S
Sirach14
Guest
An excellent commentary.
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html
matt1618.freeyellow.com/communion.html
- Status
E
Eileen_T
Guest
I was reading a book yesterday on the Mass and how Communion in the Hand was considered normal in the early Church.
I guess the whole issue is really about reverence. If someone approaches the Body and Blood of Christ with reverence it really doesn’t matter if they receive in the hand or on the tongue. :twocents:
I guess the whole issue is really about reverence. If someone approaches the Body and Blood of Christ with reverence it really doesn’t matter if they receive in the hand or on the tongue. :twocents:
T
thistle
Guest
You’re right. Its an excellent paper. I’ll really be interested to hear what the “traditionalists” have to say.
E
Eileen_T
Guest
I attend a TLM and it is my choice to receive on the tongue. As I said in my previous post, for me, it is all about reverence.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I have no problem whatsoever with people in the United States (or anywhere else which has been given permission) receiving in the hand with due reverence. I would hope that these fellow brothers and sisters would likewise have no problem whatsoever with people in the United States (or anywhere else where the practice is a norm) like me who choose to receive on the tongue, with due reverence. (I actually received communion in the hand for probably 5 years or more in the 1990s when “everybody else did”, and I received it with reverence). On finding out, through a return to my faith after some life-changes, that reception on the tongue was as valid as receiving in the hand, I chose to return to reception on the tongue. For me, it was a gesture which I felt called upon to do, without any (I hope) feeling that by doing so I was morally superior to others. In many ways, I do NOT like to stand out; furthermore, I shrink --physically, even! --from conflict to probably an abnormal degree. To have remained “part of the crowd” would have been not only easier on me in just about every way, it would quite honestly have been what I would have CHOSEN to do, and what I HAVE done in just about every action in my life. This is actually quite a radical departure for me.
So–for this one person–the choice to receive on the tongue is perhaps not for a reason you might have expected. God bless all of us who have been given the great gift to receive Him, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
So–for this one person–the choice to receive on the tongue is perhaps not for a reason you might have expected. God bless all of us who have been given the great gift to receive Him, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
C
Crumpy
Guest
The link in the original post makes a good. I am not a rigid traditionalist, who raises an absolute protest over the practice, and never have.
Something gets lost in the jargon, though, is what other posters have cited, namely the reverence of the liturgy.
The article also cites how both camps have acted somewhat uncharitably toward each other.
Underlying the whole thing, or maybe imbedded within the dicussion, is the question of ‘change’ which has been discussed often enough in these forums.
the second vatican council seemed to have thrown a lot of change out on the table. the real question is how was that change managed?
Poorly, overall, I think.
Catholics would go to church and things would be different almost without explanation or with little preparation. And, an issue inside of that, who was making the change, who was deciding that mass music would now be guitar music, for example, and things like that. And, who was totally left out of the decision making process?
It is a simple matter of social psychology that people want to feel a part of a decision making process, whatever it is. Things were handled with a slight loosening of the clericalism mindset, that if the musicians ran something by the pastor, then it would be OK.
It’s hard to imagine the vacuum that was created by the change from Latin in the Mass to English. And, it’s not just the priest’s parts that changed, it was the choir parts changing from Kyrie Eleison, Gloria in Excelsis Deo, Credo in Unum Deum, Santus(3), and Agnus Dei changing to Lord Have Mercy, Glory to God in the Highest, etc.
There was some variation in the melodies for the Latin hymns, with I think the Mass of the Angels being the standard music in most places. Absent that, those sung parts, and the accompanying music has virtually disappeared.
What the general result is, is what you see day to day on EWTN. When they have a choir, the choir sings special versions which the lay people probably can’t follow. On days with there is a single cantor, the melody reverts to funereal standard common melody that the people can follow.
Likewise on the Masses from the National Shrine, the choir singing is OK I guess, but the people in the pews are left in the dust, so to speak. They are relegated to the spectator role of the pre-Vatican II liturgy.
So, the communion-in-the-hand issue is a vanguard issue about the poor rollout of changes since Vatican II. The traditionalists are not all wrong, either. Notice that a bow or genuflection has been mandated before receiving communion, because it was seen that something important had been lost, in the loss of reverence.
And, rolled into that, is a loss of thousands of teaching nuns in the parishes who taught the faith and practices of the Church, and enforced the disciplines. That was very important and it was a sad loss that has created a void that has not been filled.
As the original poster implied, this matter is a red herring – but in what respect? Not for the triviality of the argument, but for the fact that the people involved have not learned to communicate with each other. A concession to democracy has been the option of allowing reception of the host in the hand, as an alternative to receiving on the tongue.
Any one who suggests that one is more sanitary than the other is deceiving himself. As a Latin Mass altar boy, I had the experience of seeing in people’s mouths. Believe me, that alone pushed me to be in favor of the indult.
Something gets lost in the jargon, though, is what other posters have cited, namely the reverence of the liturgy.
The article also cites how both camps have acted somewhat uncharitably toward each other.
Underlying the whole thing, or maybe imbedded within the dicussion, is the question of ‘change’ which has been discussed often enough in these forums.
the second vatican council seemed to have thrown a lot of change out on the table. the real question is how was that change managed?
