Some history on Communion in the hand

[Defensor_Fidei]

I just put this together last week. It is a complete rebuttal of the postion that Communion in the hand is a post Vatican II Innovation. Also with the information provided it is clear that communion in the hand is not an abuse.

signumcrucis.net/cih.htm

-Ted

 

[philipmarus]

Nevertheless, In the opinion of many communion in the hand is destructive to belief in the real presence. My evidence: My younger brother left the Church about 4 years ago after the common practice communion in the hand led him to doubt the reality of the real presence.

 

[MaggieOH]

Yet there are many more who feel much more relaxed about receiving the Eucharist because Communion in the hand is more natural.

I put it this way, the doubts that your brother had are not necessarily related to the practice of receiving Communion in the hand. Those doubts are a normal response for a cradle Catholic who has known nothing else since early childhood. If there is doubt then the person needs to explore why there is doubt about the Real Presence. It could be that your brother has been influenced by an Evangelical or a Baptist to deny the Real Presence.

The mode of receiving the Eucharist should not be the reason that we believe in the Real Presence. I have received both ways and I prefer receiving in the hand. I in no way doubt that Jesus is present in the Eucharist.

MaggieOH

 

[e-catholic]

philipmarus:

Nevertheless, In the opinion of many communion in the hand is destructive to belief in the real presence. My evidence: My younger brother left the Church about 4 years ago after the common practice communion in the hand led him to doubt the reality of the real presence.

Why would this practice lead him to doubt the reality of the real presence? Do you know what his thinking was? How does the practice of communion in the hand change the reality of what occurs at the consecration?

Furthermore, the practice of communion in the hand is 30yrs old. Why did it take so long? Did he receive communion in the had for 30 yrs.?

Just curious.

 

[serendipity]

I thinkI’ve only received communion directly in my mouth, twice in my life. I don’t worry that I’ll acidentally touch the priest with my tongue, or that I’ll some how drop it . I know it’s stupid, but I feel much safer placing it in my mouth myself.

 

[TNT]

In reading your article, thank you BTW, it has been about 1,000 years of communion on the tongue .

That period would also include the Trent declaration on the matter, and the Pius V Mass.

As best I can tell, the High Anglicans, especially after the Oxford Movement, receive via tongue.

The other sects either self communicate, or receive in the hand.

So, what, in your investigations prompted the USA and other country bishops to switch back to C-Hand?

I see 6 choices:

1. Mimic the sects ie protestantization.
2. Restore a practice that had been rejected unanimously for nearly 1,000 years.
3. Defy Trent and defacto distance the NOM from the TLM.
4. Simply practical reasons (which?)
5. Further emphsize / deminish the Sacredness of the Host.
6. Outcries from the faithful.
   You may add any others as your documented choice.

As you can see, I am far more interested in motive than the practice itself.
Thank you,
God Bless

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

philipmarus:

Nevertheless, In the opinion of many communion in the hand is destructive to belief in the real presence. My evidence: My younger brother left the Church about 4 years ago after the common practice communion in the hand led him to doubt the reality of the real presence.

The fruits of Communion in the hand were not the scope of my article.

Communion in the hand in and of itself is probably not the sole culprit with your brother. EMHCs and especially the removal of the demarkation between the sanctuary and nave have probably had a far greater impact.

From what I have read, it seems that Communion in the hand was not discontinued over issues regarding lack of belief, but rather possible sacrelig to the consecrated hosts by people who did not eat the host. There was also the issue of extreme-hyper-piety, actions that would be regarded as taking the belief in the real presence too far.

One of the interesting issues with all this early history of the Church is that this shows what a deep belief the early Christians had for the Eucharist. It is a great apologetic tool to show others that the Eucharist was not taken lightly. Unfortunately your postition that Communion in the hand creates a lack of belief only supports the protestant notion that the real presence was not a belief of the early Church. While we still have the witnesses of the Early Fathers, this other evidence of custom and practice further bolsters the Catholic postion.

One last example. The martyrs were going to death over the Eucharist. If you sinned then you were excluded from ever receiving again and this was up to the 3rd or 4th centuries. The Romans spent a great deal of time trying to defeat the Church by attacking the Eucharist. At this time Communion in the hand was not only prevalent but probably predominant. This creates a big problem for your position if Communion in the hand really creates a lack of belief.

As for today, there are too many side issues that make Communion in the hand a bad idea. I think the Church should recind the indult, but with the way vocations are headed, look for this to get worse before it will get better.

-Ted

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

TNT,

Thanks for your comments. My article really only covers up to the 7th century. Eventhough Communion in the hand continued much after that, by the 7th century the shift to reception on the tongue was on.

