Receivng Communion on your Hand

[hansard]

Well, maybe, maybe not. I suppose if I shook hands with Jesus, I’d never wash my right hand again… but this is hardly the point.
I brought up Jesus because, clearly, his actions in distributing the bread can never be proved one way or the other. The most important person of all time, the Saviour of mankind, the initiator of the sacrament, left no clear instructions on how to distribute his flesh. Or maybe he did, and the gospel writers just overlooked it as insignificant.

Tongue, hand: if the priest allows it, it’s deemed to be allowable by the church. The Priest is the church’s representative.

 

[Layman]

Turn the argument around: What spiritual or practical benefits are there in changing a Roman Catholic diocese over to this practice?

COTT, kneeling, offers an opportunity to practice humility in the Presence of Christ The King.

I’ve yet to hear any for CITH, except: It was done in the (ancient) past, it has an indult and internal disposition trumps external posture. So there.

If you want to see how bad things could get, read Cathcon.blogspot.com.

“Not in my diocese!!” you say? Well, I bet they never expected CITH, EMHCs and funeral orations from the pulpit by laymen in Ballytoorpadraig forty years ago, but they’re gettin’ 'em now.

 

[hansard]

Turn the argument around: What spiritual or practical benefits are there in changing a Roman Catholic diocese over to this practice?

Well, just the practical benefit of not requiring people to kneel, and the attendant postural problems with the priest constantly bending to distribute the host (okay, maybe not always, but I think it’s a valid point).
The spiritual benefits of Communion in the hand are no less than Communion on the tongue.

When I was a kid, there were still many older people taking Communion on the tongue. The lined up with the “handers”, received the host standing up, when they reached the front of the line, then walked back to their seats. There was no kneeling.

 

[Joannm]

Where is there evidence that it was customary in the early church to confess publicly? I’m curious, I don’t know of any. Yes, there was definitely public penance, but I’m not aware of customary public confession (apart from specific religious communities that may have practiced this…although I admit I’m equally ignorant of any specific historical examples of this being done). Thanks.

I recently did a study of the practice of confession from the early Church onward and never once in all my reading did I come across anything that stated that people confessed their sins publicaly. There were those who were public sinners, whose sins were known to the entire community because they were obvious to all, but still, these sinners met with the bishop to confess their sin and then did a public penance. Also the entire community supported the sinner in the practice of doing penance. They all prayed for the sinner, and in some cases, practiced penances along with them to some degree. The history of the sacrament is extreamly interesting. It was a process that involved all the people in the community.

 

[pismopal]

Well, that’s only his personal opinion. It’s not what the Church as a whole teaches. Perhaps he holds this opinion because of teaching in his childhood, perhaps in reaction to a particular problem he’s seen in his diocese. But it still remains only his opinion.

Oddly enough, this Sunday notices were up in our church with a directive from OUR Archbishop,headed ‘Update on Swine Flu’, saying that communion on the tongue ‘is to be strongly discouraged’.

When the swine flu situation is over, I doubt very much if many would want to go back to COTT, having been made so aware of the health risks.

If the Vatican ever changed the discipline and made COTT mandatory, I foresee discontent and even rebellion. I hope the Vatican would not be so foolish as to risk it.

Under the heading of Church universality…OUR Bishop (Diocese of Monterey USA) also wants communion on our hands only as a measure to protect against flu. As a further measure we are discouraged from contact as a sign of peace…that one was a little awkward. I enjoy contact with those who are not obviously having upper respiratory problems but I carry liquid hand sanitizer and use it discretely.

 

[Ockham]

The spiritual benefits of Communion in the hand are no less than Communion on the tongue.

That is your opinion which is probably what most of this thread has included: opinions. Factually, kneeling is a more reverant gesture than standing. Receiving holy communion directly unto your tongue from the consecrated hand of the priest is more reverant. Increased reverance increases spiritual benefits.

“The most respectful way of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. We must recover a sense of respect and reverence due to the Eucharist, because the love to Jesus is the center of our christian lives.”
Cardinal Juan Luis Cipriani, September 20, 2009

 

[ncjohn]

Factually, kneeling is a more reverant gesture than standing. Receiving holy communion directly unto your tongue from the consecrated hand of the priest is more reverant. Increased reverance increases spiritual benefits.

