The day that made permanent my opposition to Communion in the hand

[Stewmont]

The modern practice makes the ancient practices of the church look stupid or at least pointless.

“Stupid” huh? Just where do you draw the chutzpah to call an approved direction from the Catholic Church “stupid?”

YOW!! :hypno:

Do you see how some might take you considerably less seriously after reading or hearing such a comment?

 

[Stewmont]

that is the point. in those traditions, the tradition itself is catechetical, and to alter their traditions without a compelling liturgical or theological reason would be to do violence to their belief and practice. The Byzantine tradition grow from the method of communicating, intinction. The same holds true with posture. A radical change, w/o a compelling reason and proper catechesis, must by its nature effect belief in the doctrine the original tradition was intended to reinforce.

Perhaps that’s precisely why some Catholics prefer to receive in hand.

 

[jfhh]

My understanding is that some Orthodox have a different discipline and approach that varies from the Western obsession or meticulousness of being concerned with every tiny crumb or particle of bread. IMO, tiny stuff that may drop to the ground (when using bread that looks more like bread for example as some liberal liturgists advocate), since it is no longer bread from a functional standpoint (no one would eat it ordinarilly), it is no longer the body of Jesus from a symbolic, liturgical and sacramental standpoint. The question is not whether it is bread scientifically but whether it is bread in the “common estimation of men” – that is how Catholic theology examines it. If I ask for some bread to eat and you buy some bread at a store and then crumble it up and scatter it on the floor and then scoop up the crumbs and hand it to me, would I say you’ve given me bread or a stone? A stone, right? (this is a Gospel allusion). So it isn’t bread in the common estimation of men.

Communion on the hand IMO does not go far enough. We should allow the laity to self-communicate. There’s no reason this shouldn’t happen. It alread happens when we receive the wine more or less. And the laity already minister communion to each other. Communion on the hand and self-communication both emphasise the direct personal relationship one has with Jesus.

 

[Walking_Home]

**My understanding is that some Orthodox have a different discipline and approach that varies from the Western obsession or meticulousness of being concerned with every tiny crumb or particle of bread. ** IMO, tiny stuff that may drop to the ground (when using bread that looks more like bread for example as some liberal liturgists advocate), since it is no longer bread from a functional standpoint (no one would eat it ordinarilly), it is no longer the body of Jesus from a symbolic, liturgical and sacramental standpoint. The question is not whether it is bread scientifically but whether it is bread in the “common estimation of men” – that is how Catholic theology examines it. If I ask for some bread to eat and you buy some bread at a store and then crumble it up and scatter it on the floor and then scoop up the crumbs and hand it to me, would I say you’ve given me bread or a stone? A stone, right? (this is a Gospel allusion). So it isn’t bread in the common estimation of men.

Communion on the hand IMO does not go far enough. We should allow the laity to self-communicate. There’s no reason this shouldn’t happen. It alread happens when we receive the wine more or less. And the laity already minister communion to each other. Communion on the hand and self-communication both emphasise the direct personal relationship one has with Jesus.

---

Are you Catholic? From the type of posts you produce – It seems not.

 

[jfhh]

---

Are you Catholic? From the type of posts you produce – It seems not.

I am a liberal Catholic willing to learn from the other lung of the church, the magisterium and also other religions.

I’ve asked staff to delete or permenantly disable my account. I’m spending too much time here. So good bye

 

[TMC]

I am glad that you were present at the Last Supper and can provide an eyewitness account of it, Somewhat surprised but happy. I wasn’t so lucky and I cannot speak as to exactly what happened. I merely said it could have happened in the way that I described.

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins.

I wasn’t there either, but the Gospel accounts are hard to square with Jesus putting the bread in the apostles’ mouths. He gave it to them and told them “Take and eat.” Most people take with their hands, and he wouldn’t have to tell them to eat it if it was already in their mouths.

I know you aren’t saying it definitely happened that way - but do you have any support for the idea that it did?

 

[Walking_Home]

Further, the church has never deemed reception in the hand forbidden, only restricted from the Alexandrian, Byzantine and Roman Rites. The Armenian and Syriac Rites both have retained the tradition of reception in the hand from apostolic times to the present.

---

armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Church_Service_Explanation

Holy Communion In the Armenian Church Holy Communion is distributed in the following manner. The communicant stands before the priest, makes the sign of the cross and says Megha Asdoodzo, “I have sinned against God.” **The priest then places a small particle of our Lord’s Body and Blood – the bread having been dipped into the wine – directly into the mouth of the communicant. **The communicant again makes the sign of the Cross and steps aside for others to approach the blessed sacrament.

 

[Layman]

How about this:

It is for our benefit that we approach the host as reverently as possible, regardless of archeologisms.

