Some history on Communion in the hand

[pnewton]

philipmarus:

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

This is a good example of why the church has authority to change matters of discipline. Four hundred years ago, communion in the hand meant a rejection of the Real Presence. Today in the Catholic Church defying the Real Presence is not the motive behind it.

Who knows what rebellious trend or heresy will crop up in the next hundred years. Communion on the hand might be made mandatory, or communion on the tongue might be required. Church authority is necessary so that current societal definitions, customs and trends might be considered in decideing what disciplines must be followed for the good of the faithful.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Philip,

You whould read through my comments and my article before you misrepresent what I am saying. I have always indicated that the current posture of Communion in the hand is granted by indult. I have never calimed that communion on the tongue has been disocntinued or not allowed. 99% I receive on the tongue and I am quite clear about that.

 

[philipmarus]

Ted, I was not referring to you in particular. I said "Some"in reference to the indult… It was a general comment referring all the other comments I’ve read on this website on this issue.

 

[TNT]

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 reasons to change it in the first place that the person desires to know.**

Still no takers?? Come now, surely the reasons can be identified by SOMEONE…

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Still no takers?? Come now, surely the reasons can be identified by SOMEONE…

Do you want to know the reasons for the shift from Communion in the hand to communion on the tongue?

-Ted

 

[oat_soda]

i have no idea why the church decided to allow communion in the hand. the only think i can think of is that people under the “spirit” of VII thought communion rails, kneeling, and reception on tounge was a hinderace to bringing protestants back into the church. as SC says:

1. This sacred Council has several aims in view: it desires to impart an ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful; to adapt more suitably to the needs of our own times those institutions which are subject to change; to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy.

if communion on the hand was so common place, why do all other eastern and oriental orthodox churches recieve exclusivley on the tounge? their liturgies go back to the 4th centuries or earlier.

 

[TNT]

DEFENSOR FIDEI:

Do you want to know the reasons for the shift from Communion in the hand to communion on the tongue?
Oat Soda understood:
oat soda:

i have no idea why the church decided to allow communion in the hand. the only think i can think of is that people under the “spirit” of VII thought communion rails, kneeling, and reception on tounge was a hinderace to** bringing protestants back into the church**. as SC says:if communion on the hand was so common place, why do all other eastern and oriental orthodox churches recieve exclusivley on the tounge? their liturgies go back to the 4th centuries or earlier.

The Counsel Says it:
**

…to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ

; to strengthen whatever can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy. Simply put, the disciplines of the VATII church is to make it more Protestant.
Now, that sounds like a reason…
Any others?
**

 

[RedCrossKnight]

I am not certain but the percentage of satan worshipers who believe in the real presence is far greater than Catholics. I know Catholics are at 25% or so.

IMO, communion should be done at the rails, on your knees and directly to the tongue.

1. Out of reverence.
2. At adoration you kneel on both knees when you enter the adoration chapel or when the Eucharist is exposed. Why not at communion?
3. When it is taken in the hand particles of Jesus’ body are left on the hand later to be discard on the ground. You may think this is extreme but no it isn’t. The priest clean off the patent that the alter BOYs hold to get all particles of Christ off, he then rises out the chalic and dishes that hold the Eucharist making sure all particles no matter the size get consumed not left on the ground to be trampled. Watch the priest next time after communion.
4. When folks receive it in the hand it is easier for them to walk away with the host and not consume it. This has been done. Satan worshippers pay good money to have consecrated hosts to do their devilish deeds with it.
5. It would be a uniform, universal practice. I think about 5% of our small parish receive the Eucharist on our tongues. Makes me conscious sometimes about what others may think. Yes I think those that receive it in the hand are careless when it comes down to it.

Folks we need to respect adore and worship Christ the King. We are getting lazy here in the states. We need to stop compromising or we are likely to lose more than we gain.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

RedCrossKnight:

I am not certain but the percentage of satan worshipers who believe in the real presence is far greater than Catholics. I know Catholics are at 25% or so.I’d be interested in the source of this statistic. Even the famed Gallup Poll was misinterpreted and, in realty, comes close to 70% of Catholics believing in the Real Presence.

IMO, communion should be done at the rails, on your knees and directly to the tongue.

1. Out of reverence.
2. At adoration you kneel on both knees when you enter the adoration chapel or when the Eucharist is exposed. Why not at communion?
3. When it is taken in the hand particles of Jesus’ body are left on the hand later to be discard on the ground. You may think this is extreme but no it isn’t. The priest clean off the patent that the alter BOYs hold to get all particles of Christ off, he then rises out the chalic and dishes that hold the Eucharist making sure all particles no matter the size get consumed not left on the ground to be trampled. Watch the priest next time after communion.
4. When folks receive it in the hand it is easier for them to walk away with the host and not consume it. This has been done. Satan worshippers pay good money to have consecrated hosts to do their devilish deeds with it.
5. It would be a uniform, universal practice. I think about 5% of our small parish receive the Eucharist on our tongues. Makes me conscious sometimes about what others may think. Yes I think those that receive it in the hand are careless when it comes down to it.

