Some history on Communion in the hand

[TNT]

Defensor Fidei:

Why should we get rid of reception under both species? You have no valid reason except your own silly paranoia. -Ted

Where’d that come from?
Here is what was said…exactly…:
**

Now, it may not be enough, but stopping the “both species” promotion would immediately cut 50% of the entire burden.

**
The Church, I believe, never said that boths species was to be given. Did they say it was “normative”?

Where is this paranoia? I stated a practical reason. Pure and simple.

What phase of the moon are we in?

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Hey Ted! I just now realized you were posting here on this forum. I left the CMB only because I like the format here better, especially being able to ignore the LFJ’s.

I’ll have to crank out some movie reviews again.

Scott

 

[CrusaderNY]

Because going back to traditional practices, catechisms and Mass fosters a love and admiration for the church and for a potential life as a Priest. With all of the abuse gone mad and the Mass as a free for all rock concert and teen masses and whatever, there is no mystique or intrigue with wanting to go into a profession anymore as a Priest or religious life. The other day we were leaving mass and my cousin said how much his son loved going to church (he is 4) and I said, well maybe you can make him an altar boy and then who knows a Priest. He said “God forbid”! I dont want him anywhere near these priests, they all talk like Gays and that is no life in being a priest with all of them! I was shocked but that is how people feel, 40 years ago, we had cousins who were priests and I started at seminarys and the like, and it was a family HONOR to have a Priest. Now if someone hears you have a son who is interested in becoming a priest, they think something is wrong with him or he is possibly homosexual
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

 

[Deacon_Ed]

TNT:

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

I doubt this that is anything but the product of someone’s fertile imagination. If you’ve ever seen how the “Protestants” (as if there were a uniform method) go to communion you wouldn’t even raise this issue. Aside from the Anglicans (who still kneel) most Protestants remain in their seats while a fancy plate is passed around with bread and small cups of grape juice. No standing, no kneeeling – sitting! Methinks your reason number one is spurious!

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!How about, because this is the directive of the Church? As faithful sons and daughters of the Church we are, according ot the First Vatican Council, obliged to accept these disciplines and to follow them.

Deacon Ed

 

[oat_soda]

How about, because this is the directive of the Church? As faithful sons and daughters of the Church we are, according ot the First Vatican Council, obliged to accept these disciplines and to follow them

first off, we are not obliged to follow anything. communion in the hand is an indult. the norm is to recieve on the tounge. at a FSSP mass and in other countries, you must recieve on the tounge. also, we can kneel if we want too. God gave us brains and reason to use. why don’t you explain why the church allows this change in discipline? sacrosantum concillium says

“Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them…”

so why did good of the church require us to be allowed to recieve communion in the hand?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

oat soda:

first off, we are not obliged to follow anything. communion in the hand is an indult. the norm is to recieve on the tounge. at a FSSP mass and in other countries, you must recieve on the tounge. also, we can kneel if we want too. God gave us brains and reason to use. why don’t you explain why the church allows this change in discipline? sacrosantum concillium says so why did good of the church require us to be allowed to recieve communion in the hand?

I believe we were addressing standing to receive communion, not whether it was received in the hand or on the tongue. The directive of the Church in the United States is to receive communion standing – and that’s not an indult, it’s particular law.

Deacon Ed

 

[RedCrossKnight]

To receive communion stand vs. kneeling to save time or to make it less a burden is a very weak argument. In fact I go to two different churches one does standing and the other kneeling at the communion rail. Both churches have 3 ppl distributing communion but the church that kneels at the communion rail has 2-3 times more ppl attending mass. Both finish the job in about the same time, no more than 10 minutes.

Back to the reverence aspect of the issue, I think those that those who support standing are just too lazy to kneel down. Did not Jesus Christ go though an agonizing spell in the Garden of Gesemini (sp), did He not get Scourged at the Pillar, or Crowned with thorns, Carry a large wooden cross for a distance and later get nailed to that cross, all on our behalf. The least we can do is show a little respect and reverence by kneeling before the one true king! Fore the Love of God! We as American aren’t even required to abstain from meat during lent except for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. We are weak as Americans festering in our filth we call prosperity. America is now the mission site. We may not need monetary riches but we sure need spiritual ones.

May God be with us.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

RedCrossKnight:

To receive communion stand vs. kneeling to save time or to make it less a burden is a very weak argument. In fact I go to two different churches one does standing and the other kneeling at the communion rail. Both churches have 3 ppl distributing communion but the church that kneels at the communion rail has 2-3 times more ppl attending mass. Both finish the job in about the same time, no more than 10 minutes.I don’t think that saving time was one of the reasons for the decision to give communion standing – alhough it might be for a large parish. My Latin parish gives communion to an average of 500 people per Mass (seven English, two Spanish).

