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

[PaulAndrew83]

Dear All,

First of I am not a trad in the sspx/whatever sense of the term. I attend a Novus Ordo mass, I accept the Vatican Council as free from error. I also accept the teaching authority of the current encyclicals and directives of congregations.

I have however attended a number of Old rite masses in London etc.

At the time I was someone who took a generally FSSP like outlook towards things like this but was unaware of the depth of the evidence against the modern practice.

I actually sat down to read the missal, before mass and when reading the rubrics around the time of the consecration it stated that the Priest would clasp the canonical fingers of both hands together at all times outside of picking up a new Host for distribution.

The Priest would only stop clasping the thumb and forefinger after the ablutions after Holy Communion.

Later on that day I found out about washing the linen cloths of the altar three times and pouring the water on earth - parish church unfortunatly had no sacrarium.

The age of these practices are in the 1500 year old bracket. [Anne catherine emmerich notes that these things were done by Christ himself but this is mystical so I will leave that as a comment in passing]

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

This is not some isolated Statement, its explaining an ancient practice of the Church which continued for another 800 odd years.

Development of doctrine excludes using the early Church as support for a modern reintroduction. The substance of this is shown in the council of Trent dogmatically defining that the particles/fragments are still the Blessed Sacrament.

As an example the council of Lateran is the reason we can no longer re-introduce giving communion to babies. This was confirmed by the council of Trent.

The fact that it is tolerated now by the Church gives us no problem either. There are only two things to consider.

1. The Church has at various times been almost overrun by the sins of simony nepotism and so on. Therefore we cannot assume that something which contradicts 1500 year old church practices is all of a sudden allowed. Otherwise I shall buy the papacy and then ban Holy Communion in the hand.
2. The reaction of the reformers ie. The St Charles Borromeo’s and St Pius V’s of our time are beginning to be heard. See Bishop Schneider, Cardinal Arinze and the Cardinal of Peru banning it in his diocese. [Not that I am ascribing heroic sanctity to these men but these are the voices of the early reformers]

God Bless

Paul

 

[puzzleannie]

I have attended Latin Mass a few times in the past years, and have to confess its appeal has more to do with nostalgia than spirituality, but I am fine with the OF in the vernacular, the revised lectionary and so forth. It is my opinion, and has remained unchanged for 40 years, that the casualness about treatment of the Eucharist, including but not limited to reception in the hand, use of EMHCs, moving the tabernacle, elimination in many places of regular times for exposition and benediction, is directly responsible for the widely reported and documented decline among Catholics of belief in transubstantiation and the Real Presence. the poor catechesis that has unfortunately been concommitant with the changes in the liturgy, has exacerbated but did not cause this, and springs in part from those changes.

When I entered my Catholic high school it was with the Latin Mass (dialog Mass with readings in the vernacular), learning chant and traditional hymns in the choir, studying Latin in school, Eucharistic processions, Holy Hours weekly in front of the exposed Sacrament with benediction, 40 hours devotion etc.

By the time I graduated our newly built (less than 10 yrs) church had been desecrated–at least in our parish there is no other way to describe the changes made. Thankfully the pastor who had built this church had died too soon to see it. I don’t have to describe it to those who were alive at that time.

My peers and I and I have no doubt a lot of my generation, and my parents and their contemporaries have said the same many times, assumed since the traditional forms of reverence for the Eucharist were no longer present, then the doctrine also had ceased to be proclaimed, and many of us simply stopped believing. Thankfully many of us never lost our belief, or have returned to it, but I can tell you the effect those changes, especially communion standing and in the hand, had on my generation.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Its not the actual in the hand receiving that is the problem.

It is the fact that no purification of fingers or hands take place after reception.

If in a small Mass, all who receive were to purify their fingers and hands because they were aware of the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament which remained on their fingers. This to me would be a licit. However I do not see the point of doing such a thing since it is obviously just better to kneel and receive on the tongue.

