Receivng Communion on your Hand

  • Thread starter Thread starter cuqui
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, usually when one can only respond by continually insulting others and by making frustrated condescending remarks it’s a pretty good indication. Of course I notice that you don’t answer the question though about why it bothers you how someone else receives in complete accordance with what the Church allows.
What have I said that you find insulting?

Personally, I don’t care if you choose to receive the Blessed Sacrament standing and in your unconsecrated hand. If so blessed, I wonder how you will greet Jesus Christ in heaven: genuflect or maybe a hand pump, backslap, or other culturally permissable gesture.

My concern with this recent trend is that it contributes to a reduction in belief in the Real Presence by practicing Catholics and a significantly diminished overall church attendance. I don’t wish to debate the fact that our Church is in decline as it is a fact. I have listed sources or you can conduct your own research. Compare the numbers pre-spirit of Vatican II and post.

This debate has yet to stretch above the surface of opinion and conjecture on your part. Although the earliest Christians received in hand, that practice was corrected and outlawed for the vast majority of our history. I have listed several sources, quotes from popes and saints, and based my argument on sound theology. All you keep bringing up is the current state of the GIRM. When this indult is finally removed I hope we are both still alive so I can say, “told ya so”. Until then, if you wish to contine debating me please step up with more credible sources.
 
My brother John and I are of an age - the same age. We have long agreed to disagree.

I have read the historical arguments for CITH. I also know what is, for me, the far more persuasive arguments for receiving Communion on the tongue and kneeling.

John and I were both altar boys before Vatican II. He will recall the zeal in which we were taught to use the paten. He will recall the Communion rail cloths - a secondary line of defense so to speak.

I have never received Communion in the hand. I’m 58. If I could, which I can’t, I would kneel. The only time I can kneel is once a year on Ash Wednesday when I go to Mass before choir practice to our indult parish where the communion rails are still in place.

I understand the “consecrated hands” arguement. I understand the historical arguements. I cannot receive in the hand…“Domine, non sum dignus”. When you consider that the good sisters who taught me in 1958 that should the Holy Eucharist be lodged in the roof of your mouth, you must loosen it with saliva and your tongue. Profane fingers must not touch the Host.

For me, it is a matter of intensely personal belief. But I also know that my brother John is correct. There is the matter of the indult. Just as my bishop merely “acknowledged” the Motu Proprio and had our diocesan chancellor issue a scathing editorial in our diocesan newspaper the following week about how our one indult parish with a low Mass only was enough, indults are a sword which cuts both ways.

But they are the teaching of HMC. We should lead by example and not by fiat.
 
Communion in the hand? The tradition speaks
Schultz, MatthewIssue date: 11/10/04 Section: Commentary
PrintEmailDoubleClick Any WordPage 1 of 1 In an interview with Mother Teresa of Calcutta on Good Friday of 1989, Father George Rutler asked, “Mother, what do you think is the worst problem today?” Without any hesitation, Mother Teresa said, “Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me saddest is watching people receive Communion in the hand.” For most of us, Mother Teresa’s comment is startling-why does she not name one of the more obvious candidates: famine, disease, abortion? And, if Mother Teresa is right to identify communion in the hand as “the worst problem today,” why does holy mother Church permit it? Perhaps our surprise at Mother Teresa’s intense dislike for communion in the hand is becuase of our own ignorance on this issue.
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]).
Pope Paul VI’s abundant praise for communion on the tongue is withheld when he turns to speak of communion on the hand; his tone changes to one of caution and worry: “A change in so important a matter that has its basis in an ancient and honored tradition does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering communion.
In particular, these dangers are both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist”[12, emphasis mine]. Paul VI is concerned that the changing of this discipline will cause a weakening of faith. So great was his concern over the question that he polled his entire episcopate. The results were overwhelming: 1,233 bishops opposed such a measure compared to 567 in favor. Having examined the issue at length and having consulted the counsel of the bishops, the pontiff decided “not to change the long-accepted manner of administering communion to the faithful”[18]. He then urges the faithful “to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed” [19]. Paul VI closes his encyclical by permitting communion in the hand not as a preferred practice but only in “special circumstances”[20]. The widespread extension of this practice, then, attests to the failure of the clergy and laity to heed the counsels and intentions of the Church on this matter.
Let us return once more to Mother Teresa. Can we now perhaps begin to understand why the most remarkable woman of the 20th century could declare that communion in the hand gave her the greatest sadness? What is implicit in her sadness is made explicit by Father John Hardon, S.J., who writes, “Behind Communion in the hand-I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can-is a weakening, a conscious, a deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”
Communion in the hand, even though it is permitted, departs from the tradition as it is expressed in the teachings of the popes, the writings of the saints, and the councils of the Church.

media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml
 
Interesting. You too quote the question and then completely ignore it and go on with your usual rant.
I didn’t ignore it. You said: “Why is it that it so concerns you that people prefer something different than you …” I contend they were never polled for their preference. It was just done. I truly wonder what the result would be if Catholics were polled for their preference in this matter.