If you treat it like a biscuit, what grace is likely to flow, given your symbolic attitude?

Kneeling and receiving on the tongue is a sign of humilty; a virtue not highly regarded by the ‘me generation’.

To those that say Jesus is present regardless of your posture, I would rejoin; true, but if His presence is all that’s required to effect holiness in us, then we should all be living saints.

 

[japhy]

the tradition itself is catechetical, and to alter their traditions without a compelling liturgical or theological reason would be to do violence to their belief and practice. … The same holds true with posture. A radical change, w/o a compelling reason and proper catechesis, must by its nature effect belief in the doctrine the original tradition was intended to reinforce.

The way Communion in the hand was re-introduced in the Roman Rite was deplorable and illegal. Nowadays, most people aren’t ever told about receiving on the tongue (I wasn’t, and my current parish doesn’t “advertise” it), nor are they given catechesis on why they’re receiving in the hand.

There was a radical change, certainly without compelling reason (apart from “they’re already doing it!”) and probably without proper catechesis, over 40 years ago. As Pope Paul VI said in Memoriale Domini: “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.”

 

[Sam_Maloney]

As I’ve posted before, I think the means of reception is related to posture.

In the days of kneeling, when the priest was a step higher than the communicant, it was simple and sanitary to place the Eucharist on an extended tongue, head tilted back.

But when the communicant is standing, it is very difficult for the priest to place the Eucharist on the tongue without getting saliva on his fingers, even if the recipient is a bit shorter than the priest. Certainly not every time, but often enough to be problematic.

If we tilt our head back, it makes it even tougher. And bad as it is when we encounter the priest’s dry finger, its even worse when his fingers are already wet…

In my area, it is the priests that have pushed for this change.

So let me kneel, and I will joyfully, thankfully receive on the tongue. But if I must stand, I will not, so long as there is any other option.

 

[palmas85]

I wasn’t there either, but the Gospel accounts are hard to square with Jesus putting the bread in the apostles’ mouths. He gave it to them and told them “Take and eat.” Most people take with their hands, and he wouldn’t have to tell them to eat it if it was already in their mouths.

I know you aren’t saying it definitely happened that way - but do you have any support for the idea that it did?

It was quite common in family groups and in small religious oriented communities that the presider would say the blessing for each of the ritual foods and then place a small morsel of each in each persons mouth. After this was done the meal would continue. The Seder meal was and still is a highly ritualized affair.

The Gospel accounts don’t describe the entire meal either, no mention of consumption of the lamb , or salt or bitter herb or anything else for that matter. Yet those things would have occurred as well as the other prayers prayed throughout the meal.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Dear Stewmont,

I am going to introduce you to a friend of mine. This friend is called the actual point of the post.

This explains two things.

1. The actual problem with the modern practice is Not the fact of receiving in the hand.
2. The point is the actual irreverence towards the Fragments of the Blessed Sacrament during Mass.

The behavior of the Church has been historically very respectful of this.

The famous justification for the modern practice omits the rest of the quote.
St Cyril:

For if you mislay any, you would clearly suffer a loss, as it were, from one of your own limbs. Tell me, if anyone gave you gold-dust, would you not take hold of it with every possible care, ensuring that you do not mislay any of it or sustain any loss? So will you not be much more cautious to ensure that not a crumb falls away from that which is more precious than gold or precious stones?

Of course this is the pertinent part that they, that is the modernists omit.

What are the practices of the Church that ensures that not a crumb falls away?

1. Clasping of Canonical fingers.
2. Communion Patens.
3. Altar rails covered with linen cloths.
4. Purification of the fingers of the Priest after communion.
5. Washing of all linen cloths that even come near the Sacrament three times and disposing of water into a Sacrarium or into earth if no sacrarium available.
6. Reception of the faithful on the tongue.
7. Folding of the corporal inwards.
8. A very respectful manner of purifying any place where the Host should fall.
9. Restricting Communion under both kinds to solemnity’s or not at all to restrict possibility of spillage.

As you can see dear Stewmont my friend the point of the post is that it disagrees with the modern way of Ignoring the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament as does the early Church for St Cyril says the Blessed Sacrament should be treated like GOLDDUST.

What does St Thomas have to say about such practices. To repeat the original post quotation.
St Thomas:

He closes his fingers, i.e. the thumb and first finger, after the consecration, because, with them, he had touched the consecrated body of Christ; so that if any particle cling to the fingers, it may not be scattered: and this belongs to the reverence for this sacrament. Q83 A5 Reply to objection 5

As you can see my dear Stewmont, the early church disagrees with the modern practice, St Thomas disagrees with it and the Church certainly disagrees with it.