Paul

 

[kinderbueno]

As a 33-YO sacristan at my parish (we only have the OF – which I grew up with), I must say that I agree with puzzleannie’s assessment – as with postures fostering piety in the communicant (kneeling…or at LEAST genuflecting), losing such reverence leads to losing the gravity of what you are about to receive. Our atrophying understanding of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence in general I feel affected me moreso growing up, and a whole generation has grown up with a lackadaisical view of it. I was fortunate to have parents who cared (my dad taught me the sacristan “trade”).

We could take it a step further and say this is also why (at least in our parish) it leads to virtually EVERYONE going up to receive the Blessed Sacrament, whether or not they are in a state of mortal sin – i.e. the run-of-the-mill Catholic these days doesn’t put these together and go to Confession first.

It’s bad enough that our own pastor won’t do the “simple” purification of sacred vessels unless I remind him after mass (the other priests in our parish do it within the mass on weekdays, after the mass on Sundays).

I’m sure all of this has at least an indirect influence on why we ONLY have one hour a week of regular confession time (2 priests generally) for the largest parish in our diocese.

Thank you both for putting is so plainly. I have, only in the past year, begun receiving only on the tongue, and you have only strengthened my resolve.

Peace, -Mike

 

[kinderbueno]

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

Don’t you mean it the other way around?

 

[Genesis315]

Communion to infants is not just something tolerated–it is a venerable tradition in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.

Communion in the hand cannot be compared with simony. Simony is an intrinsic evil; communion in the hand is not. Simony was tolerated in the sense that it was officially proscribed as well as being openly repugnant to divine law, but no action was taken agains the perpetrators (same thing happened with re-Baptism in many places). On the other hand the proper method of reception of the Blessed Sacrament is not an immutable truth nor is it intrinsically evil. Granted we may say one method is more expedient for the profit of those receiving or for the veneration of the sacrament. And since we are given the option legitimately, one can freely decide which is more expedient for you, to use the phrase of Trent.

That being said, it is not within our competence as laymen to reprobate or proscribe practices which our lawful pastors do not.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Communion to infants is not just something tolerated–it is a venerable tradition in the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches.

And the Church has ruled that you need to reach the age of reason. It should not be practiced.

Communion in the hand cannot be compared with simony. Simony is an intrinsic evil; communion in the hand is not. Simony was tolerated in the sense that it was officially proscribed as well as being openly repugnant to divine law, but no action was taken agains the perpetrators (same thing happened with re-Baptism in many places).

It is not the fact that communion in the hand is wrong, it is the fact that no action is taken to purify the hands of those that touch the Host. This is what needs to be compared with simony.

On the other hand the proper method of reception of the Blessed Sacrament is not an immutable truth nor is it intrinsically evil. Granted we may say one method is more expedient for the profit of those receiving or for the veneration of the sacrament. And since we are given the option legitimately, one can freely decide which is more expedient for you, to use the phrase of Trent.

Yes you can provided that proper care is taken afterwards to purify fingers and hands. Otherwise the Churches behaviour towards the Blessed Sacramant by purifying all that comes into contact with has been made to be pointless.

Its not the method - its the fact that all modern catholics who receive in the hand do not take any such action to purify their hands.

That being said, it is not within our competence as laymen to reprobate or proscribe practices which our lawful pastors do not.

Please substantiate. It is an act of charity to reprove others including superiors.

kinderbueno:

Don’t I mean the other way round.

No I do not. Communion in the hand was never practiced the way modern catholics practice it until the protestants introduced it to reduce faith in the real presence.

Communion in the hand in antiquity was done by bowing and raising the hand to the mouth and then looking carefully for fragments of the sacrament. In those days the women had to use a domenica.

So again what I am specifically condemning no action taken to purify fingers after taking in the hand.

Paul

 

[Brendan]

And the Church has ruled that you need to reach the age of reason. It should not be practiced.

No, the Church said that the age of reason is required to those in the Latin Church. The Eastern Church have their own, seperate Code of Canon Law that mandates that those being baptized also be Communicated.

That has been the consistent practice of the Eastern Churches and has been recognized by all the Popes for the last 500 years.

Are you honestly saying that all those Popes were wrong?