Yesterday we were told that it was bad for a layman to touch the Host. Today we are told it’s Ok, even laudable. Why? Because It was done 1600+ years ago and/or in other rites and it’s got an indult and reverence is an internal matter. In a public rite.

Ummmm, yerssss … Not hugely convincing. You’d think the sweeping changes to our rite would at least have come on foot of a private revelation to a Pope, like when Pope Leo XIII added the prayer to St. Michael The Archangel to the Mass.
 
[My emphasis]

I don’t think the faithful were ever polled about the introduction of CITH. In some cases, I hear, they were quite distressed to see their altar rails dismantled or, also in some cases, I hear, smashed.
Aside from the fact that the altar rail being removed has nothing spefifically to do with the topic at hand, the first issue is non-responsive to the question - whyd oes it bother you - and isessentially a red herring; no one was polled about the chagnes Trent made, and no one was polled about any of the changes made subsequent to Trent and before Vatican 2.
Where did the impetus come from to introduce CITH? It came from the Dutch, who had permission for some experimentation in liturgical changes, but not that. This always gets thown up a a “poison in the well” comment. However, it ignores 2000 yeaars of the Church doing similar actions - the Easter fire came from the Druids. that is a bit more outre than some Catholics returning to something that Czatholics did for centuries, in the past. Christmas celebration came from the pagan celebrations of the equinox. We put our celebration over theirs; if one reads of sheep in the fields, that would indicati=e Christ being born in the spring. But I do not hear you complaining that we adopted a pagan holiday and made it ours.

Layman;5739199Kind of odd said:
Only when you want to limit tradition to what you like.

As ncjohn says, same ol’ same ol’…
 
Careful Layman, logic scares them away.

Oh dear, that may be interpreted as insulting.

Me doth thinks the progressives protest too much.
 
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].
Just in case you missed it.
 
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]).
Pope Paul VI’s abundant praise for communion on the tongue is withheld when he turns to speak of communion on the hand; his tone changes to one of caution and worry: “A change in so important a matter that has its basis in an ancient and honored tradition does not simply affect discipline, but can also bring with it dangers that, it is feared, may arise from the new way of administering communion.
In particular, these dangers are both the possibility of a lessening of reverence toward the august sacrament of the altar, its profanation, and the watering down of the true doctrine of the Eucharist”[12, emphasis mine]. Paul VI is concerned that the changing of this discipline will cause a weakening of faith. So great was his concern over the question that he polled his entire episcopate. The results were overwhelming: 1,233 bishops opposed such a measure compared to 567 in favor. Having examined the issue at length and having consulted the counsel of the bishops, the pontiff decided “not to change the long-accepted manner of administering communion to the faithful”[18]. He then urges the faithful “to obey conscientiously the prevailing law, now reconfirmed” [19]. Paul VI closes his encyclical by permitting communion in the hand not as a preferred practice but only in “special circumstances”[20]. The widespread extension of this practice, then, attests to the failure of the clergy and laity to heed the counsels and intentions of the Church on this matter.
Let us return once more to Mother Teresa. Can we now perhaps begin to understand why the most remarkable woman of the 20th century could declare that communion in the hand gave her the greatest sadness? What is implicit in her sadness is made explicit by Father John Hardon, S.J., who writes, “Behind Communion in the hand-I wish to repeat and make as plain as I can-is a weakening, a conscious, a deliberate weakening of faith in the Real Presence.”
Communion in the hand, even though it is permitted, departs from the tradition as it is expressed in the teachings of the popes, the writings of the saints, and the councils of the Church.

media.www.udallasnews.com/media/storage/paper743/news/2004/11/10/Commentary/Communion.In.The.Hand.The.Tradition.Speaks-802450.shtml
You quote Fr. John Hardon, S.J. as writing “Behind communion in the hand . . . is a weakening, a conscious, a deliberate weakening of faith in the real presence.” This may be true in the case of Fr. John Hardon, but it is emphatically not true in my case. My faith in the real presence of our Lord in the Holy Eucharist has been strengthened and enforced through reception of communion in the hand and my awareness of him in my life has become deeper. I know numerous folks who have had the same experience as I have. If there are those whose faith has diminished as a result of receiving communion in the hand, then let them opt not to receive it in the hand and to receive it on the tongue. They have that right and option.
 
I think it’s perverse what’s happened.

You have a rite that’s supposed to propitiate God by re-enacting the terrible sacrifice of His Son.

As far as I can gather, a clique, with an agenda, bushwhacked the majority of the prelates who came to the Vat. II with no agenda. A new form of the Mass was devised.

After this, more changes were made, against even the norms of the new rite.

So, we wish to propitiate the Lord of the Universe, Creator of All Things, seen and unseen.

