Pope's Approval for Communion in the Hand?

[Fortiterinre]

I personally received my First Communion in the hand and have always continued this. For me personally, it has nothing to do with lack of reverence and I am extremely vigilant for the smallest particle. However, I am increasingly concerned with problems of profanation and simple ignorance, and I wonder how much longer Communion in the hand can continue between E-bay auctions and God only knows what else.

 

[mosher]

INAdoration:

I recently read that there has never been a Pope who has encouraged Communion in the Hand, is that true? I then heard that the current Pope allows it in Italy, the U.S. and some other countries as an indult (?) but only because the bishops insisted.

In Maria Simma’s book Get Us Out of Here she relates that many souls of priests have come to her from Purgatory because they encouraged Communion in the Hand which is offensive to Our Lord. (She also stated that the laity are not held responsible, but their leaders are.)

I have started receiving on the tongue again after hearing this. Many of the people I know frown on my decision. I know that I am not to be refused Communion on the tongue however (Redemptionis Sacramentum).

One cannot put stock in private revelation when it comes in conflict with approvals of the Holy See. That being said it is indeed a greater sign of humility and reverence to receive on the tongue and only in these times has it been a regular practice. It has been recently found to be an error that it was regular in the early Church as was thought in the 1970’s and 80’s.

 

[Fortiterinre]

Hi Mosher,

What is your source that it has recently been found to be an error that in-the-hand was the norm for apostolic times?

 

[Servus_Pio_XII]

I am going to Mass to-night (though I wouldn’t if I didn’t live in this family-I would go on Sunday morning). This thread has convinced me to take the Eucharist in my mouth, not in my hands. Thank you for enlightening me to this “indult” to the Church in America. I refuse to take advantage of it any longer.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

INAdoration:

It is not a matter of questioning the holiness of others, but rather preventing yet another abuse of the Body of Christ.

If the Church permits it, it isn’t an abuse.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

I now only receive only on the tongue, for these and many other reasons covered above.

COMMUNION in the HAND

**STATEMENTS FROM POPES, SAINTS & CHURCH COUNCILS ******

St. Sixtus I (circa 115)
*“The Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than those consecrated to the Lord.” *****

Pope St. Eutychian (275-283)
Forbade the faithful from taking the Sacred Host in their hand.

St. Basil the Great, Doctor of the Church (330-379)
"The right to receive Holy Communion in the hand is permitted only in times of persecution.”

St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is ONLY PERMITTED IN TIMES OF PERSECUTION or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give It. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon.” (Letter 93) The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.

The Council of Saragossa (380)
Excommunicated anyone who dared continue receiving Holy Communion by hand. This was confirmed by the Synod of Toledo.

Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461)
Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful. “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith”

**Pope St. Gregory The Great (590-604) **

In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito had a miracle occur during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.

**The Synod of Rouen (650) **
Condemned Communion in the hand to halt the widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege. The Synod of Rouen says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen, but ONLY in their mouths.”

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, at Constantinople (680-681)
Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening transgressors with excommunication. The Council of Constantinople which was known as “in trullo,” (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

**St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) **
“Out of reverence towards this sacrament [the Holy Eucharist], 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.” (Summa Theologica, Part III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

The Council of Trent (1545-1565)
“The fact that only the priest gives Holy Communion with his consecrated hands is an Apostolic Tradition.”

 

[Angels_Watchin]

Pope St. Pius X

When Pope St. Pius X was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“[Communion on the tongue] rests upon a tradition of many centuries” and “is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body. . . . “In addition, this manner of communicating . . . gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way, will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained. . . .“[Communion in the hand carries with it certain dangers.] They are a lessening of reverence toward the noble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine.”*
***Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion, issued by the Vatican, the Congregation for Divine Worship Pope Paul VI, May 29, 1969

“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaest. Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

**SCRIPTURE **

"And [the Lord] said to me: …“But you, son of man, hear what I say to you;** be not rebellious like that rebellious house, open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” **
And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it …
And He said to me; "Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel**. “ So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat.** (O.T. the scroll=the word; N.T.