I would recommend that you read Orentalium Ecclesiarum

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

 

[Stewmont]

I very much appreciate the indult which allows me to receive in hand. It’s more similar to the early church from what I read. Of course I will always follow the Catholic Church. If it eliminated the indult or if it went the other way and eliminated communion on tongue I would follow Her.

 

[palmas85]

I very much appreciate the indult which allows me to receive in hand. It’s more similar to the early church from what I read. Of course I will always follow the Catholic Church. If it eliminated the indult or if it went the other way and eliminated communion on tongue I would follow Her.

I think that you have been misinformed about the reception in the hand by the early Church. Since you are new here, I will elaborate a bit for you.

Yes, the early church did receive in the hand. Not in imitation of the Last Supper, of which there is no evidence that those attending received in the hand and due to the relationship between Chrict and the Disciples it is possible that He did place a small morsel of each of the prescribed foods of the meal in their mouths. That was a common practice in small close familial and other groups of the time. Not saying they did, but they could have.

No, the early Church received in the hand for a very good and practical reason. The Church did not provide the bread that was used for the consecration. Each member or family brought their own, which were normally substantial loaves, not the wafers that we use today. These were collected by the Deacons and delivered to the Priest. After the Consecration, the communicants would receive from the Priest one of the loaves that had been brought. A small portion was consumed there and the rest taken home for consumption throughout the week. Usually the faithful wrapped the Eucharist in a white cloth so that mice would not consume.

So as you can see, there was a valid reason for it in those days. In fact, given the fact that they were receiving substantial sized portions, receiving in any other way would have been pretty near to impossible. That practice continued until the Church saw that people had lost reverence for the Eucharist and were in many cases profiting from the practice. By now using loaves had been abandoned and the use of wafers or small bite size portions had become the norm. The Church had also started to supply the bread in order to maintain consistency. So it developed that people were holding private exhibitions at homes and charging admission. These were common as was the selling of the Eucharist as a good luck charm, a cure for sickness or a love potion of some sort as well as for other not so salubrious practices…

 

[Stewmont]

I think that you have been misinformed about the reception in the hand by the early Church. Since you are new here, I will elaborate a bit for you.

Yes, the early church did receive in the hand. Not in imitation of the Last Supper, of which there is no evidence that those attending received in the hand and due to the relationship between Chrict and the Disciples it is possible that He did place a small morsel of each of the prescribed foods of the meal in their mouths. That was a common practice in small close familial and other groups of the time. Not saying they did, but they could have.

No, the early Church received in the hand for a very good and practical reason. The Church did not provide the bread that was used for the consecration. Each member or family brought their own, which were normally substantial loaves, not the wafers that we use today. These were collected by the Deacons and delivered to the Priest. After the Consecration, the communicants would receive from the Priest one of the loaves that had been brought. A small portion was consumed there and the rest taken home for consumption throughout the week. Usually the faithful wrapped the Eucharist in a white cloth so that mice would not consume.

So as you can see, there was a valid reason for it in those days. In fact, given the fact that they were receiving substantial sized portions, receiving in any other way would have been pretty near to impossible. That practice continued until the Church saw that people had lost reverence for the Eucharist and were in many cases profiting from the practice. By now using loaves had been abandoned and the use of wafers or small bite size portions had become the norm. The Church had also started to supply the bread in order to maintain consistency. So it developed that people were holding private exhibitions at homes and charging admission. These were common as was the selling of the Eucharist as a good luck charm, a cure for sickness or a love potion of some sort as well as for other not so salubrious practices…

I just follow the Church. If She allows permission to receive in hand then it in no way can be inferior to receiving on tongue. If She determined differently and rescinded the indult (or if I attend an Eastern Divine Liturgy or a EO Mass), I would most certainly follow Her guidance without complaint – even though I do appreciate the history of receiving in hand and how it flows from the Mass: “…TAKE, eat, this is My Body…”

For someone to say they personally prefer to receive one way or the other is fine, so long as both methods are licit of course. It’s entirely different for someone to attack licit (per the Church) methods of receiving because it somehow offends their personal perception of what is right or wrong or “better.”

