Purgatory for Communion in the Hand?

[csr]

Private revelations should not be necessary to clarify this point, because the unfolding of traditions in the Church, over centuries, is a key basis for practice. For centuries now, communion on the tongue has been upheld as a more reverent posture–not to mention communion kneeling. The importance of reverence was well said by Julius III (Denz §880): If it is not becoming for anyone to approach any of the sacred functions except solemnly, certainly, the more the holiness and the divinity of this heavenly sacrament is understood by a Christian, the more diligently ought he to take heed lest he approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness…

In my experience, it is plain that communion in the hand is less reverent. The host is treated as a wafer in many cases, which is fundamentally less possible in reception on the tongue.

 

[TheGrowingGrape]

Our Lord left the Holy Spirit to guide and teach The Church throughout time.

At one time Communion in the Hand was OK. But later on, the Holy Spirit taught us a better and more reverent way: Communion on the tongue.

What I’m wondering is this: Why pedal backward? The Holy Spirit motivated this change in the first place. For me, it seems a double negative.

There was even a saint who DIED to avoid recieving Communion in the Hand from an Aryan priest. He got his head chopped off. His name was St. Hermenegild.

I take this seriously. St. Hermenegild was canonized as a Martyr of the Holy Eucharist. He sacrificed his life in order to avoid committing blasphemy or sacrilege of the Holy Eucharist.

I also ask myself this: Why recieve in the hand when a MUCH better way is so readily available? All you gotta do is clap your hands together in an attitude of prayer, take a deep bow, say Amen, and then open your mouth.

Communion in the mouth is clearly, for me, the correct way. The Holy Spirit taught The Church this at one time. There was a REASON this was changed. Maybe one of you scholars could post the reason for the change from the hand to the tongue?? I’d be most interested.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit motivated the reversal of this teaching. Just my opinion though, and you all are entitled to yours.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

TheGrowingGrape:

Our Lord left the Holy Spirit to guide and teach The Church throughout time.

Yes, He did. Let’s not try to second guess the action of the Spirit.

At one time Communion in the Hand was OK. But later on, the Holy Spirit taught us a better and more reverent way: Communion on the tongue.

Not quite. The Church simply changed the discipline for a number of reasons, not the least of which was the possiblity of profanation of the Eucharist.

What I’m wondering is this: Why pedal backward? The Holy Spirit motivated this change in the first place. For me, it seems a double negative.

On the other hand, it could be that the Church wishes to offer communicants a method of receiving that is more in keeping with the original Scriptural directives to “take…eat” rather than to be fed from the hand of another.

There was even a saint who DIED to avoid recieving Communion in the Hand from an Aryan priest. He got his head chopped off. His name was St. Hermenegild.

Interesting, but wrong. He refused to accept communion from the hand of an Arian bishop, this had nothing to do with reception of communion in the hand.

I take this seriously. St. Hermenegild was canonized as a Martyr of the Holy Eucharist. He sacrificed his life in order to avoid committing blasphemy or sacrilege of the Holy Eucharist.

Actually, he was canonized as a martyr, there was nothing about the Holy Eucharist in his canonization. You might want to verify this by going to:

ewtn.com/library/mary/hermeneg.htm

I also ask myself this: Why recieve in the hand when a MUCH better way is so readily available? All you gotta do is clap your hands together in an attitude of prayer, take a deep bow, say Amen, and then open your mouth.

Communion in the mouth is clearly, for me, the correct way. The Holy Spirit taught The Church this at one time. There was a REASON this was changed. Maybe one of you scholars could post the reason for the change from the hand to the tongue?? I’d be most interested.

I don’t think the Holy Spirit motivated the reversal of this teaching. Just my opinion though, and you all are entitled to yours.

And you are welcome to receive communion on the tongue which is the normative method of reception in the Latin Church. You do not, however, have the right to tell others that they may not (or should not) receive in the hand when the Church has specifically granted that indult in the United States.

Deacon Ed

 

[csr]

S. Hermenegild was martyred in particular when he refused a false communion. His refusal to accept communion from an Arian was the immediate reason for his murder. It wasn’t that St. Hermenegild wouldn’t take communion in the hand, but rather that he wouldn’t take [it] from an Arian. This is in Matins, April 13, Brev. Rom. The link to EWTN has it, too:

The solemnity of Easter being come, the perfidious father sent to him an Arian bishop in the night, offering to take him into favour if he received the communion from the hand of that prelate, but Hermenegild rejected the proposal with indignation…
Deacon Ed:

You do not, however, have the right to tell others that they may not (or should not) receive in the hand when the Church has specifically granted that indult in the United States.

