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

[japhy]

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

Well, the US Bishops call for merely a bow of the head, not a profound bow.

The point is, I think, that “standing” and “kneeling” are postures. Only when one is standing does one have to make a further sign of reverence (a bow of the head); when one receives kneeling, one is already making the necessary sign of reverence. That means that, as far as posture is concerned, standing by itself is not as reverent as kneeling when it comes to receiving Holy Communion; one standing is obliged to make a sign of reverence.

(Disclaimer: I’m referring to the Roman Rite. Eastern Catholics, please do not take offense.)

 

[japhy]

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

Here’s the order of events, in case you aren’t aware:

1. Early 1960’s (at the latest) - certain Catholics begin promoting (and practicing) reception of Communion in the hand
2. Late 1960’s (at the latest) - word of this illegal activity gets to Rome
3. 1969 - Pope issues Memoriale Domini which says:
   
   In certain communities and in certain places this practice [of receiving in the hand] has been introduced without prior approval having been requested of the Holy See, and, at times, without any attempt to prepare the faithful adequately.
   ​

…

The present discipline [of receiving on the tongue] should not be changed, and [if] it were, the change would be offensive to the sentiments and the spiritual culture of these bishops and of many of 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.​

What happened, you see, is that the Church said “people ought to be receiving on the tongue, but if receiving on the hand (illegally!) has caught on, you may petition for it to be made legal”. There is an enormous loophole there (I’m sure you see it) and it was abused. Receiving in the hand wasn’t legal in the U.S. until 1977. That means it was going on illegally beforehand (at least since 1973) and the Bishops were “powerless” to stop it. The vote from the US Bishops passed only after failing several times, and only then after getting votes from bishops who were absent and retired or dying. (source)

 

[Aramis]

(Disclaimer: I’m referring to the Roman Rite. Eastern Catholics, please do not take offense.)

Here’s the thing: When most latins express upset at communion standing, they express it not in the context of latin thought, but in the context of Universal Church Teaching; in that context, standing is no more reverent, and in the Byzantine context, less reverent.

Likewise, communion in the hand is normative in two rites (Syriac and Armenian), and a significant chunk of a third (that being the Roman Rite in the US).

The problem is the excruciatingly poor catechesis far more than the posture. I’ve seen irreverence when kneeling… it’s less obvious, but it happens. Reverence is in the heart, and shows through, no matter the posture.

 

[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.

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.

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

What is more interesting is the inability of supporters of the modern practice to come up with anything remotely substantial to deny this post.

Paul

 

[PaulAndrew83]

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…

Dear Stewmont.

Would you say that the hierarchy of the Church did not screw up when protestantism succeded in destroying the faith of millions?

What about all those faithful english Bishops who stood up to Henry VII?

Look at what is happening.

1. One Cardinal has already banned the modern practice.
2. The Pope is taking action against it.

So you going to continue ignore the substance of the post which you have not yet answered, and oppose the need to make Catholics treat the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament with respect?

Paul

 

[ProVobis]

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

Maybe it’s the other way around.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

Dear Provobis

Please read the post before making one line replys. You will find yourself in a position therefore of understanding what it means to treat the Blessed Sacrament as if it was gold or precious stones.

The modern practice ignores the fragments of the Sacrament. Please read post 31 especially fully before commenting.

Paul

 

[ProVobis]

Originally Posted by 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

If anything the modernists would have extended this argument to atoms and molecules being scattered, even taking more care that the shortest path be taken between the ciborium and the recipient’s mouth with the paten as a safety net. But they argued otherwise. Go figure.

 

[dans0622]

Can’t disagree at all with your post, PaulAndrew.

Regarding something a few others have talked about–I’m no linguist but the Latin word we translate as “take” in the Eucharistic prayer (which, you could argue, is addressed only to the Apostles and, subsequently, to priests of our day) is “accipio”, where we get the word “accept.” Accipio can be translated as either “take” or “receive,” as can the Greek word from the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper–“lambano.”

In the Mass, priests are actually the only ones who are allowed to “take” the Eucharist. For the rest of us, we are given Communion.

Dan

 

[PaulAndrew83]

I do not quite understand how this is a traditional catholic issue. It might be because it is mostly people who call themselves trads are able to see that ignoring the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament is wrong.

But this is a mainstream issue. It is about respect for the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament. Post number 31 is still not been shown to be wrong. Skirting around the issue of ancient church practice which as time went on became even more reverent to Our Lord.

St Cyril - do not mislay any of it because it is like you lost gold or precious stones.