No, it’s not wrong if unconsecrated and/or non-freshly lavaboed hands touch the consecrated hosts. No where does the Church make such a declaration and in fact gives documented permission for both to occur.

No, my tongue is not more worthy to receive the Blessed Sacrament than my hands. People go off on their own tangents about why they believe communion-in-hand is bad (including the misquote from Mother Theresa), but they are never supported by what the Church actually teaches.

Again, I just follow the Church.

 

[Stewmont]

I just follow the Church. If She allows permission to receive in hand then it in no way can be inferior to receiving on tongue. If She determined differently and rescinded the indult (or if I attend an Eastern Divine Liturgy or a EO Mass), I would most certainly follow Her guidance without complaint – even though I do appreciate the history of receiving in hand and how nicely it fits with the Mass “…TAKE, eat, this is My Body…”

For someone to say they personally prefer to receive one way or the other is fine, so long as both methods are licit of course. It’s entirely different for someone to attack licit (per the Church) methods of receiving because it somehow offends their personal perception of what is right or wrong or “better.”

No, it’s not wrong if unconsecrated and/or non-freshly lavaboed hands touch the consecrated hosts. No where does the Church make such a declaration and in fact gives documented permission for both to occur.

No, my tongue is not more worthy to receive the Blessed Sacrament than my hands. People go off on their own tangents about why they believe communion-in-hand is bad (including the misquote from Mother Theresa), but they are never supported by what the Church actually teaches.

Again, I just follow the Church.

 

[palmas85]

I just follow the Church. If She allows permission to receive in hand then it in no way can be inferior to receiving on tongue. If She determined differently and rescinded the indult (or if I attend an Eastern Divine Liturgy or a EO Mass), I would most certainly follow Her guidance without complaint – even though I do appreciate the history of receiving in hand and how it flows from the Mass: “…TAKE, eat, this is My Body…”

For someone to say they personally prefer to receive one way or the other is fine, so long as both methods are licit of course. It’s entirely different for someone to attack licit (per the Church) methods of receiving because it somehow offends their personal perception of what is right or wrong or “better.”

No, it’s not wrong if unconsecrated and/or non-freshly lavaboed hands touch the consecrated hosts. No where does the Church make such a declaration and in fact gives documented permission for both to occur.

No, my tongue is not more worthy to receive the Blessed Sacrament than my hands. People go off on their own tangents about why they believe communion-in-hand is bad (including the misquote from Mother Theresa), but they are never supported by what the Church actually teaches.

Again, I just follow the Church.

You sure brought a lot into the mix that I never even hinted at. I wonder why?

You see, I merely brought up why the early Church did it and why they stopped. That was in response to your statement that receiving in the hand today is closer to what they did in the early Church and nothing could be further from the truth.

And as to your last remark, I never said or even hinted that receiving in the hand was bad. I merely presented historical facts that contradict your assumption about early Church reception.

You shouldn’t get so testy about reading the the truth.

 

[Stewmont]

You sure brought a lot into the mix that I never even hinted at. I wonder why?

You see, I merely brought up why the early Church did it and why they stopped. That was in response to your statement that receiving in the hand today is closer to what they did in the early Church and nothing could be further from the truth.

And as to your last remark, I never said or even hinted that receiving in the hand was bad. I merely presented historical facts that contradict your assumption about early Church reception.

You shouldn’t get so testy about reading the the truth.

They received in hand both at the Last Supper and during the first 100 or more years of the Church – and not only for the reasons you mentioned. Not by a long shot.

Receiving in one’s hand today is closer to what they did back then when compared to receiving on one’s tongue. That’s historical fact. It doesn’t make it any better per se, but it does make it more historical which I appreciate. You shouldn’t get so testy when your personal account of “the truth” is not readily accepted…

 

[Walking_Home]

**They received in hand both at the Last Supper **and during the first 100 or more years of the Church – and not only for the reasons you mentioned. Not by a long shot.