We are permitted to discuss and defend our faith, and we may indeed advocate to each other that one way is better than another.

–
Sicut prædiximus, et nunc iterum dico: Si quis vobis evangelizaverit præter id quod accepistis, anathema sit.

 

[TheGrowingGrape]

OOPS! I guess I misread St. Hermenegild’s bio, which I got from this. I interpreted the underlined area to mean the Arian priest was forcing St. H to recieve from Communion in the hand or die.
SAINT HERMENEGILD
Martyr
(†586)

Leovigild, Arian King of the Visigoths, had two sons, Hermenegild and Recared, who were reigning conjointly with him. All were Arians, but Hermenegild married a zealous Catholic, the daughter of Sigebert, King of France, and by her holy example was converted to the faith. His father, on hearing the news, denounced him as a traitor, and marched to seize his person. Hermenegild tried to rally the Catholics of Spain in his defense, but they were too weak to make any stand; and after a two years’ fruitless struggle, Hermenegild surrendered on the assurance of a free pardon. Once he was safely in the royal camp, the king had him loaded with fetters and cast into a foul dungeon at Seville.

Tortures and bribes were in turn employed to shake his faith, but Hermenegild wrote to his father that he regarded the crown as nothing, and preferred to lose scepter and life rather than betray the truth of God. At length, on Easter night, an Arian bishop entered his cell, and promised him his father’s pardon if he would receive Communion from his hands. Hermenegild indignantly rejected the offer, and knelt with joy for his death-stroke, praying for his persecutors. The same night a light streaming from his cell told the Christians keeping vigil nearby that the martyr had won his crown and was celebrating the Resurrection of the Lord with the Saints in glory.

King Leovigild, on his death-bed, was changed interiorly. He had been witness to the miracles that had occurred after his son’s cruel death, and he told his son and successor Recared to seek out Saint Leander, whom he himself had persecuted. Recared should follow Hermenegild’s example, said the king, and be received by the bishop into the Church. Recared did so; and although his father himself had not had the courage to renounce the false faith publicly, after his father’s death the new king labored so earnestly for the extirpation of Arianism that he brought over the whole nation of the Visigoths to the Church. “Nor is it to be wondered,” says Saint Gregory, “that he came thus to be a preacher of the true faith, since he was the brother of a martyr, whose merits helped him to bring so many into the haven of God’s Church.”

 

[Deacon_Ed]

csr:

We are permitted to discuss and defend our faith, and we may indeed advocate to each other that one way is better than another.

While we can certainly advocate for a way of receiving, we cannot advocate against what the Church permits. We can say, for example, that the Church still prefers communion on the tongue (which is correct) and that norm for the reception of communion is on the tongue (which is correct) and that communion in the hand is an exception to the law (which is correct). But we cannot draw from that the conclusion that the reception of communion in the hand will send us to Purgatory for that would mean that the Church is permitting a sinful act. Further, we cannot put forth a message that is contrary to Church teaching (that only “the consecrated hands of a priest” may touch the Eucharist). This is clearly false since, at a bare minimum, the Eastern Churches of the Byzantine Rite give communion to the deacon in the hand. Since no teaching of any of the Churches that are in communion with Rome can violate the teaching of another of those Churches, it follows that the teaching presented in the original message in this thread is false – it is contrary to the teachings of the Church. We may not, as Catholics, advocate for or hold a position that is contrary to what the Church teaches and still call ourselves Catholic.

Deacon Ed

 

[pnewton]

I have noticed in several posts the tendancy of those that receive on the tongue to believe that there method of receiving communion is holier. I am sure that in person you would never come across as “holier that thou” but some of your phrases strike me this way.

 "Communion in the mouth is clearly, for me, the correct way. The Holy Spirit taught The Church this at one time."

 "In my experience, it is plain that communion in the hand is less reverent."

And you guys are the nice ones. At least you do not suggest purgatory or fire and brimstone upon us. As far as reverence, I can not receive Christ on the tongue as humbly and reverently as I do in my hand.

 

[deogratias]

We may not, as Catholics, advocate for or hold a position that is contrary to what the Church teaches and still call ourselves Catholic

Amen - and that goes for you also Senator Kerry.

 

[asquared]

**

Why do I believe this?

I’ve read TONS of private revelations. Almost all the current visionaries say that Communion in the Hand is disapproved by Heaven.

