Taking Communion in the hand or the mouth

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike5575
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FrDavid96 said:
We can parse words all day long. The point is that there has been a decline in reverence for the Eucharist in the past 40 years (after all, that’s what you disputed, and I’m showing that it has happened). This is well-documented and every reasonable person accepts this fact. Even the secular media readily admits it. Polls, surveys, studies all point in this direction quite clearly.

To what degree Communion in the Hand has contributed to this decline? We might never know the answer to that one. But we cannot honestly say that there has not been a decline in reverence.

Pope John Paul II did in fact consider banning Communion in the Hand (rescinding the indult) but he refrained from doing it out of deference to the decision by his predecessor Paul VI who allowed it. Pope Benedict has in fact banned it when he himself is distributing Communion–I’m sure he has a good reason.
Click to expand...
You have not shown any connection between CIH and decreasing reverence for the Eucharist.
 
estesbob said:
You have not shown any connection between CIH and decreasing reverence for the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
If you can accept that there is, in fact, decreasing reverence for the Eucharist then I think it can be shown that there is a relationship between it and CIH. But I’m not so sure that it can be shown to be a relationship of causality since it’s possible that both are symptoms of another common cause.
 
Poetess_Kera said:
When Jesus was breaking the bread and passing it out to His disciples, He said, “Take this, all of you, and eat it.” The fact that the disciples took the Eucharist in their own hands makes communion in the hand logical and totally acceptable. I’ve seen people receive the Eucharist in the hand very reverently, and I’ve seen people literally throw it into their mouths like a potato chip (:(). It’s all in how you approach Him in the sacrament.
Click to expand...
However, as another poster indicated, the context of the Last Supper was different, entirely different. Not only was the first Mass celebrated, but, it was also an ordination since Jesus was issuing this command to his Apostles and their successors to do. The celebrant consecrates, takes and eats. We, as the faithful, receive and consume. There is a big difference.

Furtehrmore, unlike COTT, CITH can be rescinded at any time because it is an indult. The default method to receive Holy Communion is on the tongue. CITH is the option and, as such, it can be removed at any time. Redemptionis Sacramentum notes that if there is a danger and risk that the Holy Eucharist will be profaned, then, CITH can be rescinded.
 
SMHW said:
If you can accept that there is, in fact, decreasing reverence for the Eucharist then I think it can be shown that there is a relationship between it and CIH. But I’m not so sure that it can be shown to be a relationship of causality since it’s possible that both are symptoms of another common cause.
Click to expand...
Is this alleged decrease in reverence for the Eucharist taking place ONLY in countries that allow CIH?

Personally I think if one wants to receive on the tongue thats fine-what bothers me is the desire on the part of some to keep me from receving communin the way I prefer-in the hand.
 
estesbob said:
You have not shown any connection between CIH and decreasing reverence for the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
In this thread, I haven’t yet tried to do so.

I have said that we cannot simply dismiss one of the most obvious explanations for this decline.

Here’s what I did say:
There are many factors which have all come together in a sort of “perfect storm” resulting in a lack of reverence for the Eucharist. Distributing Communion in the hand is not the single cause of this, but after 40 years of the Church’s experience, it’s certainly safe to say that it is one of the causes.
 
estesbob said:
Is this alleged decrease in reverence for the Eucharist taking place ONLY in countries that allow CIH?

Personally I think if one wants to receive on the tongue thats fine-what bothers me is the desire on the part of some to keep me from receving communin the way I prefer-in the hand.
Click to expand...
Bob, no one is stating to you that you cannot receive Holy Communion in the hand. However, the only time you will not be able to do so is if you are blessed enough to receive Holy Communion from Pope Benedict XVI, himself. At his Masses, he distributes Holy Communion on the tongue while the communicant is kneeling. And, the other time that you may not be able to receive CITH is when:’
[92.] Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,178 if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to thefaithful.179
Click to expand...
As I said before, receiving on the tongue is the default, while receiving in the hand is an indult which can be rescinded at any time. In fact, when the CDWDS had its Spring plenary session, there was some serious talk about rethinking the whole issue of CITH and clarfying the issue of ad orientum. I am trying to do a search on the actual article from chiesa. When I find it, I will post it, but, right now, I am getting ready to go to Mass.
 
benedictgal said:
Bob, no one is stating to you that you cannot receive Holy Communion in the hand. However, the only time you will not be able to do so is if you are blessed enough to receive Holy Communion from Pope Benedict XVI, himself. At his Masses, he distributes Holy Communion on the tongue while the communicant is kneeling. And, the other time that you may not be able to receive CITH is when:’

.
Click to expand...
I receive on the tongue when i am in mexico as that is the norm there. If I ever get to see Benedict the XVI he can give me communion any way he wants!
 
estesbob said:
You have not shown any connection between CIH and decreasing reverence for the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
You’re right. People have expressed their personal preferences but they have not shown a direct linkage as you suggest – although they probably believe they have.
 