“and the word was made flesh…”) And he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey." (Ez. 2:1,8,9; 3:13, RSV)

In another place, in a psalm with clear, prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it … Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock."

The only ones to communicate always standing and with their hands outstretched were, from the beginning, the Arians, who obstinately denied the Divinity of Christ and who could not see in the Eucharist any more than a simple symbol of “union,” which can be taken and handled at will.

God bless,
Angel

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Pope St. Pius X

When Pope St. Pius X was on his death bed in August of 1914, and Holy Communion was brought to him as Viaticum, he did not and was not allowed to receive in the hand: he received on the tongue according to the law and practice of the Catholic Church.

Pope Paul VI (1963-1978)
“[Communion on the tongue] rests upon a tradition of many centuries” and “is a sign of the reverence of the faithful toward the Eucharist. The practice in no way detracts from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament and it is a part of the preparation needed for the most fruitful reception of the Lord’s body. . . . “In addition, this manner of communicating . . . gives more effective assurance that Holy Communion will be distributed with the appropriate reverence, decorum, and dignity; that any danger of profaning the Eucharistic species, in which the whole and entire Christ, God and man, is substantially contained and permanently present in a unique way, will be avoided; and finally that the diligent care which the Church has always commended for the very fragments of the consecrated bread will be maintained. . . .“[Communion in the hand carries with it certain dangers.] They are a lessening of reverence toward the noble sacrament of the altar, its profanation, or the adulteration of correct doctrine.”* *
**Instruction on the Manner of Administering Holy Communion, issued by the Vatican, the Congregation for Divine Worship Pope Paul VI, May 29, 1969

“This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Memoriale Domini)

Pope John Paul II
To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, 11)

“It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.” (Inaest. Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

**SCRIPTURE **

"And [the Lord] said to me: …“But you, son of man, hear what I say to you;** be not rebellious like that rebellious house, open your mouth, and eat what I give you.” **
And when I looked, behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and, lo, a written scroll was in it …
And He said to me; "Son of man, eat what is offered to you; eat this scroll, and go speak to the house of Israel**. “ So I opened my mouth, and He gave me the scroll to eat.** (O.T. the scroll=the word; N.T.

“and the word was made flesh…”) And he said to me, “Son of man, eat this scroll that I give you and fill your stomach with it.” Then I ate it, and it was in my mouth as sweet as honey." (Ez. 2:1,8,9; 3:13, RSV)

In another place, in a psalm with clear, prophetic, Eucharistic overtones, which is used in the Office of Corpus Christi, the Lord says to us, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you from the land of Egypt. Open wide your mouth and I will fill it … Israel I would feed with finest wheat and fill them with honey from the rock."

The only ones to communicate always standing and with their hands outstretched were, from the beginning, the Arians, who obstinately denied the Divinity of Christ and who could not see in the Eucharist any more than a simple symbol of “union,” which can be taken and handled at will.

God bless,
Angel

Who is the last paragraph quoting? I would like to see the historical citation on that.

None of the Scripture you quoted has anything to do at all with Holy Communion and none of it may be cited to prove that God is displeased or displeased with reception in the hand. You’ve completely lifted the verses out of context.

You can cite tradition; however, that’s a mixed bag (first we had it in the hand, then we didn’t, first it was okay, then it wasn’t, now it is again). The Church has the authority to govern her sacraments. If she allows it, then it isn’t an abuse. If you don’t want to receive in the the hand…then don’t.

 

[Angels_Watchin]

JKirkLVNV:

Who is the last paragraph quoting? I would like to see the historical citation on that.

None of the Scripture you quoted has anything to do at all with Holy Communion and none of it may be cited to prove that God is displeased or displeased with reception in the hand. You’ve completely lifted the verses out of context.

