Receivng Communion on your Hand

[Ockham]

"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…

"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 – 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.’”

• Father George William Rutler, Good Friday, 1989 in St. Agnes Church, New York City (a precise transcript taken from a tape of his talk available from St. Agnes Church)

ST. SIXTUS I (115-125). Prohibited the faithful from even touching the Sacred Vessels: “Statutum est ut sacra vasa non ab aliis quam a sacratis Dominoque dicatis contrectentur hominibus…” [It has been decreed that the Sacred Vessels are not to be handled by others than by those consecrated and dedicated 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 time of persecution.” St. Basil considered Communion in the hand so irregular that he did not hesitate to consider it a grave fault.

COUNCIL OF SARAGOSSA (380). It was decided to punish with EXCOMMUNICATION anyone who dared to continue the practice of Holy Communion in the hand. The Synod of Toledo confirmed this decree.

POPE ST. LEO I THE GREAT (440-461). Energetically defended and required faithful obedience to the practice of administering Holy Communion on the tongue of the faithful.

SYNOD OF ROUEN (650). Condemned Communion in the hand to halt widespread abuses that occurred from this practice, and as a safeguard against sacrilege.

SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AT CONSTANTINOPLE (680-681). Forbade the faithful to take the Sacred Host in their hand, threatening the transgressors with excommunication.

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)

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

POPE PAUL VI (1963-1978). “This method [on the tongue] must be retained.” (Apostolic Epistle “Memoriale Domini”)

POPE JOHN PAUL II (197. "To touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained. (Dominicae Cenae, sec. 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.” (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, sec. 9)

1. The provenance of Communion in the hand
   The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.” Some will argue that this was the reintroduction of a formerly universal and venerable practice. We will deal with that idea below. But even if it were the case that this was formerly a practice in the Catholic Church, its introduction in the sixteenth century was hardly orthodox. Rather, it was an embodiment of a denial of the Real Presence as taught by Christ and his Church, and of the reality of the Catholic priesthood. It was a liturgical consequence of a prior heresy.

It is well known that Communion in the hand began spreading during the early nineteen-sixties, in Catholic circles in Holland. It began, then, as an aping of the Protestant practice, or at the very least as a “false archaeologism”: an idolization of (supposed) practices of the ancient Church. This involved a forgetfulness (or denial!) of the truth and development of Catholic Eucharistic doctrine to an ever clearer, and ever more explicit form. It involved a rejection of what had in fact been handed down to us in the organic development of the Liturgy. And it was a case of blatant defiance and disobedience of Church law and ecclesiastical authority.

The desire for this practice proceeded neither from the supreme authority of the Church, which was opposed to it, nor from the ranks of Christ’s faithful (who by definition hold fast to belief in transubstantiation) who never asked for this practice. Rather it proceeded from some of the middle management of the Church, and the “liturgical establishment” in particular. And this in typical revolutionary fashion.

When it came time to begin pressure for the practice in North America, the means used were not always honest. In fact a measure of deception or at least “mis-information” was involved. It is better to draw a cloak over the sordid details, but if anyone wants to dispute that things were this way, ample documentation can be brought to bear.

We can summarize that the practice of Communion in the hand came in modern times from heresy and disobedience. Is that what the Holy Spirit would inspire to bring about some desired liturgical change? One is permitted to think that perhaps a different spirit was at work.

catholic-pages.com/mass/inhand.asp

 

[Ockham]

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.

This paragraph sums up your entire flawed argument. The Catholic Church is unwavering as it stands for absolute truth - not relative. The Protestants ebb and flow to the tides of societal norms. If St. Thomas was correct in his time, he is correct now.

 

[otjm]

1. Was CITH, standing, ever the norm within the Roman Catholic Church?

There is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church. You mean the Roman rite of the Catholic Church; but then, fine details seem to escape you.

1. 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.

Why? CITH was done for centuries in the Church, then COTT was done for centuries. Both have a tradition in the Roman rite; you are just stuck on what you like.

1. COTT is the norm, currently, in the Roman Catholic Church. CITH is the exception.

As if we didn’t have that figured out…

1. 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.

Actually, given that the Pope is the Pope of the universal Church,. and given that the norm (as you have so kindly pointed out for those who had no clue) of the Roman rite is COTT so it only makes sense that he would follow the norm. And when he does, then it is not a statement about anything not the norm.

 

[Ockham]

The following is a commentary on the Regulations allowing Communion in the hand under very restricted circumstances.

It must be remembered that Communion on the tongue is the law of the Church. Communion in the hand is an exception to the law (it is an “indult”) which is not commanded but only allowed if all the conditions outlined by the Vatican are present. If the conditions are not present then the permission is not granted and Communion on the tongue only is permitted.

