The True Story of Communion in the Hand Revealed

  • Thread starter Thread starter StudentMI
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The document originated because, in the years immediately following Vatican II, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand became widespread in many countries. This was obviously a liturgical abuse, which put its roots down in those countries where there were already doctrinal problems regarding the Holy Eucharist: Belgium, Holland, France, and Germany. The Holy See, not succeeding in stopping this abuse, decided to consult all the bishops on this question. This decision of Paul VI already allows us to understand the importance of the argument. I say this, because some would maintain that this whole question is only of marginal importance and unimportant.

and

The majority of bishops expressed their opposition to the introduction of this practice. M.D. acknowledged the outcome of the consultation and confirmed that the universal norm for receiving Communion is precisely that of receiving it directly on the tongue, giving profound reasons for it. At the same time, it consented that the bishops’ conferences of those places in which the abuse was already occurring would be able to request an indult for Communion in the hand, if the bishops were able to achieve a vote of a two-thirds majority in favor of requesting it.

So to sum it up . It was a liturgical abuse to receive by the hand, but since most everyone in Europe was doing it, and the practice failed to stop and failed to be stopped, it was thusly voted as being acceptable.

This right here, proves that the Church does indeed make up arbitrary rules based on in this case nothing, and then when society as a whole decides to ignore the Church, what does the Church do, change the rules.

It isn’t something i made up, the article is right there. If one really wants to decide the proper way to receive communion, how about looking at the Last Supper in the Gospel, and see how the disciples ate. Technically this was their first communion, were they passing food around, did Jesus say okay, line up, kneel down, open your mouth and I will place this concecrated host on your tongue.

It is really odd, that what was acceptable to do by the disciples while with Jesus, was perfectly acceptable, and today, isn’t.

The entire debate is either around being holy while receiving or not wanting to leave crumbs on the floor of the church. When one has to start signing a wavier before mass that they have went to confession before receiving communion, or is given a card by a priest at confession to present before communion to show that they went and then swear that they haven’t committed a mortal sin in front of the congregation on top of it, then i will start to care about the importance of receiving by mouth vs hand.

Don’t get mad at me for pointing this out, get mad at the person who wrote the article and gave me validity for my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Also in catechesis, above all that of children, there is a need to teach the proper way to receive the Eucharist, that is, on the tongue.

Exactly. It ought to clearly be said that the best way to receive the Eucharist is on the tongue, and if someone wants to receive Communion on the hand, to do so with the greatest attention possible. As a pastor, I clearly cannot prohibit it, but I can discourage it, explain the problems with it, and educate. But it must also be said that the same Redemptionis Sacramentum 91 establishes that “if there is danger of profanation, Holy Communion should not be distributed to the faithful in the hand.”

I found this interesting as well, I can remember my first communion, and this was never even mentioned, it was strictly taught to receive by hand, and from what I can tell at least at my parish is still being taught that way.

so, looks like the debate and voting was pretty much a giant waste of time that still to this day clergy doesn’t pay any attention to and doesn’t try to enforce one way or another. Which is a reflection upon leadership.
 
Last edited:
AlbMagno said:
How convenient to start the “story” of CITH in the 20th Century, ignoring that it is historically one of the most traditional forms of taking Communion.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have never thought that the apostles, or the disciples on the road to Emmaus, knelt and let Jesus put a little piece of consecrated bread on their tongues, despite some artistic depictions of this. They took a piece in their hand and consumed it as one normally did with bread.
 
As how to receive is a discipline and not a doctrine it can be changed any time. The only thing at Mass that cannot be changed is the consecration and the priest receiving. Everything else can be changed.

What I fail to understand is someone’s reluctance, maybe even disobedience, to accept something the Church has stated is valid.
 
Last edited:
Because I don’t believe it happens often.

By the way you cannot commit a mortal sin by accident!

Also I don’t believe anyone, never mind plenty of people, have left the Church over how they receive Communion.
 
Last edited:
You should spend more time focused on the Mass instead of looking around hoping to catch somebody in your mind doing something wrong.
Also I will repeat that I do not believe anyone, never mind plenty of people, have left the Church over the issue of how to receive Communion.
 
I myself receive on the tongue due to an incident not long after I was confirmed. I received the Eucharist in my hand and when I got back to my seat noticed a piece of the host stuck to my hand. I spent several minutes licking my hand to make sure it was gone. I decided never to go through that again.
 