.

Hello,
Let’s do this one item at a time.

Scripture states “The Word was with God and the Word was God.” In the OT the only “Word” was the “Word” on the sacred scrolls - (no Jesus yet). Jesus IS physically “the Word”. So, putting the scroll (the only physical word they had) in the mouth is an example of Christ (eucharist) being put in the mouth.

ALL scripture is related - especially the OT to the NT. The NT fulfills the OT. As communion on the tongue fulfills the “scroll (word) in the mouth”.

I’ve got to sign out now,
I’ll cover the rest later (or probably tomorrow.) Unless somebody else jumps in.

Blessings,
Angel

p.s. “Historical Citation” on what? The Arians (that they did not believe in the Body and Blood or that they received standing or in the hand?)

p.p.s I didn’t say anything about God being pleased or displeased or anything else regarding that. I’m just quoting the saints and councils and synods and popes. They seemed to think it was important enough to write down the rules of receiving only on the tongue (except in exceptional circumstances).

What is acceptable is not always what’s best.

 

[Fortiterinre]

Angels Watchin:

p.s. “Historical Citation” on what? The Arians (that they did not believe in the Body and Blood or that they received standing or in the hand?)

p.p.s I didn’t say anything about God being pleased or displeased or anything else regarding that. I’m just quoting the saints and councils and synods and popes. They seemed to think it was important enough to write down the rules of receiving only on the tongue (except in exceptional circumstances).

What is acceptable is not always what’s best.

But you’re not really quoting, you’re listing a series of statements without saying how you got them. “Historical citation” means what book, what author, what page number. You have only given that for the most recent statements of popes (e.g. Inaest. Donum), not for anything like the Arians or apostolic times. No offense, but this looks like something cut and pasted from a website, without so much as a URL so that others can search and verify the information.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Angels Watchin:

Hello,
Let’s do this one item at a time.

Scripture states “The Word was with God and the Word was God.” In the OT the only “Word” was the “Word” on the sacred scrolls - (no Jesus yet). Jesus IS physically “the Word”. So, putting the scroll (the only physical word they had) in the mouth is an example of Christ (eucharist) being put in the mouth.

ALL scripture is related - especially the OT to the NT. The NT fulfills the OT. As communion on the tongue fulfills the “scroll (word) in the mouth”.

I’ve got to sign out now,
I’ll cover the rest later (or probably tomorrow.) Unless somebody else jumps in.

Blessings,
Angel

QUOTE]

(See above emphasis) No, it doesn’t. You’ve made an esoteric connection out of scripture taken out of context. Yes, Christ is the Word, the Divine Logos. That doesn’t mean that He was prefigured in the passages you cite. He was prefigured throughout the OT, which is fufilled in the NT, but not in these verses. The “finest wheat and honey in the rock” (from the Psalms) also do not prefigure Christ, though there are Psalms that do. You cannot build any Eucharistic theology out of those particular verses, though there are plenty of OT images which you COULD use, but you particularly cannot cite them to build a case for tongue vs. hand, because it doesn’t say,“I’m going to put this on your tongue.” I could as easily say,“I opened my mouth and I ate that steak!!!” That doesn’t mean I didn’t use a fork and a knife. Your use of scripture out of context is the exact same thing that we jump Protestants for! I’m not trying to be offensive, but this is NOT how the Roman Catholic Church understands, employs, interprets or teaches the Bible.

You do credit to your argument by quoting the popes, however. I rec. Communion on the tongue when I was rec. into the Church, because I was rec. by a Carmelite foundation where intinction was the practice. When I visit them, this is how I still receive, because there is not other way to rec. the intincted Species. I tried to recieve on the tongue in my parish after years of rec. in the hand, but felt extremely self-conscious. I persisted, though, until my reading of these forums put me off the idea, as so many people on these threads (not you, so don’t take this personally) acted as though they were floating around a few feet higher than the rest of us plebes who received in the hand. This made me even more self-conscious, so I went back to the hand. Now, I think about Jesus when I’m receiving, not HOW I’m rec. I don’t think one way or another about the people who rec. on the tongue, unless they try to make an issue of it. It’s permitted, it’s allowed, there is historic precedent for it, we’re not hiving off and doing our own thing.