Unfortunately, the motive question has no solution other than practicality. That is, at least in our current situation. The lack of vocations is going to keep this custom alive for a long time to come. Most EMHCs I have seen are scary enough when handling the consecrated hosts.

-Ted

 

[TNT]

If you are blessed with a TLM nearby, it is a mute point. But, due to bishops’ decisions, that is not the case in about 35% of the dioceses.

I have asked on several threads, what a priest says as the reasons for convincing people to give up C-Tongue, and give up kneeling. Other than group - conformity. But that is no valid reason if conformity was always the TLM style for 1,000 years in which some impressive reasons were given other than conformity.

It was the reason to change it in the first place that the person desires to know.

 

[TNT]

Defensor Fidei:

TNT,

Thanks for your comments. My article really only covers up to the 7th century. Eventhough Communion in the hand continued much after that, by the 7th century the shift to reception on the tongue was on.

Unfortunately, the motive question has no solution other than practicality. That is, at least in our current situation. The lack of vocations is going to keep this custom alive for a long time to come. Most EMHCs I have seen are scary enough when handling the consecrated hosts.

-Ted

If lack of priests, then why add a burden of receiving under both kinds when this essentially doubled the burden on the clergy?
To say nothing of the large quantity of wine now needed in preparation and cost (practical stuff).

We are drifting off course, but how can one give half a puzzle, then tell everyone to stop there?
Maybe a thread on motives to the particular aspects of the NOM.

ps. P. J. O’Rourke should be on everyone’s bookshelf.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

MaggieOH:

Yet there are many more who feel much more relaxed about receiving the Eucharist because Communion in the hand is more natural.

Maggie: I also rec. in the hand. I wonder, however, and with respect, if we actually WANT to be more relaxed about rec. the Eucharist? If we consider Who is being given to us, either in the hand or on the tongue, shouldn’t we rather be at least a bit awestruck? It seems almost to me that in positing that as a reason, the first response of advocates of the other side (and we’re all Catholics, so I understand there shouldn’t be sides) would naturally be, “We aren’t supposed to be relaxed at all!” Just a thought. Perhaps a better argument is that was how He was given to us in the time of the Fathers, ancient practice (though we have, in fact, rec. on the tongue far longer than in the hand, if I’m not mistaken). In defense of most of the folks who rec. on the tongue, I do believe it is out of a sense of profound humility and reverence for the God we rec, and that is hardly a bad thing. I just wish some of them would stop implying that those who rec. in the hand are somehow “liberal” or “bad.”

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

TNT:

If you are blessed with a TLM nearby, it is a mute point. But, due to bishops’ decisions, that is not the case in about 35% of the dioceses.

I have asked on several threads, what a priest says as the reasons for convincing people to give up C-Tongue, and give up kneeling. Other than group - conformity. But that is no valid reason if conformity was always the TLM style for 1,000 years in which some impressive reasons were given other than conformity.

It was the reason to change it in the first place that the person desires to know.

Kneeling to receive is not 100o years old. The communion rail is not very old either.

Be very very careful of what TLM devotees tell you about Church architecture, and liturgical issues. They get carried away and start painting everything with a 1000 year old broad brush (soemtiems even older).

I would prefer TLM, however I have a big family with young children, Regardless how many Trads tell me my children are welcome, it is an issue with me. The Church I grew up in, you only heard children if you were in the cry room. Plus if I am going to go to a Mass as reverent as the indult, then I would not want to have to monitor my kids the whole time.

-Ted

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

TNT:

If lack of priests, then why add a burden of receiving under both kinds when this essentially doubled the burden on the clergy?
To say nothing of the large quantity of wine now needed in preparation and cost (practical stuff).

I don’t remember recieving under both kinds before EMHCs. There is no burden on priest when we have batallions of EMHCs.

-Ted

p.s. did I mention I cant stand EMHCs :banghead:

 

[TNT]

Defensor Fidei:

Kneeling to receive is not 1000 years old. The communion rail is not very old either.

I would prefer TLM, however I have a big family with young children, Regardless how many Trads tell me my children are welcome, it is an issue with me. The Church I grew up in, you only heard children if you were in the cry room. Plus if I am going to go to a Mass as reverent as the indult, then I would not want to have to monitor my kids the whole time.

-Ted

Understand your plea. We have bushels of kids at the TLM. Sometimes it’s quiet as a mouse. Sometimes the priest takes a short breather in the homily until it quiets down.
On the whole, my 12 kids are pretty well behaved. Of course my methods of disipline are a little eccentric. (Hands folded from entry to exit unless you want to wear mittons and handcuffs.) Stuff like that.