Why are you reading TONS of private revelations? Are you spending at least an equal amount of time reading God’s own Word in sacred scripture, and the spiritual writings of teachers and doctors of the Church whose instruction has stood the test of time and been approved by the Church? Are you spending an equal amount of time in front of the Blessed Sacrament being instructed by Our Lord Himself, and with the Rosary, being instructed by His mother?**

 

[csr]

The nature of advocacy is simply that one view is encouraged and by default another is discouraged. In the context of discussing what is holy, it is plain that the nature of discussion is such that one would be saying that one thing is more conducive to holiness than another. By dint of this it is implicit, and wanting to be made explicit, that something that is less than holy is, comparatively speaking, unholy. The sacraments are not magic, and our reception of them is enhanced when we make ready for them. The hand movements evident in reception in the hand are much sloppier, on average, than are the overall movements associated with reception on the tongue, kneeling.

It is quite untrue, additionally, that the Church prefers reception on the tongue. By far it is the case that reception in the hand is openly encouraged, as it was when the Real Presence was denied by Protestant heretics. Whereas intent is a key component of sacraments, it is only by the greatest stretch of logic that we are able to ignore the associations that are part and parcel of reception in the hand. Statistics, furthermore, demonstrate that belief in the Real Presence is greatly diminished in these troubled times.
Deacon Ed:

… the teaching presented in the original message in this thread is false – it is contrary to the teachings of the Church. We may not, as Catholics, advocate for or hold a position that is contrary to what the Church teaches and still call ourselves Catholic.

We must, as Catholics, encourage each other, and the rhetorical reality is that in encouraging one thing we discourage another. Centuries of tradition, and heretical associations, are strongly against reception in the hand, even if some Catholics have learned a reverent way to do it: we should receive Our Lord in a way that does more to encourage reverence. Lining up, receiving in the hand from lay people dressed in robes–all of this is simply not acceptable in the light of centuries of tradition.

 

[csr]

Deacon Ed:

But we cannot draw from that the conclusion that the reception of communion in the hand will send us to Purgatory for that would mean that the Church is permitting a sinful act.

The Church is permitting a liturgical practice that does not encourage people as well as other liturgical practices. Insofar as the faithful are less encouraged, less excited toward reverence, they will not gain all the benefits of the sacraments and of the worship. They may then stand a greater chance of falling away. A related example is the fact that many churches now have very poor statuary, and very poor design that resembles a mere auditorium or worse in some cases. This fact, encouraged by the bishops, but not prevented by the Church, has the effect of reducing the extent to which the architecture helps us lift our hearts to God. This cannot but translate into a falling away of the faithful–borne out in Church statistics from recent decades.

 

[pnewton]

csr:

The hand movements evident in reception in the hand are much sloppier, on average, than are the overall movements associated with reception on the tongue, kneeling.

Lining up, receiving in the hand from lay people dressed in robes–all of this is simply not acceptable in the light of centuries of tradition.

I have found that the hand movement in receiving communion in the hand much more reverent and less sloppy than “sticking out you tongue.”

Your last statement is simply unture. It is acceptable in the eyes of the church. Perhaps you meant this as your opinion?

 

[TheGrowingGrape]

Are you spending at least an equal amount of time reading God’s own Word in sacred scripture, and the spiritual writings of teachers and doctors of the Church whose instruction has stood the test of time and been approved by the Church? Are you spending an equal amount of time in front of the Blessed Sacrament being instructed by Our Lord Himself, and with the Rosary, being instructed by His mother?

The answer to all of the above is YES.

Reading private revelation is … for me … like doing extra credit.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

csr:

We must, as Catholics, encourage each other, and the rhetorical reality is that in encouraging one thing we discourage another. Centuries of tradition, and heretical associations, are strongly against reception in the hand, even if some Catholics have learned a reverent way to do it: we should receive Our Lord in a way that does more to encourage reverence. Lining up, receiving in the hand from lay people dressed in robes–all of this is simply not acceptable in the light of centuries of tradition.

That this is your opinion is clear. My opinion, as a cleric giving communion to people, is that both methods can be reverent. In fact, I personally find it more reverent to receive in the hand (mandatory in my Melkite parish, optional in my Latin parish). Neither method is inherently more reverent, it’s what is in the mind of the communicant that makes reverence present or absent.

Deacon Ed

 

[deogratias]

mandatory in my Melkite parish, optional in my Latin parish

Ah - guess I don’t know much about Melkite - the only Eastern Rite Mass I attended was Ukranian Rite and we received on a spoon - and so I thought that was the norm for all Eastern Rite.