Back to the reverence aspect of the issue, I think those that those who support standing are just too lazy to kneel down. Did not Jesus Christ go though an agonizing spell in the Garden of Gesemini (sp), did He not get Scourged at the Pillar, or Crowned with thorns, Carry a large wooden cross for a distance and later get nailed to that cross, all on our behalf. The least we can do is show a little respect and reverence by kneeling before the one true king! Fore the Love of God! We as American aren’t even required to abstain from meat during lent except for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday. We are weak as Americans festering in our filth we call prosperity. America is now the mission site. We may not need monetary riches but we sure need spiritual ones.

May God be with us.

That seems highly judgemental. As I’ve noted before, Latin Catholics need to get out more – there are 22 Eastern Catholic Churches and most of them receive standing. In fact, the Council of Nicaea forbids kneeling on Sunday!

Then there’s the matter of the clergy – they receive standing.

Lazy? I think not.

Deacon Ed

 

[rwoehmke]

Communion on the tongue? Reminescent of naked baby birds with wide open beaks. Lots of spit on the distributers fingers. Reverent? NO! Disgusting! YES

 

[katolik]

rwoehmke:

Communion on the tongue? Reminescent of naked baby birds with wide open beaks. Lots of spit on the distributers fingers. Reverent? NO! Disgusting! YES

No, the priest doesn’t get much spit on his fingers. I have held the paten for many Masses and have not seen the priest putting his fingers on the tongue itself.
Yes this reminds you of birds. In older church Christ is symbolized as the pelican who in times of famine you rip her own skin to feed her chicks. What beautiful symbolism!

 

[TNT]

rwoehmke:

Reminescent of naked baby birds with wide open beaks.

Peeking at naked baby birds can lead to CHICKAPHELIA! http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/eye_anim.gif
Stop now be4 it’s too late.
BTW:
How often do you reminisce on this?http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/curtain.gif
Well then, maybe it is too late.http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/hidesbehindsofa.gif

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

Look the point of this thread was about the history of Communion in the hand. It was never intended to discuss the fruits of it’s current use. There was lots of wild allegations about standing and what not. I suggest that if you are interested you get Jungmann’s two volume set and Fortescue’s work on the Latin Rite and Kucharek’s work on the Byzantine liturgy. They all spend a great deal of time discussing the origins of the practices.

What is sad for our rad trad friends is that they have a hard time admitting that even the best rad trad source - Fortescue is clear about these practices. Clear that there is a big void missing for the Latin Rite, sure he says most venerable, but if you go back a few chapters, you’d think the guy had alzheimers when he wrote the book, because he has a pretty devastating section to his later comment. We still have Jungmann and Kurcharek is even better since the first couple hundred pages are dedicated to the Mass prior to the East and West moving in their own directions. Jungmann and Fortescue never attack the history form any other angle than just looking for the Roman Rite origins which handicaps both those works IMHO.

If you reject standing for reception, I can pretty much wipe out the rad trad postions on that with Jungmann and Fortescue. Our Eastern Brothers have been standing for 2000 years. If you think kneeling is the best posture, think about this. "Down at your feet oh Lord is the most high place. Kneeling isn’t humble enough, it’s whimpy, Prostrate yourself on the floor if you are true.

This one up-mans-ship “more Catholic than the Pope” attitude is a joke. Sure we have problems, but as I have said several times through this thread, there is not a one size fits all solution to our problems at this point.

Communion in the hand and under both species are not abuses. The Pope is the supreme legislator on this matter and if you don’t like it then you are disagreeing with the supreme pontiff. (see Mediator Dei paragrah 58). Pray for vocations and make a difference in your parish.

That is all I have to say in this thread.

 

[pnewton]

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

I always avoid speculating on what other people think or there reasons for their actions. If written documentation exists, then speculation is not needed. Otherwise it is too easy to fall into slander at worst or usellessness at best. I do not know of anywhere that it is stated we need to be more protestant. I think you are right in trying to find comments from priests, especially those who may have been actively invloved in some of the changes.

 

[oat_soda]

If you reject standing for reception, I can pretty much wipe out the rad trad postions on that with Jungmann and Fortescue. Our Eastern Brothers have been standing for 2000 years.

then why do **ALL **eastern orthodox and oriental churches recive on the tongue and not the hand? are you trying to say they all abandoned the earlier practice of communion on the hand?

I always avoid speculating on what other people think or there reasons for their actions. If written documentation exists, then speculation is not needed.

but it all comes down to why did the church allow this practice? how was it to benefit the faithful? nobody can give an answer to this.