The seven conditions are based on two principles as the official document points out. These two principles are not something that the Pope could change even if he wanted to because they are based on Divine Revelation itself.
catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/newmass/comunion.htm

The practice of Hand Communion began as an abuse in Holland, where mandatory liturgical norms were defied. When disciplinary action was not forthcoming, so the practice spread to Germany, Belgium and France . Thus the Holy See Later allowed a pastoral concession to areas where the practice had already developed May 1969, this approval only meant that people had an option, whoever if one was to truly comprehend the What was being given to him, truly no hand would ever be put forward to Touch some thing that the Angels of Heaven worship and Adore. Not even to the Angels is Given this Great gift of the Body blood sole and Divinity of Christ. In his love for us God Reserved for us His Holy Body and Blood so that he may live within us, in order that we may be moulded into him. This Approval next foresaw the same grant being given to the United States in June,1977. As we can see Hand Communion was Founded on disobedience to the Holy See and has Continued to be fostered by deceit.
geocities.com/athens/rhodes/3543/Comion.htm

It will be proved in this study that the reception of Communion in the hand never formed part of the program of the papally-approved liturgical movement: it was not mentioned in any official document of Vatican II: it was introduced in the 16th century by the Protestant Reformers specifically to repudiate belief in the Catholic Priesthood and the Real Presence; it was re-introduced after Vatican II by rebel priests in Holland and has spread throughout the world from there; it is being imposed upon the faithful by techniques involving distortion of the truth, outright deceit, and even intimidation. And what will be shown concerning Communion in the hand could also be shown of so many other post-conciliar innovations which Archbishop Lefebvre correctly designates as unacceptable to Catholics:
catholictradition.org/Eucharist/communion2.htm

In the West, the gesture of prostration and genuflection before reception of the Body of the Lord is found in monastic settings already from the sixth century, e.g., in the monasteries of St. Columbanus. Later, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, this gesture was even more widely diffused. At the end of the patristic age, the practice of receiving Holy Communion directly into the mouth became thenceforth an almost universal practice.
te-deum.blogspot.com/2008/03/historical-liturgical-notes-on-rite-of.html

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] “For it is the Body of Christ.”[4]

Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: “When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent.”[5]

Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

 

[diggerdomer]

The practice of Hand Communion began as an abuse in Holland, where mandatory liturgical norms were defied.

No, it began at the Last Supper.

 

[Ockham]

The Eucharist began at the Last Supper and finalized the next day on the Cross. As Jewish custom, Jesus may very well have placed a piece of bread directly onto the apostles’ tongues. If not, they were our first bishops, thus consecrated hands.

Got anything else?

 

[ncjohn]

The Eucharist began at the Last Supper and finalized the next day on the Cross. As Jewish custom, Jesus may very well have placed a piece of bread directly onto the apostles’ tongues. If not, they were our first bishops, thus consecrated hands.

Got anything else?

And then what to make of the CENTURIES of reception in the hand after that by countless others, including countless saints and martyrs, who were not apostles or priests or bishops. Kind of makes that whole argument worthless, doesn’t it?

And of course the fact that the only reason we ever came to have kneeling was in imitation of the worldly practice of kneeling before human royalty. Purely a cultural thing just as a switch to the latin liturgy to accomodate the desire of the times for liturgy in the vernacular. But hey, why let historical facts get in the way of one’s rosy view of their favorite hand-picked time and tradition in history.

In a previous post there was a statement about getting “Prostestant” about one’s “feelings” in this. What is truly “Protestant” is thinking one’s self above the Pope and the Church and proclaiming to be wrong what they have proclaimed to be acceptable. Seems like we’ve seen more than one group head down that road in our history also.

Peace,

 

[otjm]

The Eucharist began at the Last Supper and finalized the next day on the Cross. As Jewish custom, Jesus may very well have placed a piece of bread directly onto the apostles’ tongues. If not, they were our first bishops, thus consecrated hands.

Got anything else?

There is no showing anywhere in the New Testament that bishops hands were consecrated; nor a showing that priests’ hand were. Nice try but no cigar.

And whether or not Christ placed the bread in their mouth - which is pure, unadulterated speculation, given the NT reports, the practice was recorded within decades that people received in the hand.

 

[Ockham]

Indeed, in certain communities and in certain places this practice has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.

It is certainly true that ancient usage once allowed the faithful to take this divine food in their hands and to place it in their mouths themselves.

It is also true that in very ancient times they were allowed to take the Blessed Sacrament with them from the place where the holy sacrifice was celebrated. This was principally so as to be able to give themselves Viaticum in case they had to face death for their faith.

However, the Church’s prescriptions and the evidence of the Fathers make it abundantly clear that the greatest reverence was shown the Blessed Sacrament, and that people acted with the greatest prudence. Thus, “let nobody . . . eat that flesh without first adoring it”[2] As a person takes (the Blessed Sacrament) he is warned: " . . . receive it: be careful lest you lose any of it."[3] “For it is the Body of Christ.”[4]

Further, the care and the ministry of the Body and Blood of Christ was specially committed to sacred ministers or to men specially designated for this purpose: “When the president has recited the prayers and all the people have uttered an acclamation, those whom we call deacons distribute to all those present the bread and wine for which thanks have been given, and they take them to those who are absent.”[5]

Soon the task of taking the Blessed Eucharist to those absent was confided to the sacred ministers alone, so as the better to ensure the respect due to the sacrament and to meet the needs of the faithful. Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant.