I wonder how many have stopped to think why CIH is so popular where it is allowed?
 
FrDavid96 said:
I think it’s the other way around. It’s more like the spoon was adopted later but the Melkites never followed. I can’t document that, it’s just some vague memory of something from the past.
Click to expand...
When I asked him about this, the local Melkite priest told me that they stopped using the spoon about 60 years ago as a general rule.

It could also be one of those things the Melkites adopted to make them look less like Orthodox, like some of the practices adoped by the Synod of Zamosc by the Ruthenians and Ukrainians.
 
“Further, the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that holy communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity.”

“A change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition, does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering holy communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine.”

“[T]he 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.”

“It is, above all, necessary that an adequate catechesis prepares the way so that the faithful will understand the significance of the action and will perform it with the respect due to the sacrament. The result of this catechesis should be to remove any suggestion of wavering on the part of the Church in its faith in the eucharistic presence, and also to remove any danger or even suggestion of profanation.”

“The fact that the lay person is now able to receive holy communion in the hand should not suggest to him that this is ordinary bread, or just any sacred object. Rather ought it to strengthen his sense of his dignity as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ, of which baptism and the grace of the Eucharist make him a part. He will thus experience an increase of faith in the great reality of the Body and Blood of the Lord which he touches with his hands. His respectful attitude should be proportionate to what he is doing.”

These are all quotes from the 1969 Instruction Memoriale Domini. They are not infallible statements or doctrinal definitions, but they reflect how Pope Paul VI felt about this manner of receiving Communion.
 
It took some time, but, I found the article from Rorate Caeli. It says, in part, that:
ROME The document was delivered to the hands of Benedict XVI in the morning of last April 4 by Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship. It is the result of a reserved vote, which took place on March 12, in the course of a “plenary” session of the dicastery responsible for the liturgy, and it represents the first concrete step towards that “reform of the reform” often desired by Pope Ratzinger. The Cardinals and Bishops members of the Congregation voted almost unanimously in favor of a greater sacrality of the rite, of the recovery of the sense of eucharistic worship, of the recovery of the Latin language in the celebration, and of the remaking of the introductory parts of the Missal in order to put a stop to abuses, wild experimentations, and inappropriate creativity. **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. **The “Liturgy Minister” of Pope Ratzinger, Cañizares, is also having studies made on the possibility to recover the orientation towards the Orient of the celebrant, at least at the moment of the eucharistic consecration, as it happened in practice before the reform, when both the faithful and the priest faced towards the Cross and the priest therefore turned his back to the assembly.
Click to expand...
I am still in the process of reseaching more details on the plenary session; however, I am trying to stave off a migraine and will have to defer this to later on in the day.
 
\
Quote:
Originally Posted by benedictgal View Post
…often desired by Pope Ratzinger.
I’ve never seen this construction before.\

**I have, alas.

Also “Pope Wojtilla” and even “Pope Pacelli”.

I don’t think the Rorate Coeli blog has such an agenda, but frequently this is used by sedevacantists.**
 
Digitonomy said:
:hmmm: I’ve never seen this construction before.
Click to expand...
It does sound odd as we hear/read it. Sometimes it’s used to distinguish between the person of the Holy Father and the office of Pope; in other words, it’s meant to distinguish between an “infallible pronouncement” and the pastoral office of the universal shepherd. Let me explain by example. When a pope beatifies someone, he signs his baptismal name to the document, not his papal name–because a beatification is not as “certain” as a canonization. At the canonization, he uses the papal name.

Pope Benedict has been making a point lately to distinguish between the different roles he has, and it seems to me that in this context, the author is trying to say that the comments are based on both what he said as Cardinal and what he says as Pope–hence the use of the baptismal name. If were something he said only as Pope, and specifically as Pope, we might see the papal name instead.
 
estesbob said:
Well not in Mahoney’s diocese …
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a little unfair to single him out. It would take an earthbreaking paradigm shift to go from optional CITH to all COTT. Look at all the communions being distributed outside churches. Nursing homes, hospices, hospitals, outdoors, movies, etc. Mandated COTT is not going to happen, plain and simple. CITH is just too ingrained in our society.
 
ProVobis said:
Well, it’s a little unfair to single him out. It would take an earthbreaking paradigm shift to go from optional CITH to all COTT. Look at all the communions being distributed outside churches. Nursing homes, hospices, hospitals, outdoors, movies, etc. Mandated COTT is not going to happen, plain and simple. CITH is just too ingrained in our society.
Click to expand...
I was being faceitous:)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top