-M&feature=related

This one is a bit bolder…
youtube.com/watch?v=U46bEuSEQsM&feature=related

And yes, Deo gratias ! Indeed we have a Pope

OH how i wish i had someone like you Peoria, IL…

pray for me… it is traditional catholic desert here. but one im determined to water and plant one seed at a time.

 

[weepixie71]

What I find amazing is how quickly the TLM is Spreading and the interest in being able to Offer it among the new priests. The Archdiocese of Portland is ordaning a young priest by the name of Fr.Erik, he was considering the FSSP But he decided the Arch Diocese of Portland needed him More. His first mass sadly will be the OF, But a very reverent OF on Corpus Christi. The Chancery Office has cracked down a few times on my parish for trying to celebrate Ad Orientam etc. I think they like pretending the Friars don’t exist

in st louis, mo they are adding on a whole new wing because they are getting so many seminarians who want to learn the tridentine mass