Poorly, overall, I think.
Catholics would go to church and things would be different almost without explanation or with little preparation. And, an issue inside of that, who was making the change, who was deciding that mass music would now be guitar music, for example, and things like that. And, who was totally left out of the decision making process?
It is a simple matter of social psychology that people want to feel a part of a decision making process, whatever it is. Things were handled with a slight loosening of the clericalism mindset, that if the musicians ran something by the pastor, then it would be OK.
It’s hard to imagine the vacuum that was created by the change from Latin in the Mass to English. And, it’s not just the priest’s parts that changed, it was the choir parts changing from Kyrie Eleison, Gloria in Excelsis Deo, Credo in Unum Deum, Santus(3), and Agnus Dei changing to Lord Have Mercy, Glory to God in the Highest, etc.
There was some variation in the melodies for the Latin hymns, with I think the Mass of the Angels being the standard music in most places. Absent that, those sung parts, and the accompanying music has virtually disappeared.
What the general result is, is what you see day to day on EWTN. When they have a choir, the choir sings special versions which the lay people probably can’t follow. On days with there is a single cantor, the melody reverts to funereal standard common melody that the people can follow.
Likewise on the Masses from the National Shrine, the choir singing is OK I guess, but the people in the pews are left in the dust, so to speak. They are relegated to the spectator role of the pre-Vatican II liturgy.
So, the communion-in-the-hand issue is a vanguard issue about the poor rollout of changes since Vatican II. The traditionalists are not all wrong, either. Notice that a bow or genuflection has been mandated before receiving communion, because it was seen that something important had been lost, in the loss of reverence.
And, rolled into that, is a loss of thousands of teaching nuns in the parishes who taught the faith and practices of the Church, and enforced the disciplines. That was very important and it was a sad loss that has created a void that has not been filled.
As the original poster implied, this matter is a red herring – but in what respect? Not for the triviality of the argument, but for the fact that the people involved have not learned to communicate with each other. A concession to democracy has been the option of allowing reception of the host in the hand, as an alternative to receiving on the tongue.
Any one who suggests that one is more sanitary than the other is deceiving himself. As a Latin Mass altar boy, I had the experience of seeing in people’s mouths. Believe me, that alone pushed me to be in favor of the indult.
J
joshua_b
Guest
This argument really annoys me (and I don’t consider this thread an argument, I’m talking about individuals who INSIST that it should be received this way or that way). As has been stated several times in this thread, it is all about reverence, and that is a disposition, not a mechanical act. As Catholics, we are to be obedient to the Bishops, and the decision of how communion is to be properly received is one for the Bishops to declare and for us to be obedient to. Hence the source of my annoyance. We hear all the time about the shortage of vocations to the religious life. If there is such a shortage of vocations to the religious life, then why is there such an overabundance of vocations to the Magisterium and the Papacy ? It is not our job to determine what is the “most appropriate” way to receive communion, and I wish more people would remember that. Ok, I’m sorry if I ruined an otherwise enjoyable thread with my rant. Mea culpa.
C
Crumpy
Guest
One of the pre-Vatican II complaints is that the Church was not a democracy.
So, to make it more of a democracy, but not one in which people actually vote, is to give people options - which turns the Mass into a bit of a circus.
You can make Communion with the host and/or cup, standing or kneeling, optionally bowing, and accepting the host on the tongue or in the hand. Whew!
3 x 2 x 2 = minimally 12 different options for making communion.
accepting the host in the right hand or the left shoots us up to 24 optional ways of receiving communion. Is there possibly anything more to distract us? Is there any stone here left unturned?
Well, you can receive from a priest, deacon, male or female eucharistic minister, that’s 4 x 24 = 96 options for receiving communion. Are we there yet?
So, to make it more of a democracy, but not one in which people actually vote, is to give people options - which turns the Mass into a bit of a circus.
You can make Communion with the host and/or cup, standing or kneeling, optionally bowing, and accepting the host on the tongue or in the hand. Whew!
3 x 2 x 2 = minimally 12 different options for making communion.
accepting the host in the right hand or the left shoots us up to 24 optional ways of receiving communion. Is there possibly anything more to distract us? Is there any stone here left unturned?
Well, you can receive from a priest, deacon, male or female eucharistic minister, that’s 4 x 24 = 96 options for receiving communion. Are we there yet?
J
joshua_b
Guest
I can appreciate that explaination, but I guess my ultimate point is this. As Catholics we believe that Jesus gave us a Church, and gave that Church the power to govern all of its affairs (including disciplines). The heierarchy of the Church acts “in persona Christi”…and by their Divine institution, whatever they declare we are to accept as if it were the declaration of Christ himself. If you accept that as a Catholic, then who are you to “second guess” Christ if he declares through His Bishop that it is perfectly acceptable to receive communion in the hand ? (bear in mind, I’m only using the second person references for convenience, not to accuse you personally of anything).
D
dcdurel
Guest
I don’t think the author understands this quote from St. Basil.
