Suggestion from a bishop: kneel to receive communion

[Peeps]

I noticed you didn’t address the concept of priests having consecrated hands, and the idea that until recently it was unthinkable that a layperson would even touch the host, much less distribute hosts.

I’ve read several good pieces of writing from legitimate Catholic teachers and pastors about the theology of “consecrated hands.” I wish I could quote these now, but I’m hoping that others on CAF more knowledgeable about Catholic theology will chime in here and post some of those explanations of the theology of “consecrated hands.”.

You can do a search of threads about this topic–I took a quick look, and there are around 50plus threads on the subject.

I will say this–how do YOU feel about all the many parishes and their priests throughout the world (especially in the United States) where Holy Communion is distributed to the faithful in their hands? Do you think all these parishes and priests are doing something incorrect/wrong? Do you think that all of the bishops who allow this are perpetuating an error?

Or do you think it’s probable that the bishops and priests know much more about the doctrines concerning Holy Communion than we laypeople know, and that they are conducting Mass and Holy Communion in a theologically-acceptable way?

I think that we need to tread with extreme caution when we start questioning the practices of our bishops and priests.

Yes, there are plenty of examples throughout history of these ordained leaders making very wrong choices in their personal lives and when it comes to Catholic theology. But we need ot make certain of our facts before we question our leaders. When people lose trust in their leaders, they often tragically end up leaving the Church and often abandoning Christianity altogether. Be very careful.

Also, as far as I know, an indult has been granted, which means that in the U.S., Holy Communion may be received either in my hand or on my tongue. So to say that this is wrong is to question the last three Popes under which Communion in our hands has been allowed in the U.S.–does that seem OK to you? Again, we need to be careful when we suggest that our leaders, who have been put in place by Holy Mother Church, are in the wrong.

 

[27lw]

27lw:

I noticed you didn’t address the concept of priests having consecrated hands, and the idea that until recently it was unthinkable that a layperson would even touch the host, much less distribute hosts.

I’ve read several good pieces of writing from legitimate Catholic teachers and pastors about the theology of “consecrated hands.” I wish I could quote these now, but I’m hoping that others on CAF more knowledgeable about Catholic theology will chime in here and post some of those explanations of the theology of “consecrated hands.”.

You can do a search of threads about this topic–I took a quick look, and there are around 50plus threads on the subject.

I will say this–how do YOU feel about all the many parishes and their priests throughout the world (especially in the United States) where Holy Communion is distributed to the faithful in their hands? Do you think all these parishes and priests are doing something incorrect/wrong? Do you think that all of the bishops who allow this are perpetuating an error?

Or do you think it’s probable that the bishops and priests know much more about the doctrines concerning Holy Communion than we laypeople know, and that they are conducting Mass and Holy Communion in a theologically-acceptable way?

I think that we need to tread with extreme caution when we start questioning the practices of our bishops and priests.

Yes, there are plenty of examples throughout history of these ordained leaders making very wrong choices in their personal lives and when it comes to Catholic theology. But we need ot make certain of our facts before we question our leaders. When people lose trust in their leaders, they often tragically end up leaving the Church and often abandoning Christianity altogether. Be very careful.

Also, as far as I know, an indult has been granted, which means that in the U.S., Holy Communion may be received either in my hand or on my tongue. So to say that this is wrong is to question the last three Popes under which Communion in our hands has been allowed in the U.S.–does that seem OK to you?

It’s just quite mysterious to me.
Laypeople handling the host pre-1965 = unthinkable and downright sacrilegious.
Laypeople handling the host post 1965= totally normal and acceptable.
Not kneeling to take communion pre-1965: unthinkable. Not allowed.
Not kneeling to take communion post 1965: the preferred norm.

I don’t make a judgment about the bishops.
It’s just mind-boggling to me. I don’t understand it.

 

[Peeps]

I don’t make a judgment about the bishops.
It’s just mind-boggling to me. I don’t understand it.

In humility, I suggest that you continue to seek understanding, which is what you are doing by coming here to CAF.

And perhaps be willing to accept that others with more education (e.g., bishops, priests, laypeople with a more extensive theological education) DO understand the answers to the questions you have.

And finally, trust in God–do you think He would allow His children (us) here on earth to ignorantly and trustingly continue a practice that is odious and sinful to Him? Don’t you think He would intervene to inform the Pope and the bishops that they are doing something that offends Him and that they must stop allowing this practice? Don’t you think that God is loving and powerful enough to do that for the people that He suffered and died for?