 

[TNT]

Defensor Fidei:

I don’t remember recieving under both kinds before EMHCs. There is no burden on priest when we have batallions of EMHCs.

-Ted

p.s. did I mention I cant stand EMHCs :banghead:

It can be a problem when the cashier you cussed out at Home Depot on Sat. is confronting you with God Almighty on Sun.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

TNT:

It can be a problem when the cashier you cussed out at Home Depot on Sat. is confronting you with God Almighty on Sun.

:clapping:

Yeah, but they’d give communion to Teddy Kennedy or Barbara Boxer in a heart beat.

-Ted

 

[philipmarus]

Understand your plea. We have bushels of kids at the TLM. Sometimes it’s quiet as a mouse. Sometimes the priest takes a short breather in the homily until it quiets down.

I drive 50 miles about once a month to attend a Indult TLM in Oklahoma City. This last Sunday our church was loaded with small children. I never seen a problem in the year I’ve been attending there.

Relaxing for Communion? Modes of Communion.
Why not Pass out Holy communion in McDonald’s Happy Meals since manner of communion makes no difference.

Unfortunately your postition that Communion in the hand creates a lack of belief only supports the protestant notion that the real presence was not a belief of the early Church.

Nonsense. Was not communion in the hand was approved after massive dissent in France,Holland and Germany and in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See? Father Peter Stravinskas states that during the Protestant reformation communion in the hand was means of symbolically denying the real presence. See complete article
on Dave Armstrong’s website ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ413.HTM

I did not say Communion in the Hand causes absolutely lack of belief in Real Presence; merely that it can be a factor. Why do People like St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope John Paul II, Pope Paul VI (Memoriale Domini), and Mother Teresa consider communion in the hand inadvisable? Pope John Paul II apparently will not give communion in the hand and it is illicit practice in Poland.

The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, which is hardly a Trad Journal has a interesting article called “Rethinking Communion in the Hand” catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/04-97/2/2.html

 

[Patjoe]

It took me many years to receive Jesus in my hand – not out of reverence, but stubbornness. Now it would take quite a bit of urging and many good reasons to make me give up holding my Savior in my hand. Not out of stubbornness this time, but because I may see Him that much longer and whisper to Him of my faith and love. I believe that He sees this as a response to His love for me and not as a lack of humility or reverence. In fact, God gave us the desire to hold the one we love; why not desire to hold Jesus as well as to eat His Body and Blood?

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

philipmarus:

Nonsense. Was not communion in the hand was approved after massive dissent in France,Holland and Germany and in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See?

What’s the issue. Communion in the hand was not an aubse. It was a discontinued custom/practice. How it was reinstated is all water under the birdge now. The Pope is the ultimate legislator in this matter. If he allows it, then there isn’t anything you can do about except separate yourself from the Church.

philipmarus:

Father Peter Stravinskas states that during the Protestant reformation communion in the hand was means of symbolically denying the real presence

And this has what to do with my article? My article metnion anything beyond the 12th century and really only focuses on the first 7 centuries.

Like I have repeated, I am not really interested in discussing the fruits of CIH, because I agree that it’s current uses combined with several other issues has created a serious lack of belief in the Real Presence. If you want to slug it out over the early Church. I think I can make enough points that the current traditionalist spin doctors will be hard pressed to counter.

-Ted

 

[philipmarus]

]

The Pope is the ultimate legislator in this matter. If he allows it, then there isn’t anything you can do about except separate yourself from the Church.

I don’t think there is anything in Redemptionis Sacramentum to suggest that Communion on the tongue is out just because communion in the hand is permissible in a few places in the world. What we are talking about here is a indult to universal liturgical law in a few countries and yet some are cheering it like Communion on tongue has been overturned. I have mentioned it before regarding my younger brother who was scandalized by common practice of communion in the hand. What I forgot to mention was that he was an Altar boy at a small parish here in central Oklahoma. I have spoken to him recently about this. He still believes communion in the hand is inherently wrong. He, to this day, sees nothing very reverent in receiving the the Body and Blood of the Lord in such a casual manner. I have spent the last two years praying for his return to the Church and giving him things to read.

am not really interested in discussing the fruits of CIH, because I agree that it’s current uses combined with several other issues has created a serious lack of belief in the Real Presence

Then I guess were in basic agreement.

"Wherever I go in the whole world, the thing that makes me the saddest is watching people receive Communion-in-the-hand"

-Mother Teresa