With all due respect, that is total rubbish. There can be no “factual” truth to something that is not universally true, always and at all times. How communion is received has not EVER been a universal practice and still is not. And somehow I have to wonder how all those early saints and martyrs from the first centuries (as in several HUNDRED years!)would feel about having their reverence and devotion questioned.

Communion in the hand has been the norm in at least parts of the Church since the very beginning. The fact that kneeling and/or receiving on the tongue received a sense of reverence for some by way of becoming a cultural norm does not in any way make it “factually” more reverent.

The only statement there that holds water is that “Increased reverance increases spiritual benefits.” But reverence is totally, 100%, an internal disposition and is in no way defined by external posture. I have observed many, many cases of what at least appears to be incredible awe and reverence from people receiving standing and in the hand. And I have observed many, many cases of what at least appeared to be total oblivion from people receiving kneeling and on the tongue. And of course I have observed the opposite also. There is no “factual” connection there between posture of receiviing and reverence.

You, and many others, may in fact find receiving kneeling and on the tongue to be more reverent, and that’s fine. But please get over thinking that your personal preferences depict any type of objective truth or that external posture dictates an internal disposition.

Peace,

 

[Layman]

Well, just the practical benefit of not requiring people to kneel, and the attendant postural problems with the priest constantly bending to distribute the host (okay, maybe not always, but I think it’s a valid point).

Ah, there I think you are wrong. **You see, COTT, kneeling, on the tongue, at altar rails, means that everyone is lined up nicely and at a level even a small priest can manage. **One leaves, another takes their place. Also, it’s not exactly like working on a factory production line for eight hours soldering electronic components. Even a delicate priest can manage 15 minutes.

Also, in a CITH queue, receiving the Host from a laywoman, you have the connotation of a queue for bread; not good.

I have the impression, and it’s only an impression, that some bishops, clerics and laymen do not believe in the Real Presence, do not believe in transubstantiation and would be quite happy if the The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass became a mere ‘Communion Service’; a ‘joyful’ commemorative meal of the Last Supper. They could then happily take tea with Protestants and work out the roster for the next ecumenical bake-sale-for-social-justice.

My local diocesan magazine regular features the smiling faces of Anglican clergy and, I think, from memory, even female ones. A Protestant pal I meet in a pub after Mass said last Sunday “Hoh yes, you’ll definitely be ‘avin’ female clergy soon”. I would very much like to disappoint him.

So, more rigour, I say!

Here’s a question: “Why would sober men give up everything and go into a desert and joyfully suffer mortifications?” (Answer below).

Answer: Partly because they were getting wonderful gifts in return. Quid pro quo. Nothing for nothing and something for something

This generation can’t even humble themselves to kneel for Holy Communion.

 

[Layman]

But reverence is totally, 100%, an internal disposition and is in no way defined by external posture.

Outer posture is a visible sign to God and your fellow worshippers of what you believe. I believe as ye believe; we’re all in this together. You are not alone at Mass. There are your visible fellow laymen and invisible presences too. It also sends a message to your heart (your subconcious), a vessel of feeling which must be cleaned out, like the Augean stables, using every trick in the book. Symbols are very powerful to this end; icons, statues, vestments and postures.

Otherwise, you might as well reverently stay at home in your pajamas and phone out for an EMHC.

The Protestants and Muslims think that all they need is the Book and their opinions of its contents. We know better.

 

[Dan-Man916]

This “snipet” is borrowed from this morning’s post on Rorate-Caeli blogspot.

"In his sermon on September 20, 2009 in the Cathedral, Juan Luis Cardinal Cipriani Thorne, Archbishop of Lima, made the following statement:

“The most respectful way of receiving the Eucharist is kneeling and on the tongue. We must recover a sense of respect and reverence due to the Eucharist, because the love to Jesus is the center of our Christian lives. Our souls are at stake.”

Then the good cardinal oughta be on the phone to the Byzantine Catholic Bishops telling them how irreverent they are because Byzantine Catholics receive while standing as the norm.

 

[Dan-Man916]

That is your opinion which is probably what most of this thread has included: opinions. Factually, kneeling is a more reverant gesture than standing.