 

[27lw]

Yes, well, the more I read, the more weird the changes of the 1960s seem. Shrug.

 

[DaveBj]

Laypeople handling the host pre-1965 = unthinkable and downright sacrilegious.
Laypeople handling the host post 1965= totally normal and acceptable.

Laypeople handling the host in the first centuries of the Church’s existence = totally normal and acceptable.

D

 

[27lw]

27lw:

Laypeople handling the host pre-1965 = unthinkable and downright sacrilegious.
Laypeople handling the host post 1965= totally normal and acceptable.

Laypeople handling the host in the first centuries of the Church’s existence = totally normal and acceptable.

D

Was it? Did laypeople distribute in the early centuries? I genuinely would appreciate source material.
Thanks!

 

[DaveBj]

Was it? Did laypeople distribute in the early centuries? I genuinely would appreciate source material.

Read the Fathers. I’m not talking about laypeople distributing Holy Communion, but I am talking about laypeople receiving it in their hands. There are multiple references to people “handling” the Mysteriies, but not one reference to receiving the Host on one’s tongue.

D

 

[27lw]

So, no, laypeople did not distribute communion in the early centuries.
Thank you!

 

[DaveBj]

So, no, laypeople did not distribute communion in the early centuries.

NB: I did not say that categorically; I said only that I was not referring to that issue.

Edit to add: And with regard to the whole CITH indult issue – Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Rome has spoken, and the case is closed. (At least until Rome speaks again.)

D

 

[27lw]

27lw:

So, no, laypeople did not distribute communion in the early centuries.

Edit to add: And with regard to the whole CITH indult issue – Roma locuta est, causa finita est. Rome has spoken, and the case is closed. (At least until Rome speaks again.)

D

Oh yes. And what has Rome said? Communion in the hand is by indult only, the norm is COTT. So, lucky us, in certain countries, we have a choice.

Also, here is the document which allows Communion in the hand.
Here’s an interesting excerpt:

---

"Three questions were asked of the bishops, and the replies received by 12 March 1969 were as follows:

1. Do you think that attention should be paid to the desire that, over and above the traditional manner, the rite of receiving holy communion on the hand should be admitted?

Yes: 597

No: 1,233

Yes, but with reservations: 315

Invalid votes: 20

1. Is it your wish that this new rite be first tried in small communities, with the consent of the bishop?

Yes: 751

No: 1,215

Invalid votes, 70

1. Do you think that the faithful will receive this new rite gladly, after a proper catechetical preparation?

Yes: 835

No: 1,185

Invalid votes: 128

From the returns it is clear that the vast majority of bishops believe that the present discipline should not be changed, and that if it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of the faithful.

Therefore, taking into account the remarks and the advice of those whom “the Holy Spirit has placed to rule over” the Churches,[11] in view of the gravity of the matter and the force of the arguments put forward, the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering holy communion to the faithful.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

Where a contrary usage, that of placing holy communion on the hand, prevails, the Holy See—wishing to help them fulfill their task, often difficult as it is nowadays—lays on those conferences the task of weighing carefully whatever special circumstances may exist there, taking care to avoid any risk of lack of respect or of false opinions with regard to the Blessed Eucharist, and to avoid any other ill effects that may follow."

---

http://www.catholictradition.org/Eucharist/memoriale.htm

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Afaik in the Latin Church COTT is required by Canon Law, CITH is optional. C.f. Memoriale Domini too.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Thank you. That’s exactly what I was thinking of.

 

[tafan2]

So yes, I really do try to understand. And perhaps you haven’t seen other posts where I mention my involvement with the Latin Mass parish in our city and my many friends in this parish. I understand the history of receiving Holy Communion kneeling and on your tongue, and I think that those who have been raised in this tradition understandably feel very uncomfortable about receiving the Lord in a way that they feel is irreverent. I appreciate the influence that our upbringing has on our personal comfort level; e.g., I do not “feel” that chant is “reverent” at all–to me, it’s horror movie music, and I associate it with occult activities because that’s how I heard it growing up (in movies–I was a teen when Anton Levay wrote his Satanic Bible, and when everyone in the country was exploring the world of the occult!). What I grew up with is gospel music, old-time revival hymns, and the great hymns of the church (e.g., Isaac Watts)–to me, these are reverent and beautiful! Others (e.g., my organ teacher) grew up in churches with classical music and the pipe organ and even an orchestra and concert choir, so to them, that’s true musical reverence!