 

[katherine2]

oat soda:

then why do **ALL **eastern orthodox and oriental churches recive on the tongue and not the hand? are you trying to say they all abandoned the earlier practice of communion on the hand?

the ancient practice of communion in the hand was only when the forms were separately administered. The Eastern Church share the chalice with the laity.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

oat soda:

then why do **ALL **eastern orthodox and oriental churches recive on the tongue and not the hand? are you trying to say they all abandoned the earlier practice of communion on the hand?

The Eastern Churches, in general, use the intinction method of giving communion. This means communion on the tongue is mandatory. Byzantines of the Russian traditions (Ukrainian, Ruthenian, Russia) use a spoon, Melkites do not, but still do intinction.

but it all comes down to why did the church allow this practice? how was it to benefit the faithful? nobody can give an answer to this.

First, you are asking the wrong people. The bishops who voted for it felt that it was of benefit to the people. Ask them, not us. I will tell you that Patriarch Maximos of the Melkites strongly supported both communion under both forms and standing to receive communion.

We stand to receive communion for the same reason we stand to hear the Gospel. Why is that? Because we are co-workers in the vineyard with Christ. We carry His work on, we are His arms, hands, legs, eyes, mouth and ears. We are friends, not servants. Here’s what the Church has to say:

Standing is a position that denotes respect and attention. We, therefore, stand “for the singing of the Alleluia before the Gospel … the Gospel … the general intercessions” (no. 43). “The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing” (USCCB and approved by the Vatican 4/17/02 for no.160, paragraph 2 of the GIRM). At the Gospel note the GIRM says to stand “for the singing of the Alleluia.” It is not necessary to stand for any musical prelude introducing the Alleluia.

Deacon Ed

 

[Defensor_Fidei]

**Quote:
If you reject standing for reception, I can pretty much wipe out the rad trad postions on that with Jungmann and Fortescue. Our Eastern Brothers have been standing for 2000 years. **

then why do ALL eastern orthodox and oriental churches recive on the tongue and not the hand? are you trying to say they all abandoned the earlier practice of communion on the hand?

I was specifically talking about standing. I am not sure why you extroplated that into reception on the tongue.

-Ted

 

[oat_soda]

I will tell you that Patriarch Maximos of the Melkites strongly supported both communion under both forms and standing to receive communion.

i respect his opinion, and really love the eastern divine liturgies, but his opinion is just that. this is like a latin bishop encouraging a byzantine catholic to kneel during the eucharistic.

besides the fact that the church wants to:

“Lastly, in faithful obedience to tradition, the sacred Council declares that holy Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal right and dignity”

i’d like to see our rite more harmonious with the eastern rites, i.e. ad orientem, iconostasis, communion only by the priest on the tongue…etc, but the church’s latin traditions must be preserved just like the eastern traditions.

The Pope is the supreme legislator on this matter and if you don’t like it then you are disagreeing with the supreme pontiff. (see Mediator Dei paragraph 58). Pray for vocations and make a difference in your parish.

first, where does the pope say he personally wants communion in the hand? in fact, the pope didn’t allow it in the vatican until recently. poland still doesn’t allow it. second, it is an indult. paul vi and jpII have spoke about potential problems with communion in the hand and encouraged the traditional discipline.

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

finally, communion in the hand was started illicitly.

The History
The practice of communion-in-the-hand was “first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenans, in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Holy Communion in the hand, leaving the decision to individual bishops” (Von Hildebrand, The Latin Mass Society, Nov 1995) aquinas-multimedia.com/catherine/hand.html

we are not saying it is a sin, but people should out reverence receive communion in the traditional manner, just like altar boys should be boys and people should not eat meat on Fridays, even though all of these things are not sinful in of themselves. What we question is the prudence of post VII laxity in terms of discipline. I think it doesn’t work and people need black and white rules.

 

[serendipity]

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.
-Ted

I was raised without the cup too, and the first mass I saw the cup at communion was in a dry county (I that that was funny). Now that I have the option of receiving communion form the cup, I feel as if it’s a high holy day each mass that the cup is present, because I grew up without seeing it.

 

[kmktexas]

katolik:

No, the priest doesn’t get much spit on his fingers. I have held the paten for many Masses and have not seen the priest putting his fingers on the tongue itself.
Yes this reminds you of birds. In older church Christ is symbolized as the pelican who in times of famine you rip her own skin to feed her chicks. What beautiful symbolism!

Great point. One thing that I have noticed is that many churches are not using the paten, even those where there is no indult for communion in the hand. The GIRM specifies its use and it is probably even more needed when people receive in the hand than on the tounge.

While I rarely have a priest’s fingers come in contact with my tongue, I have noticed that the priests are likely to put the host in my mouth rather than just lay it on the tongue when there is no paten. I think this is a prudent means to protect from the possibility of dropping.