FACT: the Byzantines receive communion standing. That has been their norm for a llllooooonnnnnggggg time.

 

[ncjohn]

Outer posture is a visible sign to God and your fellow worshippers of what you believe.

Wow, it almost seems like we may have at least a kernel of agreement. That outer posture is an outward sign, even if we have no way of knowing what the sign means for any individual. Of course it is no such thing when it comes to God, who reads the heart with 100% accuracy. And of course while it may be a sign to your fellow worshipper, they have absolutely no way of knowing what your disposition is so it is totally worthless from that standpoint. All it really does is give those who are prone to judging based on externals something they can “tsk, tsk” about or feel good about themselves over.

Symbols are very powerful to this end; icons, statues, vestments and postures.

Another thing we agree on! The only problem is that signs, symbols, etc are powerful to the extent that they are universal and all agree on them. There is extremely widespread disagreement on this particular item, as there has been throughout the history of the Church. As such the “power” just isn’t there and either way can be reverent or irreverent regardless of the external “sign”. Each of us is expressing our reverence in that way that we recognize as reverent. The fact that you seem intent on judging the choice of others as less reverent than your preference does not begin to translate to your preference being more reverent.

I’ll not bother you further with it though. Your opinion is well known and clearly set, having been repeated many times here, however contrary to the Church it might be. I really didn’t post again to reengage you; simply to counter the statement made by another poster that there is some kind of inherent, objective superiority to kneeling and receiving on the tongue. It never has been so and isn’t now.

Peace,

 

[KingTheoden]

Where is there evidence that it was customary in the early church to confess publicly? I’m curious, I don’t know of any. Yes, there was definitely public penance, but I’m not aware of customary public confession (apart from specific religious communities that may have practiced this…although I admit I’m equally ignorant of any specific historical examples of this being done). Thanks.

Hmm, don’t know. I have read and heard that it was done, but I would not assume it was a universal practice. In fact I doubt it was given how there was not rapid transport or communication in the early church.

I’ve never witnessed any of this, but assuming it does or has occurred I can’t imagine that the mode of reception prevents abuses. If one is interested in stealing the host/bread one could do it easily in hand or on the tongue. Actually, I imagine it would be easier on the tongue because if one receives in the hand it would be pretty easy to observe if one puts it one’s mouth. There’s no realistic way I know of that any parish minister would know that someone once receiving it on the tongue (whether from the minister or from their own hand) actually swallowed it or left Mass to do whatever with it.

Anyone?

Sadly, this has happened and some have been very proud of doing this. Search ‘PZ Myers Communion’ to see an example.

 

[Layman]

FACT: the Byzantines receive communion standing. That has been their norm for a llllooooonnnnnggggg time.

So what? We, in the Roman Catholic Church, have gone from kneeling to standing. At the instigation of rebellious Dutchmen, as far as I can work out and for no good reason.

 

[Layman]

Each of us is expressing our reverence in that way that we recognize as reverent. The fact that you seem intent on judging the choice of others as less reverent than your preference does not begin to translate to your preference being more reverent.

… I really didn’t post again to reengage you; simply to counter the statement made by another poster that there is some kind of inherent, objective superiority to kneeling and receiving on the tongue. It never has been so and isn’t now.

Peace,

Heh heh. If you go down that road, you are in danger of becoming a Protestant; “What I feel trumps practice and tradition”. To say standing is as reverent as kneeling is to utter an oxymoron. Try it: “He was standing reverently before the Blessed Sacrament”.

I go to Mass to escape my egotism, not to joyfully-and-reverently pander to it.

I’ll tell you, the day beautiful-and-reverent liturgical dancing makes an appearance in the local Worship Space with a helpless Presider sitting down while Good Ladies dole out the Host is the day I think I can head, in clear conscience, for the nearest SSPX chapel, if there’s no TLM available.

If those running the show are turning the thing on its head, why should I take it seriously?

*From Wikipedia:

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't – till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all."*

 

[ncjohn]

Heh heh. If you go down that road, you are in danger of becoming a Protestant; “What I feel trumps practice and tradition”. To say standing is as reverent as kneeling is to utter an oxymoron. Try it: “He was standing reverently before the Blessed Sacrament”.