Do you also receive the precious blood in Melkite rite? Which liturgy do you use?

 

[The_Augustinian]

Mark Twain once said: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.” The abuse of statistics has been done by nearly every group, including Traditionalists. Certainly there has been a decline in belief in the Real Presence which could possibly be correlated to Communion in the hand, but this can be attributed to a number of variables, including our culture of death, secularization, and a lack of proper catechesis. As for the act of receiving Communion in the hand, it is not per se a sinful act, so it cannot be said to be the direct cause of venial sins or other imperfections which warrant purgation.

Although it can be argued that Communion in the tongue is more reverent, it definitely doesn’t ensure sanctity. The French revolutionaries, who destroyed churches, received Communion on the tongue. Hitler was raised in the pre-Vatican II Church, and received Communion on the tongue. Many heretics and sinners have recieved Our Lord on the tongue, and many saints have, as well. So, rather than judging someone on how they recieve Communion, we ought to concentrate on the inner disposition of the believer. And what has a bigger effect upon this inner disposition is proper catechesis, not some kind of vague subconcious suggestion by Communion in the hand.

In Christ,

The Augustinian

 

[tuopaolo]

Private revelation is binding on not just the recipient but on anyone who comes to believe in its authenticity. One is bound by what one believes to be true. If one believes that God commands such and such then one is bound by one’s own conscience to do such and such. It doesn’t matter how one comes to learn that God commands it.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta apparently opposed Communion in the hand:

Father George William Rutler, in a Homily on Good Friday, 1989, said:

"I will tell you a secret, since we have just a thousand close friends together, and also because we have the Missionaries of Charity with us, whom the Holy Spirit has sent into the world that the secrets of many hearts might be revealed. Not very long ago I said Mass and preached for their Mother, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and after breakfast we spent quite a long time talking in a little room. Suddenly, I found myself asking her (I don’t know why):

“Mother, what do you think is the worst problem in the world today?”

She more than anyone could name any number of candidates: famine, plague, disease, the breakdown of the family, rebellion against God, the corruption of the media, world debt, nuclear threat, and so on. Without pausing a second she said: “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.”

geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9463/cith.html

I personally think that Communion in the hand is OK, though I’m not 100% certain especially since Blessed Teresa of Calcutta apparently thought it was wrong. I almost always receive in the hand. I don’t pick the Host up with my fingers though; I scoop it up with my mouth.

 

[HagiaSophia]

pnewton:

IAs far as reverence, I can not receive Christ on the tongue as humbly and reverently as I do in my hand.

Whenever I see a thread like this I am reminded that in the early church of the martyrs even the Romans noted that Christians carry what they call the sacred bread to the sick - now considering hosts weren’t invented yet, I assume it must have been small morsels of the bread which had been consecrated. I am sure it was carried on their person, handled by them and offered to fellow Christians. If receiving on the tongue works for some, let them do it. Like yourself, I find that taking it in the hand is easier for me. Let me do it. Reverence and upholding the sacredness of the Sacrament is what is important IMHO.

HOW we get it is not the primary factor here - God is not mocked, He knows the intent in the heart and the thoughts of the recipient.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

deogratias:

Ah - guess I don’t know much about Melkite - the only Eastern Rite Mass I attended was Ukranian Rite and we received on a spoon - and so I thought that was the norm for all Eastern Rite.

Do you also receive the precious blood in Melkite rite? Which liturgy do you use?

Just to clarify, deacons are given communion in the hand. the laity receive by intinction, but we only use the spoon for infants. We cut the prosphera (the bread) in strips so that it is easier for the priest or deacon to dip it in the chalice and then put it in the mouth of the communicant.

The spoon seems to be used primarily by the Ukranians and Ruthenians (which makes sense, they were originally the same Church).

And, a small technical detail – we don’t have “Mass”, we have the Divine Liturgy. The word “Mass” refers to the Latin Rite liturgy and the Chaldean liturgy. Our most common Liturgy is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom but we also use the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and the Liturgy of the Presanctified.

Deacon Ed

 

[deogratias]

And, a small technical detail – we don’t have “Mass”, we have the Divine Liturgy. The word “Mass” refers to the Latin Rite liturgy and the Chaldean liturgy. Our most common Liturgy is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom but we also use the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil and the Liturgy of the Presanctified

I knew that but I keep fogetting.

The Divine Liturgy at the Ukranian Rite was that of St. John Chrysotom (and actually this was not a Ukranian Rite Parish but a Miles Jesu Chapel in my city).