Receiving in one’s hand today is closer to what they did back then when compared to receiving on one’s tongue. That’s historical fact. It doesn’t make it any better per se, but it does make it more historical which I appreciate. You shouldn’t get so testy when your personal account of “the truth” is not readily accepted…

---

I do not believe scripture verifies that reception in the Last Supper was in the hand–so it is quite possible as palmas85 said --they received a morsel in the mouth. But anyway --the ones present with our Lord --were our first priest/bishops–so if you are really into imitating the Last Supper --you would support that only priest/bishops receive in the hand.

 

[palmas85]

T**hey received in hand both at the Last Supper and during the first 100 or more years of the Church – and not only for the reasons you mentioned. ** Not by a long shot.

Receiving in one’s hand today is closer to what they did back then when compared to receiving on one’s tongue. That’s historical fact. It doesn’t make it any better per se, but it does make it more historical which I appreciate. You shouldn’t get so testy when your personal account of “the truth” is not readily accepted…

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.

Where exactly is the historical evidence that supports the other reasons as you call them? I have read extensively on the Masses of the early Christians and think that I have a pretty good grasp of what happened at them. Do you want to know something?. The only thing that was really fairly uniform about them was the delivery of the gifts, the consecration and the reception and consumption of the Eucharist. Almost everything else was different.

I didn’t get testy. You did, but that doesn’t really surprise me. You are neither the first nor more than likely the last who doesn’t really want to hear the truth about the early Church and what they did and more importantly why they did them that way, You have bought hook line and sinker into the mythology that has grown up around the reception of the early Christians. Shall we speak of St Cyril of Jerusalem, whose account if how HIS church received has attained the status of universality? Unfortunately, the method that old St Cyril was describing was the method in** HIS **Church, the Church at Jerusalem and only his. And truth be told he only described part of it.

I would ask that you read for instance Origen, Tertullien, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Serapion and many others who wrote on the subject. Of course their writings are a bit hard to read on occasion so you could just read the Mass of the Early Christians by Aquilina. It offers a fair and balanced account of some of the ways the Mass itself was celebrated in those days. You may actually learn something from them.

 

[Aramis]

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.

 

[puzzleannie]

Its not the actual in the hand receiving that is the problem.

It is the fact that no purification of fingers or hands take place after reception.

If in a small Mass, all who receive were to purify their fingers and hands because they were aware of the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament which remained on their fingers. This to me would be a licit. However I do not see the point of doing such a thing since it is obviously just better to kneel and receive on the tongue.

Paul

I agree, and anyone who has ever been an EMHC has seen grievous problems due to this very fact. Don’t leave out the appalling breach of Christian charity when although kneeling to receive was permitted, the communion rails that made it easier to kneel and rise, and easier for the minister to communicate, and easier for the server to use the paten, were removed wholesale, overnight, w/o regard for their intrinsic material value as well as for the spiritual value of kneeling. The change in posture also has an extremely effective “sign value” (favorite mantra of change for change’s sake gurus) and entirely changes the relationship between minister and communicant, and not incidentally makes reception on the tongue far more difficult (which any experienced EMHC can attest).

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

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.

 

[Stewmont]

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.

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.

Where exactly is the historical evidence that supports the other reasons as you call them? I have read extensively on the Masses of the early Christians and think that I have a pretty good grasp of what happened at them. Do you want to know something?. The only thing that was really fairly uniform about them was the delivery of the gifts, the consecration and the reception and consumption of the Eucharist. Almost everything else was different.

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. You did, but that doesn’t really surprise me. You are neither the first nor more than likely the last who doesn’t really want to hear the truth about the early Church and what they did and more importantly why they did them that way, You have bought hook line and sinker into the mythology that has grown up around the reception of the early Christians. Shall we speak of St Cyril of Jerusalem, whose account if how HIS church received has attained the status of universality? Unfortunately, the method that old St Cyril was describing was the method in** HIS **Church, the Church at Jerusalem and only his. And truth be told he only described part of it.

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

I would ask that you read for instance Origen, Tertullien, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Serapion and many others who wrote on the subject. Of course their writings are a bit hard to read on occasion so you could just read the Mass of the Early Christians by Aquilina. It offers a fair and balanced account of some of the ways the Mass itself was celebrated in those days. You may actually learn something from them.

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