So I think a lot of our viewpoints are there because of how we grew up.

Yes, our viewpoints are likely different because of how we grew up. I posted this a while back, I will do so again, to explain why I desire to always receive on the tongue:

There are several reasons I receive on the tongue, any one of which reasonable people can disagree with or not understand, but taken together it becomes, for me, an important decision.

1. it is in communion with centuries of our ancestors in the faith.
2. it is the way I was taught as a child by a very sincere and holy nun
3. to me it reinforces the how sacred and holy the Eucharist is
4. it is important to my wife
5. people who I know, who I consider very devout and good Catholics, predominantly receive on the tongue
6. a couple of priests I know well and respect recommend it
7. I am uncomfortable with the way communion in the hand was started back in the 70s
8. I do not want to hold the Blessed Sacrament, my hands are not consecrated.
9. it worked do well in my younger days when I was holding a baby

I could probably list half a dozen more reasons without giving it much thought. All of these likely seem trivial to many, none of them are to me.

 

[hope]

I have the same thought. Due to my respect for my priest I receive on the tongue. He prefers it that way. He does not insist or make you feel you have to but he is such a good priest that follow his preferencedI

 

[hope]

I am uncomfortable with the way communion in the hand was started back in the 70s

The first time I saw communion in the hand was Canada. I believe they had an indult. I liked it. I never saw it in the U.S until the U.S. was also granted an indult. I do know that there were places that did it before the indult was granted. Forgive me but the idea that the hands are not consecrated makes no sense to me as your tongue isn’t either. You make good points as did Peeps. The Church says the ordinary way to receive is by tongue but that the choice is the recipient to receive in the hand or on the tongue. The recipient is the one who knows which way he adores God best.

 

[Deditus_Domina]

The last thing we need in a pandemic is dozens of people touching an altar rail…

my preference is receiving on my tongue kneeling at a rail. Right now I am grateful to receive the Lord in my hand while I am standing

 

[mdgspencer]

.
Here are some thoughts on this matter.
When I go to Sunday mass, a couple always kneels to receive communion. I sometimes see them do it as I stand in line for communion. There never has been a problem because they are doing this.
I might do this myself, but I am 79 and would have some difficulty getting up.
When I was young (in the 1960s) everyone knelt for communion. They went to the front of the church and knelt at a long communion rail, and the priest went along the communion rail, giving each person communion in the mouth. There was no communion in the hand.
This is not to say that communion in the mouth is better or kneeling for communion is preferable as a rule (and I take it in the hand standing up), but this is simply what I find an interesting fact about this.

 

[twf]

The bishops have the power to bind and to loose. It was sinful and disobedient to receive on the hand at the time. If your bishop now allows it, it is no longer disobedient. Church disciplines have changed many times throughout history. The key is obedience to the bishops.

By the way… even pre-1965, Eastern Catholics would have received standing (though not on the hand). The Council of Nicaea forbid standing on Sundays in general, in honour of the resurrection, and back in the 4th century that discipline was binding on all Catholics. Kneeling came later.

It’s also my understanding that the Assyrian / Chaldean Rite has always practiced reception of communion in the hand… though I understand that they traditionally cleansed their hands with incense before hand.

 

[Autumn-Smoke]

I believe the article says:

Blockquote - “Ways to receive Our Lord as King of the Universe”

“Ways” is plural, so there’s more than one way, and these are some suggestions.

Blockquote “read and reflect on the Sunday Scriptures, plan your whole weekend around receiving your King, wear your best garments, spend time in quiet,” … “offer silent time of thanks after mass.”

Those are all beautiful suggestions and speak of living our lives in devotion to our Lord and savior. Maybe we should also be concentrating on these and prayerfully putting them into practice.

I don’t know why the writer of this article picked out one sentence to make it the headline as if it is of the upmost importance here. It’s sure started a lot of controversy…after all, that’s what sells news articles…

In my parish there is no communion rail to kneel at, and there are so many elderly people, that if they all knelt they’d never get up.

 

[tafan2]

Has I tried to make very, very clear in my post: reasonable people can disagree on any of these things. No, our tongue is not consecrated, but our Lord told us to eat His body. So that argument does not hold. Certainly one of the main, traditional reasons a priest’s hands are consecrated is because they would be handling the Body and Blood of our Lord.