St Thomas - These Church practices belong to the reverence for the Sacrament.

Unanswerable from a Catholic point of view.

Paul

 

[otjm]

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

You need to re-read what was said; the Church has not ruled that one has to reach the age of reason to receive; it has only ruled that within the Latin rite, that reception occurs upon reaching the age of reason. The practice of infant reception is tstill alive and well, and licit in the Eastern rites.

I

t 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.

That does not compare to simony. It is accepted that if a particle of the Host is so small as to not be identifiable as part of the Host, the the Real Presenece is no longer there. Further, the reception in the hand is from the time of Christ; neither He nor the Apostles, nor those taught by the Apostles required purification. Nor those after…

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.

you fail to distinguish between visible identifiable particles and those which are not identifiable. If one has a particle on one’s hands, one simply consumes it. Further, the hosts genreally used today are not that frangible; they are not constantly leaving particles.

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.

Please substantiate which Protestants did this and where it occured. You can’t, as that is not factual.

 

[PaulAndrew83]

You need to re-read what was said; the Church has not ruled that one has to reach the age of reason to receive; it has only ruled that within the Latin rite, that reception occurs upon reaching the age of reason. The practice of infant reception is still alive and well, and licit in the Eastern rites.

Ok I retract. I do not know everything I went and looked it up.

It is accepted that if a particle of the Host is so small as to not be identifiable as part of the Host, the the Real Presenece is no longer there.
…
you fail to distinguish between visible identifiable particles and those which are not identifiable.

There is nothing in any church ruling that decrees such. All these musings are, are musings about the Sacraments being signs and thereby reasoning from their about the Blessed Sacrament. But these are just musings, which ignore what we know for certain.

However there are only two things we know for sure about this.

1. Complete substantial change occurs at the consecration such that all the bread is changed substantially into Christ.
2. The Blessed Sacrament remains so long as the accidents of the bread remains.

Visibility is no measure of whether the Sacrament is there or not. In fact eyesight is probably the most subjective thing that one can think of to decide whether the Sacrament is there or not. Going to hire Sacrament Spotters, people with excellent eyesight? lol

BUT, There is no common opinion about when the Sacrament ceases to be the Sacrament.

Again if you read the thread you might read all the things that Church has done over the last 1500+ odd years {since there are debates over when each custom started} to protect the Sacrament.

You got to ask yourself the questions, was the clasping of the fingers unnecessary? Was the fact that Priests held the chalice with three fingers unnecessary? Despite St Thomas saying these things belong to the reverence for the Sacrament are you going to say he is wrong? These are immemorial customs!

Further, the reception in the hand is from the time of Christ; neither He nor the Apostles, nor those taught by the Apostles required purification.

You cannot substantiate anything there. There is no proof of anything you have just said only controversy. There is only one thing we know for certain. The Church got rid of Communion in the hand and introduced many practices to show reverence for the Blessed Sacrament.

What were these practices?
"MEMEMEME:

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.

Are these practices wrong? Was the Church stupid to proscribe as part of liturgical law these things for over 1000 years? I doubt IT!!!

Ignoring the fragments of the Blessed Sacrament does amount to simony.

Please substantiate which Protestants did this and where it occured. You can’t, as that is not factual.

Erm are you in for a shock.
Source: Bucer's Censura:

I cannot see how the seventh section requiring the bread of the Lord to be put not in the hand, but in the mouth, of the recipient, can be consistent. Certainly the reason given in this section, namely, lest those who receive the bread of the Lord should not eat it but take it away with them to misuse it for superstition or horrible wickedness, is not, it seems to me, conclusive; for the minister can easily see, when he puts the bread in the hand, whether it is eaten or not.

In fact,** I have no doubt that this usage of not putting these sacraments in the hands of the faithful has been introduced out of a double superstition; firstly, the false honour they wished to show to this sacrament, and secondly the wicked arrogance of priests claiming greater holiness than that of the people of Christ, by virtue of the oil of consecration.** The Lord undoubtedly gave these, His sacred symbols, into the hands of the Apostles, and no one who has read the records of the ancients can be in doubt that this was the usage observed in the churches until the advent of the Roman Antichrist.

After this Communion in the hand was introduced by this into England by cranmer in the 1552 prayer book. So Bucer wanted to communion in the hand to eliminate belief in the Real Presence.

That of course has not happened today. All catholics still believe in the real presence or am I mistaken on that?

Paul

 

[Like]

Paul, you are right on!!!