Folks we need to respect adore and worship Christ the King. We are getting lazy here in the states. We need to stop compromising or we are likely to lose more than we gain.

You have given some interesting reasons. What about making standing universal practice – then your point #5 would be addressed Except, of course, for you personal interpretation that other people are being “careless”. Standing was the traditional posture of the Chruch for the first 800 years and remains the standard posture for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I first heard about Satanists paying for the host when I was making my first communion – nearly 50 years ago. That’s a canard.

Your point on adoration is fine, if one is a Latin Catholic. Eastern Catholics generally do not have adoration since we reserve the Blessed Sacrament only to take to the sick.

Reverence is not in the posture but in the mind and the heart. One can be just as reverent standing as one can be kneeling. Even the Publican stood when he prayed “O Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.” and Jesus said he went home justified.

Deacon Ed

 

[Kielbasi]

1. When folks receive it in the hand it is easier for them to walk away with the host and not consume it. This has been done. Satan worshippers pay good money to have consecrated hosts to do their devilish deeds with it.

It is true that communion in the hand can lead to a greater chance of sacrilege, but the idea there is a market in consecrated hosts is almost undoubtably false.

Why would any satanist (or anyone else) pay “good money” for something they can get themselves for free?

 

[TNT]

Deacon Ed:

I’d be interested in the source of this statistic. Even the famed Gallup Poll was misinterpreted and, in realty, comes close to 70% of Catholics believing in the Real Presence.

Now you should provide the source. It would be great to be able to site that to others on this forum!..assuming it is not impeachabe.

Standing was the traditional posture of the Chruch for the first 800 years and remains the standard posture for the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Very well, and the 2nd 1,200 years it was…?? in the LATIN Rite? Which is what he was addressing, after all.

Reverence is not in the posture but in the mind and the heart. One can be just as reverent standing as one can be kneeling.

So, we now have 2 proposed reasons for the VATII church changes:
1. To please the protestants, disguised as “all who believe in Christ”.
2. One can be just as reverent standing as one can be kneeling. (If it is simply an equality, why would it be changed…for, admittedly it was not for increase of reverence.)

Again, the VATII:
**

…to foster whatever can promote union among all who believe in Christ; to strengthen whatever

can help to call the whole of mankind into the household of the Church. The Council therefore sees particularly cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the liturgy. **

Even the Publican stood when he prayed “O Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.” and Jesus said he went home justified.

In Scripture-speak, one stands for judgement to be made, one kneels for adoration. It even carried over into the courts: “will the defendent please rise for the verdict…”
** Rom 14:10: “**For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
But good effort, anyway.

 

[CrusaderNY]

It all boils down to one thing, that if the church really cared about respecting the sacredness and traditions of the institution of the church, it would always err on the side of caution, or to at least give the appearance of being reverent, and make people kneel and receive our Lord on the tongue, to keep those who really really believe it is his body in line. But they really dont care much about appearance, or what anybody thinks anymore, it has become a free for all, with masses and worship practices different in two different churches in the same diocese 5 miles apart.

They are no longer or care about saving souls, only about preaching about Love. MY sister started going to a Protestant church and recently attended church at our Parish which was a Novus Ordo, and she said right out that there was very little difference between the liturgy and actually her sermons are much more fire and brimstone

 

[Deacon_Ed]

TNT:

Now you should provide the source. It would be great to be able to site that to others on this forum!..assuming it is not impeachabe.

Glad to be of service, it’s here catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9910qq.asp

Very well, and the 2nd 1,200 years it was…?? in the LATIN Rite? Which is what he was addressing, after all.

Between 800 and 1200 we see both standing and kneeling depending on where one was. Following Trent kneeling was pretty much universal. There are little or no records indicating how universal the practice was between 1200 and 1500 so it’s hard to say, but I would say kneeling was used in more places than standing.

So, we now have 2 proposed reasons for the VATII church changes:
1. To please the protestants, disguised as “all who believe in Christ”.
2. One can be just as reverent standing as one can be kneeling. (If it is simply an equality, why would it be changed…for, admittedly it was not for increase of reverence.)

This seems to be a non sequitur in response to my statement since I never attempted to explain any “changes” nor did I mention Vatican II.