This method of distributing holy communion must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of-tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful’s reverence for the Eucharist. The custom does not detract in any way from the personal dignity of those who approach this great sacrament: it is part of that preparation that is needed for the most fruitful reception of the Body of the Lord.[6]

This reverence shows that it is not a sharing in “ordinary bread and wine”[7] that is involved, but in the Body and Blood of the Lord, through which “The people of God share the benefits of the Paschal Sacrifice, renew the New Covenant which God has made with man once for all through the Blood of Christ, and in faith and hope foreshadow and anticipate the eschatological banquet in the kingdom of the Father.”[8]

Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which “in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually.”[9] Lastly, it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended: “What you have allowed to drop, think of it as though you had lost one of your own members.”[10]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWMEMOR.HTM

What part of the above do you people not understand?

 

[diggerdomer]

What part of the above do you people not understand?

So you’ve confirmed that communion on the tongue was a later development, subsequent to the practice of communion in the hand, in the Church’s history as many here have pointed out. Thank you.

 

[ncjohn]

What part of the above do you people not understand?

I understand all of it. And I understand that that was the sense of the Church in 1969 when it was written.

What part don’t YOU understand about the fact that the Church subsequently changed its position and decided that it was acceptable, which it is allowed and accustomed to do with disciplinary items?

And more importantly, what gives you the wisdom and authority to pronounce “wrong” what the Church and the 4 most recent Popes have approved? What part of it being a legitimate option according to the Church do you not understand?

You are certainly entitled to receive according to your preference. You are even welcoome to think it isn’t the best decision in the Church’s history. The only thing being asked is for you and others to stop passing judgment on those who are acting legitimately within the options the Church has offered and thinking yourselves in some way ‘superior’.

Peace,

 

[otjm]

What part of the above do you people not understand?

What part of “placing on hand over the other, making a throne for Christ” do you not understand?

 

[Ockham]

So you’ve confirmed that communion on the tongue was a later development, subsequent to the practice of communion in the hand, in the Church’s history as many here have pointed out. Thank you.

A point that I have never disputed. Read again what the Church says about this historical development.

 

[franklinf]

It’s pretty clear that our current Pope thinks that it should be COTT. For example, only those kneeling may receive Communion from him - and it must be on the tongue. Also, the reform of the reform, orchestrated by Pope Benedict the XVI calls for a return to COTT.

“They have also declared themselves favorable to reaffirm that the usual way of receiving Communion according to the norms is not on the hand, but in the mouth. There is, it is true, and indult which, on request of the [local] episcopates, allows for the distribution of the host [sic] also on the palm of the hand, but this must remain an extraordinary fact.”
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/08/urgent-reform-of-reform-is-in-motion.html

 

[Ockham]

The only thing being asked is for you and others to stop passing judgment on those who are acting legitimately within the options the Church has offered and thinking yourselves in some way ‘superior’.

Peace,

In no way am I passing judgement. A couple years ago I received Holy Communion in hand while standing from an EMHC. Then I did some reading and discovered the better way. This isn’t my preference, it is the Church’s preferece.

It’s astonishing to read your accusation of me thinking I’m superior while you are the one refusing to humble yourself in front of God.

 

[diggerdomer]

A point that I have never disputed. Read again what the Church says about this historical development.

You never disputed it? Then why did you post (one example):

The provenance of Communion in the hand
The origin of the current practice of Communion in the hand in Western Christianity can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, or “Reformation.”

 

[Ockham]

First of all, those aren’t my words. Secondly, the author is referring to the resurgence of CITH. How does it make you feel knowing your preference caught fire again as a liturgical abuse and now only exists as an indult? Why not avoid the scandal and receive the Blessed Sacrament the way the Church prefers?

 

[franklinf]

Forgive me if this has already been answered,

But why COTH? What makes you think one is worthy of receiving Jesus standing up with your hands held out? How is that more reverent and humbling than receiving kneeling on the tongue? Your hands aren’t consecrated. If the priest takes such great care in handling (forgive the term) Jesus that he never removes his finger and forefinger until communion shouldn’t we treat Our Lord with the same respect, humility, and reverence?

Why stand and receive on the hand? Why, besides the fact that its allowed.

For all you ECs, I’m talking about the Latin tradition. In the West kneeling is a sign of reverence and humility. No knock on the East.

 

[franklinf]

You never disputed it? Then why did you post (one example):

Note that it says current practice.

 

[diggerdomer]

First of all, those aren’t my words. Secondly, the author is referring to the resurgence of CITH. How does it make you feel knowing your preference caught fire again as a liturgical abuse and now only exists as an indult? Why not avoid the scandal and receive the Blessed Sacrament the way the Church prefers?

I do receive the way the Church prefers. In my case, that’s in the hand.