 

[thistle]

I receive the Eucharist by mouth but I’m wondering what all the debate is about when the reality is that it is permitted by either mouth or hand.
Its also worth remembering at the Institution of the Eucharist, ie The Last Supper, Jesus broke off a piece of bread and then the rest was passed from hand to hand until all the apostles had a piece.
As an aside I would also mention that all the apostles were seated (not kneeling or standing) for their first communion!

 

[mosher]

Fortiterinre:

Hi Mosher,

What is your source that it has recently been found to be an error that in-the-hand was the norm for apostolic times?

Recent patristics and RCIA courses. A read of the Early Church fathers bears out only one instance of regular communion in the hand in one See in one brief time period. More to follow.

 

[Fortiterinre]

But what books or authors are you reading in these classes? Your RCIA class is certainly unique, because I am sure most of them are not teaching that Communion in the hand is a modern innovation.

 

[mosher]

Fortiterinre:

But what books or authors are you reading in these classes? Your RCIA class is certainly unique, because I am sure most of them are not teaching that Communion in the hand is a modern innovation.

To further explain the RCIA class what actually a MA level class concerning the history and origin of RCIA. More to follow I don’t have the time atm to give a further explination.

 

[Frank_Roman]

thistle:

I receive the Eucharist by mouth but I’m wondering what all the debate is about when the reality is that it is permitted by either mouth or hand.
Its also worth remembering at the Institution of the Eucharist, ie The Last Supper, Jesus broke off a piece of bread and then the rest was passed from hand to hand until all the apostles had a piece.
As an aside I would also mention that all the apostles were seated (not kneeling or standing) for their first communion!

Were you there?

even so- the apostles were all priests, the only people who self communicated throughout most of Church tradition. Then there was Mary, Mother of the Eucharist.

 

[MJE]

I for one like this conversation much better when we were discussing “approved cooks”. That was hilarious!!

 

[Fortiterinre]

MJE:

I for one like this conversation much better when we were discussing “approved cooks”. That was hilarious!!

I’m afraid I also need to rely on typo’s to be funny, I can get way too serious on the forums! But I look to the forums for information and get frustrated when it isn’t there. I feel like I spend half my time pasting 3/4 of the Vatican website in my responses, down to the actual parapraph numbers, in response to fairly sweeping statements that are left unsupported (read it in a book, heard it in a class, etc.).

 

[Inkling]

I used to receive in the hand, but now I receive on the tongue. I’d not “judge” a soul’s holiness or lack of it, all I can say for me, is I appreciate the way receiving on the tongue does indeed humble a person. Having received our Lord both ways, I am convinced that receiving on the tongue is “the better part” not saying anyone is “less reverent” than myself at all. It is often seen in paintings of the burial of Christ and the removal of Christ from the cross that even the ones who took our Lord down from the cross and buried him never touched His body. I’d not noticed that before until recently. Only Mary could touch the Body of Jesus, and that speaks volumes at least to me. I’d say the reason that maybe the early Church received in the hand was that they were usually in houses, not mega parishes. Just guessing here. There is so much desecration going on, and I do think it would lessen these horrible acts drastically if it were mandated to be received again on the tongue.

 

[Methodi]

I try to always receive on the tongue, and I sure wish they would bring back the altar rails. I doubt any Pope was ever seriously “for” receiving by the hand.

I remember the altar rails, there was something so beautiful about kneeling at the rail to receive.all the churches I go to know, they all receive standing up.Years ago, the only one that could touch the host was the priest.