If you really doubt, re-read the list of things the Church does to show that it actually does treat the Blessed Sacrament and the fragments as if it were more than Gold dust.

Of course if you want to receive in the Hand, Go right ahead be my guest but if you mislay any of it it is as if you lost your own limb or you lost gold or precious stones. Go ahead and disagree with St Thomas and St Cyril.

What modern practices need to be condemned?

1. Priests and EMHC’s omitting purifications of their fingers that are part of the liturgy.
2. The faithful not taking any effort to make sure that they do not mislay any of the fragments.
3. Any other practices that ignore the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament.

God Bless

Paul

 

[palmas85]

And with your sarcasm you tip your hand…

All you have offered is your own opinion which is no better or worse than what I have typed – until you became sarcastic.

Let’s see YOUR evidence first, and please no Geocities websites. Show me citations that specifically refute what I typed. It’s remarkable that people such as yourself can in essence say “no it was like this, blah, blah, blah” offering absolutely no facts in the process while wondering why people don’t accept your personal views, lock, stock and barrel.

I didn’t get testy in the least. I also didn’t get sarcastic…

Let’s see the actual cites that support your personal option that what I typed did not happen…

I didn’t say what you wrote didn’t happen. We all know the early Church received in the hand. We also know the Church stopped doing so for a number of reasons… No one disputes or should dispute those facts. I know I don’t… I merely pointed out why they did receive in the hand or at least the main reason they did so. Carrying the Eucharist home with it hanging out of the corner of your mouth could prove problematic at best.

As to my sarcasm yes, I was sarcastic. You made an incredible statement that.indicated you knew precisely how reception was carried out at the Last Supper. Well the truth be known you don’t know and neither do I. It could have been in the hand, in could have been on the mouth or a combination of both. The Gospels are silent on the issue, as they also are on many details of that meal. . Again I merely pointed out a tradition that was common in those days at the Seder meals, which the Last Supper apparently was.

As to whether or not people accept what I write, that is their decision. I have no agenda other than the truth. Thats it. You can either take it or leave it.

As to the citations you asked for I already gave them to you. Not all by any means, but a true representative sampling of the writers of the time who wrote extensively on the Mass and the early Church in general. All you have to do is read them:thumbsup:

The same as I did.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Please note that the sedar meal tradition of the time actually makes it just as likely that communion was received in the tongue.

But thats not the major point. The point is that the Church has developed a great respect for the Eucharist and behaves as by the list above in my post.

If you want to think that all those things are absurd, go ahead and ignore the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. BUT you were warned by a Saint of the early Church and a doctor to treat the Body and Blood of Christ like GOLDDUST.

Paul

 

[benedictgal]

IMO, tiny stuff that may drop to the ground (when using bread that looks more like bread for example as some liberal liturgists advocate), since it is no longer bread from a functional standpoint (no one would eat it ordinarilly), it is no longer the body of Jesus from a symbolic, liturgical and sacramental standpoint. The question is not whether it is bread scientifically but whether it is bread in the “common estimation of men” – that is how Catholic theology examines it. If I ask for some bread to eat and you buy some bread at a store and then crumble it up and scatter it on the floor and then scoop up the crumbs and hand it to me, would I say you’ve given me bread or a stone? A stone, right? (this is a Gospel allusion). So it isn’t bread in the common estimation of men.

Communion on the hand IMO does not go far enough. We should allow the laity to self-communicate. There’s no reason this shouldn’t happen. It alread happens when we receive the wine more or less. And the laity already minister communion to each other. Communion on the hand and self-communication both emphasise the direct personal relationship one has with Jesus.

Actually, this is not what the Church teaches. Any particle of the Sacred Host doesn’t stop being the Body, Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ because it has fallen to the ground. In fact, St. Thomas Aquinas notes that Christ is present whole and complete even if the Host were to be broken into many fragments.

Your final paragraph is most troubling. We do not “take” we receive Holy Communion. Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments explains this:

One thing I’ve seen before [is] where they have the ciborium out, and people come up and take our Precious Lord out of there and dip our Lord into the Precious Blood and place it on their own tongue themselves.

Forbidden. Not correct. Because the nature of the Holy Eucharist is such that the person who is not a priest celebrating the Mass must be given the Body of Christ. You say “amen”. And you receive, on the tongue or in the hand. If you are not the priests celebrating Mass – if you are the deacon assisting – you must be given [Communion]. You may not take.

Even if you are bishop or cardinal, and you are not celebrating that Mass, you must be given. You must not take.