Again, the VATII:

In Scripture-speak, one stands for judgement to be made, one kneels for adoration. It even carried over into the courts: “will the defendent please rise for the verdict…”
**Rom 14:10: “**For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”
But good effort, anyway.Well, that’s not “Scripture speak” at all – as I pointed out, the Eastern Catholics have, and continue to stand for communion. Kneeling in the Eastern Church (and in Scripture) is a sign of repentance – it’s even called a “great metany” which comes from the Greek word “metanoia” – to convert or have a change of heart.

Deacon Ed

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

I am sure the Champions of Idealism will not like this post, but here it goes anyway.

Speaking from experience, when I was an altar boy, we still had the communion rail, sanctus bells, tabernacle in the back of the sanctuary (centered). We wore cassock and surplice and the rectory had 3 resident priest and always one or two visting priests. My parish also had a convent with more than 15 full time resident nuns.

When I served Mass on Sunday there were always two or three priests distributing communion at the rail. I held the paten under many-a-chin. The Mass was as reverent as you see on ETWN or even more so. This was in the mid 1970s.

Fast forward to today. Not only are our parishes bigger, but in my parish, we only have two priests and in 3 years we will only have one. with close to 2000 families and 4 Sunday Masses, the idea of kneeling and reception on the tongue is about the most impractical and dangerous thought I can think of right now. The priest certainly will not distribute commuion alone to that many people. And to trust our EMHCs to distribute on the tongue to kneelers when they can barely handle placing it in people’s hands is a recipe for disaster.

We need to fix our vocations crisis, then we can slowly get a handle on all the other things that are a result of the priest shortage. The United States has always been very poor at providing vocations from it’s own Catholic families. This problem goes way deeper than just changing Communion postures.

-Ted

 

[TNT]

Well, do to a misunderstanding to the Deacon, we are back to ONE reason for the C-Hand and Standing.

**
So, again, we now have but 1** proposed reason for the VATII church changes:

1. To please the protestants, disguised as “all who believe in Christ”.

Surely there are enough erodite scholars and priests on this forum to come up with something else?

It is going to be hard for me or anyone else to counsel a person after Mass, on the “Pastoral” reasons as the bishops insist. The only reason so far would likely insult them!

The “reasons” entry contest is still open, but not forever.

---

 

[Pug]

Is it just me, or if you have a dry mouth do you have to catch Jesus between your tongue and upper teeth very quickly on occasion to be sure the host doesn’t fall? Maybe the person is not placing it correctly on my tongue?

 

[TNT]

Ok, we have another reason added by:
Defensor Fidei

So, again, we now have 2 proposed reasons for the VATII church changes:
1. To please the protestants, disguised as “all who believe in Christ”, in the VATII document.
**2. Mega Masses with less priests. **
Now, it may not be enough, but stopping the “both species” promotion would immediately cut 50% of the entire burden.
I will speculate that kneeling+reception on the tongue+ only one species, and their unavoidable implied “meal” mentality, would stop many non-catholics and unworthy recipients from receiving and reduce reception by (10%)? A regular reminder that the “State of Grace”, Confession requirement necessary to receive would pull down (10%)?

I thank Defensor Fidei for the reason #2.
Anyone else? How about a priest?

 

[TNT]

Pug:

Is it just me, or if you have a dry mouth do you have to catch Jesus between your tongue and upper teeth very quickly on occasion to be sure the host doesn’t fall? Maybe the person is not placing it correctly on my tongue?

Historical experience reveals that…it’s just you. You may drink water any time before communion. Try going exclusively to the priest’s line. He has the experience in proper placement, or should.

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

TNT,

Oat Soda ought not make wild guesses about what our Eastern Brothers were doing in the Fourth Century.

I am not one for conspiracy theories. Grunerites, Brother Dimond devotees nor any other group like them.

If you think that the church was hi-jacked by Masons or protestant or whatever, go ahead an knock yourself out.

Shall I repeat myself again? Okay I will. Rescinding communion in the hand will not solve the current problems in the Church. We have a multifaceted problem that will take a multifaceted solution. Reception on the tongue is not the panacea. 1962 Missal is not the panacea.

-Ted

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Why should we get rid of reception under both species? You have no valid reason except your own silly paranoia. I could do with out the cup, that is how I was raised.

We have a serious vocation crisis that has been ongoing in this country for over 50 years. We used to import our priests from Ireland to cover our pathetic lack luster home grown catholic families.

If the days when we had communion on the tongue, kneeling for reception, the communion rail, sanctus bells, Latin etc., etc., etc.

What makes you think that by returning to these practices we will get more vocations now?

The fastest growing seminary (2500+ seminarians) which just ordained another 45 + priests functions with the Novus Ordo and communion in the hand. They probably love to go back to the 1962 missal (and so would I), but they know how to function and make a difference. They don’t operate with blinders on.

-Ted