It just boggles my mind how totally you just don’t “get it”. It has absolutely nothing to do with feelings. It is no more about my feelings that either can be done reverently or about your feelings that only one can be done reverently. It has totally to do with the fact that each has been the NORM at differerent times during the Church’s history; each is still the NORM within different parts of the Catholic Church; each is judged to be equally acceptable by the Church, your personal biases notwithstanding.

There is nothing “Protestant” about making a legitimate choice from those options which the Church allows. The fact that you cherry pick the tradition and the time frame you prefer doesn’t make it superior in any way. That you continue to believe it does and that a cultural significance trumps the disposition of the heart makes any further discussion a waste of time.

As I’ve said many times, I don’t give a rat’s patootie whether CITH goes away tomorrow. I do have a serious issue though with those who get all superior with thinking their personal preferences constitute some kind of universal objective truth and then start making judgments about those who find other legitimate options of the Church more reverent in their eyes.

The Pope has expressed no displeasure with the practice–his own personal Masses notwithstanding for whatever reasons he has–and has been present at many Masses, especially on World Youth Day, where CITH was widespread and obvious without having the least negative comment about it or requesting otherwise. Whether you see it as having “benefit” is really irrelevant and just an exercise in egotism since the Church has made its ruling and at least 4 Popes have not changed it.

I guess when you get elected you can make the change though.

Peace,

 

[Layman]

It has totally to do with the fact that each has been the NORM at differerent times during the Church’s history; each is still the NORM within different parts of the Catholic Church; each is judged to be equally acceptable by the Church, your personal biases notwithstanding.

…

The Pope has expressed no displeasure with the practice–his own personal Masses notwithstanding for whatever reasons he has–and has been present at many Masses, especially on World Youth Day, where CITH was widespread and obvious without having the least negative comment about it or requesting otherwise. Whether you see it as having “benefit” is really irrelevant and just an exercise in egotism since the Church has made its ruling and at least 4 Popes have not changed it.

I guess when you get elected you can make the change though.

Peace,

1. Was CITH, standing, ever the norm within the Roman Catholic Church?
2. Changing a Roman Catholic diocese, which for hundreds of years has done COTT, kneeling, from a priest, to CITH, standing, from a laywoman makes no sense in the context of the rite.
3. COTT is the norm, currently, in the Roman Catholic Church. CITH is the exception.
4. I think the Pope may have already expressed an opinion: google.com/search?q=pope+benedict+communion+in+the+hand

I don’t need to be elected. As an individual, I too can make the change. If COTT, kneeling is a problem at the local Novus Ordo masses, I can go to a TLM.

 

[Ockham]

With all due respect, that is total rubbish. There can be no “factual” truth to something that is not universally true, always and at all times. How communion is received has not EVER been a universal practice and still is not. And somehow I have to wonder how all those early saints and martyrs from the first centuries (as in several HUNDRED years!)would feel about having their reverence and devotion questioned.

Communion in the hand has been the norm in at least parts of the Church since the very beginning. The fact that kneeling and/or receiving on the tongue received a sense of reverence for some by way of becoming a cultural norm does not in any way make it “factually” more reverent.

This is not my opinion I’m offering. It is the consensus of the Church. To receive holy communion in hand while standing still remains an indult (exception) in the Roman church. On the previous page is a quote from a Cardinal stating it is more reverent to kneel. Numerous popes and saints agree. In fact, Jesus Christ got on his knees in prayer; there are several passages of Old and New Testament citing this gesture in reverance and respect to God. At Holy Communion you are face to face with God and about to receive Him in the Blessed Sacrament. I can’t think of a better time to get on your knees.

Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence and as such receive their version of the Blessed Sacrament in hand while standing. If the Catholic Church is in fact the True Church and transubstantiation is a fact not some fairy tale then shouldn’t you act like a Catholic instead of a Protestant?

A lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament leads to a drop in belief in transubstantiation. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_17_128/ai_79305248/

*1. On March 25, 2004, the Congregation for Divine Worship released the Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum” regarding the Discipline of the Sacrament. The following two paragraph address the matter of kneeling or standing when receiving Holy Communion.

