Origins of Communion in the hand

[Maximian]

communion in the hand is not an intrinsically irreverent practice.

And yet communion on the tongue was introduced. This must have been for a reason. Perhaps it was considered an improvement in reverence, in which case to deliberately revert to a less reverent practice would be an intrinsically irreverent thing to do.

There is however another issue, which is that the Mass is theology in action, as famously summed up in the maxim “lex orandi lex credendi”. Communion on the tongue reinforces the supernatural power of the priest and the laity’s dependence upon that mysterious sacredness of ordination. I have no doubt that the reintroduction of communion in the hand was a deliberate attempt to erode the sacrality of the priesthood.

 

[Maximian]

I think you need to do more research:

communion on the tongue was introduced in the 13th century,

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, commenting on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, speaks of communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” He does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well established fact.

A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) says in his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth.

John the Deacon Confirms this manner of giving Holy Communion.

These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonablely say that communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the thirteenth century?

 

[ioannes_pius]

How can something which the Church once practiced be intrinsically irreverent?

Perhaps it was considered an improvement in reverence

Perhaps. It would be nice to know exactly where, when, why, and how communion kneeling and on the tongue was introduced. I heard it was to guard against certain abuses that had crept associated with people receiving in the hand. In that case, it wouldn’t render communion in the hand intrinsically irreverent.

There is however another issue, which is that the Mass is theology in action, as famously summed up in the maxim “lex orandi lex credendi”. Communion on the tongue reinforces the supernatural power of the priest and the laity’s dependence upon that mysterious sacredness of ordination. I have no doubt that the reintroduction of communion in the hand was a deliberate attempt to erode the sacrality of the priesthood.

I agree, but I don’t believe it renders the practice of communion in the hand intrinsically irreverent.

 

[ioannes_pius]

The same with my grandmother.

 

[Maximian]

No, but the act of returning to the abandoned practice of communion in the hand could be.

 

[paperwight]

I think you need to do more research:

ziapueblo:

communion on the tongue was introduced in the 13th century,

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, commenting on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, speaks of communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.” He does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well established fact.

I don’t see that as conclusive. One still does receive in the mouth, even if an intervening stage is in the hand. The Host is not absorbed from the hand. We have to put It in our mouth.

 

[Soubirous1]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ioannes_pius]

Perhaps, but I think it would depend on the care taken to prevent abuses associated with it.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Here is what the Vatican says about the subject.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

 

[otjm]

To be clear, I am not accusing those who do so today of being irreverent. Just those who broke the original discipline.

I don’t believe that either you or I can judge the reverence with which those breaking the original discipline were or were not reverent. I am wall aware that there is a subset of Catholics who abhor the practice of CITH and are constantly harping on how the matter came about. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one of them ever did a study, never did interviews, but they all apparently can mind read. In short, they don’t like it and cast as negative a shadow on the matter as they are able to muster.

How about we all quit projecting our opinions and emotional response to the CITH COTT issue altogether? Liturgical historical research started (with permission) as far back as Pope Leo XIII, and was more extensive in Europe than in the US; it is fairly apparent that the basis of CITH comes from the early Church. The likelihood is that this started as an extension of permitted liturgical experimentation which had continued under several popes.

The constant and repeated charges that it was done in defiance, or was irreverent is beyond the ability of those castigating it to show, other than when permission was requested, Pope Paul VI was less than enamored. And he did grant permission in spite of that.

For over 25 years, as part of my participation in RCIA, I have been responsible for teaching people how to receive Communion. I have gone out of my way to not criticize either means of receiving, and I always tell them that one is the norm, the other is an indult, the choice is theirs as part of their personal piety, and that no one has the faith to tell them their choice is wrong. For something like 10 years I was an EMHC, and it made absolutely no difference to me how people wished to receive, nor did I consider one better than the other either in that capacity or in teaching RCIA.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever if your preference is to receive COTT, or for that matter, CITH. That is your personal piety and not my business, interest, or concern. And I would respectfully suggest that you not continue to make comments about the reverence, or lack of reverence of those who started CITH, as you have nothing more than a personal opinion, most likely founded on what you have read.others saying. I respect your choice and want others to do likewise; refraining from making statements concerning your feelings about the source of CITH will be respectful of others piety and legitimate choice. (edited to get the right Pope Leo.)

 

[BartholomewB]

I agree, but I don’t believe it renders the practice of communion in the hand intrinsically irreverent .

No, but the act of returning to the abandoned practice of communion in the hand could be.

That is certainly a possibility, but I think it may also have been an evangelizing move intended to induce more people to attend Mass and receive Holy Communion. For many people who have never been practicing Catholics, or who have drifted away from the Church, receiving on the tongue can be an intimidating prospect. They might see it as a challenging action to perform quickly and easily without making a mistake, and, at the same time, as a kind of mystic ceremony reserved for a closed group of privileged initiates. Receiving in the hand, in contrast, is a natural-looking everyday action that they don’t need to worry about.