Tell me, does:

Changing to letting laymen touch the sacred Matter (see, still on topic!);
Breaking altars,
Removing the barrier between the sanctuary and the rest of the church;
Letting laypeople in street clothes into the holy ground;
Removing prayers;
Building bare churches;
Having heavily-stylised symbols;
Standing instead of kneeling;
Speaking in the common language;
Stopping singing beautiful, ancient, hymns,
The priest turning his back on the symbolic location of Our Lord …

… seem like progress?

Priests wonder how to get people to go to Mass. It would be a start if those officiating, and the place it’s being performed, looked and sound more of the next world and less of this one. If it’s becoming more and more mundane then why should it be treated, by the ignorant sinner, as special?
 
“It’s in the GIRM. Our bishop approves it”

It is an indult - an exeption to the rule. Honestly, I can’t keep bring this point to you.
So what? It’s still approved by the Holy See, and for those of us in the U.S. an option provided on completely equal status and meaning with communion on the tongue.

Sorry if that fact is so annoying to you.

Whether it’s an indult or not is irrelevant. Ok, it’s an indult. Again, so what?
 
Because It was done 1600+ years ago and/or in other rites and it’s got an indult and reverence is an internal matter. In a public rite…
Because it’s always been part of the Catholic tradition. That’s why.
 
I have made my point several times, backed up by popes, saints, etc. If you need to ask this question then I’m afraid it is lost on you. If you don’t need to ask then you are deliberately dragging the debate to some absurd level. Either way it’s annoying so unless you have something better than “it’s in the GIRM” or “so what” I’ll bid you adieu.
 
Because it’s always been part of the Catholic tradition. That’s why.
  1. But when was it part of Roman Catholic tradition?
  2. What’s the benefit of changing a modern Roman Catholic diocese from COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman?
 
I have made my point several times, backed up by popes, saints, etc. If you need to ask this question then I’m afraid it is lost on you. If you don’t need to ask then you are deliberately dragging the debate to some absurd level. Either way it’s annoying so unless you have something better than “it’s in the GIRM” or “so what” I’ll bid you adieu.
Not sure whom you’re referring to, but if it’s to me than I agree. If you would rather ignore than respond to questions that is fine with me. If you have no better reason than “this is what I think regardless of the Magisterium” adieu.
 
Not sure whom you’re referring to, but if it’s to me than I agree. If you would rather ignore than respond to questions that is fine with me. If you have no better reason than “this is what I think regardless of the Magisterium” adieu.
Lord give me strength. It’s not what I think, it’s what the Church teaches. That’s why I have provided several quotes from popes and saints. All you got is the current GIRM. Enjoy it while it lasts.
 
Lord give me strength. It’s not what I think, it’s what the Church teaches. That’s why I have provided several quotes from popes and saints. All you got is the current GIRM. Enjoy it while it lasts.
What the Church teaches in this matter is in the GIRM. Please, follow it while it lasts.

Or, follow your own ideas (as you’ve shared in this thread). Either way is fine with me. Peace.
 
AGI) – Vatican City, 22 May – Benedict XVI gave communion this evening to the faithful who knelt in front of him, following the tradition, that is, not giving the consecrated particles into the hands but putting them directly into the mouth. Both ways are allowed in the present liturgical norms but this way underlines more greatly the meaning of the Eucharist as the renewed sacrifice of Jesus, while the other is more in line with the protestant conception which emphasises more the dimension of the meal.

The Church of Papa Ratzinger is worried about the lack of respect for the Eucharist, evident from the ever increasing number of liturgical abuses which are committed in the course of celebrations. Recently, L’Osservatore Romano dedicated a whole page to this problem, giving space to a study of the theologian Inos Biffi, who denounced **a crisis of faith in the mystery of “transubstantiation” **that is, of the real presence of Christ in the consecrated host, as the cause of this phenomenon.

In an interview with “papanews.it”, Mgr Albert Malcolm Ranjith, secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, condemned the “inexplicable extravagances” committed by some priests in the liturgy, emphasising that it is “not their property but that of the Church”. “The Mass”, he affirmed, “is not a spectacle, but sacrifice, gift and mystery.” Regarding communion in the hand: “ I just believe” affirmed the Archbishop, “that it is necessary to review this practice: I speak personally, but I am convinced of the urgency of returning to giving the particle to the faithful directly into the mouth, without them touching it, emphasising in this way that in the Eucharist there is really Jesus and that all should welcome him with devotion, love, and respect.”

For Mgr Ranjith, further, “It would be a case also of returning to kneeling at the moment in which one communicates” as “an act of respect towards the gift and the mystery of the Eucharist.” “Beyond the role which I have in the Vatican, as a catholic” he concluded, “I ask and question: why be embarrassed by God? Kneeling at the moment of communion would be an act of humility and of recognition of our nature as sons of God.”

the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2008/05/pope-benedict-discourages-communion-in.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top