 

[jfallaw]

After watching the horrible blasphemies on youtube, where some idiot kid desecrated a stolen host every day in a different obscene manner every day, I would think that would be enough to bring back reception on the tongue. Absolutely no way to sneak off with one that way. Well, I guess one could, but still…

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

Those things being discussed in this thread ARE NOT DOGMA. How to construct the Church, how to hold the Eucharist, etc, are all disciplinary. What people forget is that **THE CHURCH **can change discipline. i.e., Whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven, whatever you loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven. Past disciplined does not forever bind the Church. Dogma does.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[Mels]

I read an article in Homiletic & Pastoral on receiving in the hand. The preferred method is kneeling and on the tongue, to show respect for the sacrament. Apparently, the Eucharist in the hand thing was not supposed to be so widespread; really the only time a layperson was supposedly allowed to even touch the host is when it falls on the ground and must be picked up immediately to avoid it from being trampled on. Beyond that, it is not supposed to be done. I think it was allowed for the sake of converts or something of the sort (thus said the article). I don’t remember all of the article, so I apologize if I’ve misspoke.

Furthermore, the way Eucharist is distributed in Rome is the traditional way; as Rome is the example for all the Church, I say this is the preferred method and the one I follow.

 

[jpy15026]

Sunday, December 14, 2008

**Kneeling for communion and communion on the tongue:
“Profound meaning,” says Cañizares **

In an interview granted this Sunday to Spanish daily La Razón, the new Prefect of Divine Worship, Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, had this to say on an important liturgical matter:

[La Razón:] Nevertheless, Benedict XVI has reiterated in some instances the propriety of receiving communion kneeling and in the mouth. Is it something important, or is it a mere matter of form?

[Cañizares:] - No, it is not just a matter of form. What does it mean to receive communion in the mouth? What does it mean to kneel before the Most Holy Sacrament? What dies it mean to kneel during the consecration at Mass? It means adoration, it means recognizing the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist; it means respect and an attitude of faith of a man who prostrates before God because he knows that everything comes from Him, and we feel speechless, dumbfounded, before the wondrousness, his goodness, and his mercy. That is why it is not the same to place the hand, and to receive communion in any fashion, than doing it in a respectful way; it is not the same to receive communion kneeling or standing up, because all these signs indicate a profound meaning. What we have to grasp is that profound attitude of the man who prostrates himself before God, and that is what the Pope wants.
rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/12/kneeling-for-communion-and-communion-on.html

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

I have profound love and respect for our Lord in the Eucharist. That said, it seems to me that so many are judging the hearts and souls of those who receive in the hand. If the Holy See wanted all to receive on the tongue, kneeling at altar rails as before Vatican II, all that would be necessary is a simple directive from Rome and it would be done. Until that time, lets please stop judging and assuming a “superior” internal attitude over those who do receive on the hand. The term, “remove the speck from your own eye” seems to come to mind.

As an additional note, I have been blessed to assist at mass in St. Peters at the altar to the left of the Papal Altar. This is where the daily mass is said for the parishioners of St. Peters. Mass was in Italian and English, and Communion was distributed both on the tongue and in the hand to those who came up to receive our Lord.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[maurin]

I have profound love and respect for our Lord in the Eucharist. That said, it seems to me that so many are judging the hearts and souls of those who receive in the hand. If the Holy See wanted all to receive on the tongue, kneeling at altar rails as before Vatican II, all that would be necessary is a simple directive from Rome and it would be done. Until that time, lets please stop judging and assuming a “superior” internal attitude over those who do receive on the hand. The term, “remove the speck from your own eye” seems to come to mind.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

The term may come to your mind, Deacon, but it doesn’t prevent you from assuming the same posture as those against whom you are using it.

You seem to be denying another term: familiarity breeds contempt. Hopefully you’ve never given Communion to a woman who was on her cellphone…but my ex-Pastor did. Hopefully your “Extraoridinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist” don’t give Communion dressed in pedal-pushers, stilletto heels, and a halter top…but a woman in her 70’s does at another local Parish.

A simple directive was issued by Rome in November of 2007 which has clearly been ignored by the majority of the American Bishops, so I’m not too sure a “simple directive” would be all that is necessary.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

You seem to be denying another term: familiarity breeds contempt. Hopefully you’ve never given Communion to a woman who was on her cellphone…but my ex-Pastor did. Hopefully your “Extraoridinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist” don’t give Communion dressed in pedal-pushers, stilletto heels, and a halter top…but a woman in her 70’s does at another local Parish.

All this tells me is that much catechesis needs to be done in these parishes. I would place this blame on the priests involved.
Prayers & blessings
deacon Ed B.