"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence,** as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.** All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time. "
This quote is saying the the people were extremely hesitant to take communion in the hand. This is because it was NOT the universal practice.
St. Basil gives two exceptions, first when there is no priest present and second in Alexandria and Egypt.
He was simply trying to say the the Eucharist is still valid
“It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.”
Thus, it was NOT the universal practice “except in some places in Alexandrea and Egypt” when a priest was present to take communion in the hand.
“It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence,** as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.”**
Notice that he implies this IS a serious offence, unless long custom sanctions this practice. Thus even when long custom sanctions this practice, it is considered some type of offence, just not a serious offence, and that is even though a priest is not present.
Thus, it was normally considered a serious offence to take commmunion in the hand when a priest was present, except in Alexandria and Egypt.
"It is good and beneficial to communicate every day, and to partake of the holy Body and Blood of Christ. For He distinctly says, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life.” And who doubts that to share frequently in life, is the same thing as to have manifold life. I, indeed, communicate four times a week, on the Lord’s day, on Wednesday, on Friday, and on the Sabbath, and on the other days if there is a commemoration of any Saint. It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence,** as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.** All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home. And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes. For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand. It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time. "
This quote is saying the the people were extremely hesitant to take communion in the hand. This is because it was NOT the universal practice.
St. Basil gives two exceptions, first when there is no priest present and second in Alexandria and Egypt.
He was simply trying to say the the Eucharist is still valid
“It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time.”
Thus, it was NOT the universal practice “except in some places in Alexandrea and Egypt” when a priest was present to take communion in the hand.
“It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence,** as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.”**
Notice that he implies this IS a serious offence, unless long custom sanctions this practice. Thus even when long custom sanctions this practice, it is considered some type of offence, just not a serious offence, and that is even though a priest is not present.
Thus, it was normally considered a serious offence to take commmunion in the hand when a priest was present, except in Alexandria and Egypt.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
This reasoning is entirely fallacious. I could make the same arguement and say that there are 4 different taste zones on the tongue. So that shoots the number up to 384, doesn’t it?
In any case, these are not “options.” Nobody gets to vote on this. When you go to a Mass, you receive from whomever that church provides. If there is a female minister of Holy Communion (they are not called Eucharistic ministers, the Church has gone out of its way to make this clear) and a male one, for instance, a person still can’t typically choose whom they want. In most churches, the various ministers go to different locations around the church and the crowd goes to whomever is assigned to their section, row, or aisle. Even if a church was set up in a way that did provide a choice, it would be taking this as an extraordinary means that are beyond the Liturgical norms, and does not reflect the attitude of the Church. Even in this case, I could use the same arguement to say that only one priest should ever minister Communion, because if there were even two priests, say an elderly one and a younger one, that would still provide people with a choice, wouldn’t it?
But that being said, you are more than correct that far too many people want a democracy in the Church.
B
bigdawg
Guest
This is a link to Robert Sungenis’ site and an excellent article on communion in the hand. I think some of you will be suprised by the conclusion of the article.
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/sacraments/communion-hand.htm
catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/sacraments/communion-hand.htm
C
Crumpy
Guest
Thanks for the pointer.
C
Crumpy
Guest
At some point in my life, I read that the Church accepts the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, until the species of bread is no longer visible.
Scrupulosity about particles of the host is OK as far as it goes to ordinary care of the Sacrament, but I think our Lord “understands” that we are not perfect in such matters.
Consider that the atoms comprising the species are never destroyed, so there must be hundreds or thousands of sub-visible particles produced at the average Mass. If we were to go to insane extremes and burn the church building after each Mass, the particles and atoms would be simply dispersed, not destroyed.
A scientist once claimed that everybody on earth probably has a hundred atoms that were once a part of Jesus’ body. That may not be so far-fetched as it first seems, when you consider how many atoms there are in a human body.
Probably the only way to circumvent these problems is for everyone to place an unconsecrated host on their own tongue, and then have the priest consecrate them at once, and then for everyone to consume the Body of Christ.
The carbohydrates in the bread species are digested and oxidized, resulting in the production of carbon dioxide which is exhaled. If one wanted to be blasphemous, you could say “there goes Jesus”.
I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind.
Scrupulosity about particles of the host is OK as far as it goes to ordinary care of the Sacrament, but I think our Lord “understands” that we are not perfect in such matters.
Consider that the atoms comprising the species are never destroyed, so there must be hundreds or thousands of sub-visible particles produced at the average Mass. If we were to go to insane extremes and burn the church building after each Mass, the particles and atoms would be simply dispersed, not destroyed.
A scientist once claimed that everybody on earth probably has a hundred atoms that were once a part of Jesus’ body. That may not be so far-fetched as it first seems, when you consider how many atoms there are in a human body.
Probably the only way to circumvent these problems is for everyone to place an unconsecrated host on their own tongue, and then have the priest consecrate them at once, and then for everyone to consume the Body of Christ.
The carbohydrates in the bread species are digested and oxidized, resulting in the production of carbon dioxide which is exhaled. If one wanted to be blasphemous, you could say “there goes Jesus”.
I don’t think that’s what Jesus had in mind.
- Status