For example, if you watch us in Rome in St. Peter’s basilica or square, when the pope is saying a major Mass, there may be 40 cardinals, 100 bishops. When we are not concelebrating – we are wearing red vestments but we are not concelebrating – we are just assisting at Mass as all of you who are baptized. When it is time for Communion, we receive, exactly as everybody else. A deacon comes to us and says “the Body of Christ”. I say “amen”. He gives to me, and the same for all.

None of us is allowed to take. We must be given. This is the Church law. It is not to lower anybody, it is just the nature of the sacrament. Even when Christ multiplied bread and fish, He told the apostles to distribute it. It was a sign.

So the Church that regulates Eucharistic practice says that the holy Body and Blood of Christ will be given us. We will not take. Only the celebrating priests or the concelebrating communicate themselves. Everybody else must be given it, even if that person is a bishop or a priest.

Furthermore, this notion of “taking” should remind us that the first sin of Adam and Eve was that they wanted to “take” divintiy, take knowledge from the Tree of Life which was forbidden them. The devil tempted them to take something that was not theirs rather than wait to receive it from God. Receiving also means humble submission as God’s children. We receive from God; we do not take from Him.

 

[Stewmont]

How about this:

It is for our benefit that we approach the host as reverently as possible, regardless of archeologisms.

If you treat it like a biscuit, what grace is likely to flow, given your symbolic attitude?

Kneeling and receiving on the tongue is a sign of humilty; a virtue not highly regarded by the ‘me generation’.

To those that say Jesus is present regardless of your posture, I would rejoin; true, but if His presence is all that’s required to effect holiness in us, then we should all be living saints.

Not any more so than a profound bow followed by receiving in one’s hands.

 

[Stewmont]

Please note that the sedar meal tradition of the time actually makes it just as likely that communion was received in the tongue.

But thats not the major point. The point is that the Church has developed a great respect for the Eucharist and behaves as by the list above in my post.

If you want to think that all those things are absurd, go ahead and ignore the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. BUT you were warned by a Saint of the early Church and a doctor to treat the Body and Blood of Christ like GOLDDUST.

Paul

How so? I have been to several sedars and I don’t see how you can say this…

 

[Stewmont]

The way Communion in the hand was re-introduced in the Roman Rite was deplorable and illegal. Nowadays, most people aren’t ever told about receiving on the tongue (I wasn’t, and my current parish doesn’t “advertise” it), nor are they given catechesis on why they’re receiving in the hand.

There was a radical change, certainly without compelling reason (apart from “they’re already doing it!”) and probably without proper catechesis, over 40 years ago. As Pope Paul VI said in Memoriale Domini: “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.”

Who are you to say the Church essentially screwed-up?

I am amazed at those who feel they and not the Church are the final arbiters of what should and should not be done…

 

[benedictgal]

Who are you to say the Church essentially screwed-up?

I am amazed at those who feel they and not the Church are the final arbiters of what should and should not be done…

Actually, the current Supreme Pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, has the communicants who will receive Our Lord from him kneel and receive on the tongue. This is now standard operating procedure in all of the Papal Masses.

As the Holy Father explained in his homily on the Solemity of the Body and Blood of Chirst:

At this point we cannot forget the beginning of the “Decalogue”, the Ten Commandments, where it is written: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me” (Ex 20: 2-3). Here we find the meaning of the third constitutive element of Corpus Christi: kneeling in adoration before the Lord. Adoring the God of Jesus Christ, who out of love made himself bread broken, is the most effective and radical remedy against the idolatry of the past and of the present. Kneeling before the Eucharist is a profession of freedom: those who bow to Jesus cannot and must not prostrate themselves before any earthly authority, however powerful. We Christians kneel only before God or before the Most Blessed Sacrament because we know and believe that the one true God is present in it, the God who created the world and so loved it that he gave his Only Begotten Son (cf. Jn 3: 16). We prostrate ourselves before a God who first bent over man like the Good Samaritan to assist him and restore his life, and who knelt before us to wash our dirty feet. Adoring the Body of Christ, means believing that there, in that piece of Bread, Christ is really there, and gives true sense to life, to the immense universe as to the smallest creature, to the whole of human history as to the most brief existence. Adoration is prayer that prolongs the celebration and Eucharistic communion and in which the soul continues to be nourished: it is nourished with love, truth, peace; it is nourished with hope, because the One before whom we prostrate ourselves does not judge us, does not crush us but liberates and transforms us.

Inasmuich as he did not touch upon the issue of receiving on the tongue, the very fact that this was the Mass where he began making the practice standard at all Papal Mases should tell us something.

 

[japhy]

How so? I have been to several sedars and I don’t see how you can say this…

Read it again: “Please note that the sedar meal tradition of the time actually makes it just as likely that communion was received in the tongue.” In other words, the Passover tradition in the time of Christ, not in the time of today.