[90.] “The faithful should receive Communion kneeling or standing, as the Conference of Bishops will have determined”, with its acts having received the recognitio of the Apostolic See. “However, if they receive Communion standing, it is recommended that they give due reverence before the reception of the Sacrament, as set forth in the same norms”.*

It’s interesting to note that if you receive Communion while standing you have to do something more…like show reverance. That indicates kneeling itself is reverent enough, thus more reverent than standing.

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, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

 

[Ockham]

"For me, the most important passage for the theology of kneeling will always be the great hymn of Christ in Philippians 26-11. In this pre-Pauline hymn, we hear and see the prayer of the apostolic Church and can discern within it her confession of faith in Christ. However, we also hear the voice of the Apostle, who enters into this prayer and hand it on to us, and, ultimately, we perceive here both the profound inner unity of the Old and New Testaments and the cosmic breadth of the Christian faith. The hymn presents Christ as the antitype of the First Adam. While the latter high-handedly grasped at likeness to God, Christ does not count equality with God, which is his by nature, “a thing to be grasped”, but humbles himself unto death, even death on the Cross. It is precisely this humility, which comes from love, that is the truly devine reality and procures from him the** “name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” (Phil 2:5-10). **Here the hymn of the apostolic Church takes up the words of promise in Isaiah 45:23: “By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’”. In the interweaving of Old and New Testaments, it becomes clear that, even as crucified, Jesus bears the “name above every name” - the name of the Most High-and if himself God by nature. Through him, through the Crucified, the bold promise of the Old Testament is now fulfilled: all bend the knee before Jesus, the One who descended, and bow to him precisely as the one true God above all gods. The Cross has become the world-embracing sign of God’s presence, and cosmic Christ should now, in this passage, come back into our minds. The Christian liturgy is a cosmic liturgy precisely because it bends the knee before the crucified and exalted Lord. Here the center of authentic culture-the culture of truth. The humble gesture by which we fall at the feet of the Lord inserts us into the true path of life of the cosmos."

Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) Spirit of the Liturgy, pages 192&193

 

[otjm]

This is not my opinion I’m offering. It is the consensus of the Church.

Absolutely not. If there is any consensus, it is only within the confines of the Roman rite.

To receive holy communion in hand while standing still remains an indult (exception) in the Roman church. On the previous page is a quote from a Cardinal stating it is more reverent to kneel. Numerous popes and saints agree. In fact, Jesus Christ got on his knees in prayer; there are several passages of Old and New Testament citing this gesture in reverance and respect to God. At Holy Communion you are face to face with God and about to receive Him in the Blessed Sacrament. I can’t think of a better time to get on your knees.

Protestants don’t believe in the Real Presence and as such receive their version of the Blessed Sacrament in hand while standing.

If you are making that statement as a universal, you are simply wrong; some of them receive what they consider to be Communion sitting down. And while it has been a long while since I was at either a Luthern or Episcopalian high service (very similar to our Mass), at one point they received kneeling. Then some stood. There is no universal posture among Protestants.

If the Catholic Church is in fact the True Church and transubstantiation is a fact not some fairy tale then shouldn’t you act like a Catholic instead of a Protestant?

Certainly, but you are falling into the trap of presuming a universal posture and method among Catholics, and there is not one and never has been. There has been among the Roman rite a long period a single posture, and now there isn’t.

A lack of reverence for the Blessed Sacrament leads to a drop in belief in transubstantiation. findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_17_128/ai_79305248/

Actually, a lack of catechesis is the issue that leads to a drop in the understanding of transubstantiation. Someone who has not been taught it is going to have a very hard time believing in it.
I

t’s interesting to note that if you receive Communion while standing you have to do something more…like show reverance. That indicates kneeling itself is reverent enough, thus more reverent than standing.

Given that the issue is a cultural understanding of what the posture means, that is not universal. In at least some Eastern rites, kneeling is not a sign of reverence, but of penance. And further, in the Western world, standing is a way we show honor to another. And standing is also a sign of reverence; which is why we stand at the Gospel reading. So in the Western rite, standing is also a sign of reverence.

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, Pars III, Q. 82, Art. 3, Rep. Obj. 8)

Ah, yes, let’s trot out poor old St. Thomas, as if he spoke for all times and places in all things he spoke of. At that time, he was correct; however, the issue is disciplinary as should be obvious to any review historically. And as disicpline, it is subject to change.