We had a Franciscan as a poster in Catholic Answers Forum who likely knew more liturgical law than the vast majority of everyone else here who dais that itt was not an abuse, and gave a long posting on it. I am not going to bother looking for it.

Communion in the Hand was practiced in the early Church, and as more and more research was done into early Church practices, Communion in the Hand came to the forefront.

It obviously upset a lot of conservatives - but not all, as many who consider themselves conservative practice it.\

If ;you don’t want to receive in the hand, then don’t. But no one - in this thread or elsewhere, has the right to look done the end of their nose at anyone who does receive that way - which is the Way that the early great saints of the Church received it.

On a semi related topic is receiving from the Cup. There was a heated discussion in these threads, and I finally asked one of the posters who “didn’t need that” how they would respond in the following scenario: You go up to Communion to receive, and you receive the Host; as you move (left or right) near the Cup, you look up and instead of an EMHC holding the Cup, you recognize Christ holding it out toward you saying “This is my Blood”. What would you do now?

Their answer was they had never stooped to look at it that way - which I took to mean, they had never really thought matters through beyond the formal rule that Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity in either of the species.

I was an altar boy in the 1950’s, and the pastor gave the impression that Communion needed to be distributed as fast as possible. And if I or any of my classmates holding the paten and backing up along the communion rail didn’t move fast enough, we were admonished right there.

Thus I find that distribution of Communion is more reverent now, as we approach whomever - priest, bishop, deacon or EMHC - that we bow to the Eucharist, move forward, the one distributing says "Body of Christ (or “Blood…”); we answer Amen, and then receive - by hand or on the tongue, and/or from the Cup.

That old image never goes away; and I still don’t know why some people are impatient with the slower, more reverent process.
 
That is incorrect; the survey asked them to identify the Scholastic term and they couldn’t. The fact that they didn’t know the meaning of transubstantiation does not mean they do not believe in the True Presence; it means they were not taught the Scholastic term. I have met any number of people who don’t know the term (because I have asked them); but they go to Adoration.
 
Atrocitous said:
Also in catechesis, above all that of children, there is a need to teach the proper way to receive the Eucharist, that is, on the tongue.
Click to expand...
According to the Church, there are two correct ways to receive.One is on the tongue, and one is in the hand.
 

Hope this helps. I personally receive on the tongue whilst kneeling, acknowledging my unconsecrated hands and possibly (literally) dirty hands. (If altar servers in the TLM must wear gloves to touch the sacred vessels, how more precious is the Lord in the Eucharist? Of course, you could receive Our Lord on the hand with gloves, but now the priest has more things to purify).
 
I believe it was Pope Pius XII who called it “false antiquarianism” when you take a concept or practise from ancient Church history and bring it back as a “pious practise” because it was how the “original Christians” did it. This is the mistake Luther made as well.
Communion in the hand was practised differently in the ancient Church than it is today, and what is more important, the indult that Pope Paul VI gave about communion in the hand sets certain stipulations that the practise has to live up to. It must not diminish the belief in the dogma of the true presence and it must not permit abuse. The first thing has definitely come true, whether you believe it’s due to communion in the hand or something else. The second requirement I don’t think I’ve ever seen a parish live up to fully.

So the only question left on my mind is: do I even have the same religion as the people who say “Jesus doesn’t mind if his precious body lands on the floor and get stepped on.” While communion in the hand is allowed by indult it is practised illicitly (with grave consequences) almost everywhere.
 
TheMortenBay said:
I believe it was Pope Pius XII who called it “false antiquarianism” when you take a concept or practise from ancient Church history and bring it back as a “pious practise” because it was how the “original Christians” did it.
Click to expand...
Benedict XVI wrote something that has stuck with me. He said it was odd to refer to certain things like the Tridentine Mass as ‘old fashioned’ while simultaneously wanting to go back to the beginnings of the Church.
 
Last edited:
puer.dei said:
I have never heard or seen anyone say that.
Click to expand...
I could quote a Catholic who said this last week, but it would be in Danish.
But anyway, in most real conversations it goes more like this:

Them: CitH is fine.
Me: It bears the risk of sacrilege
Them: It’s fine.
Me: What about particles?
Them: It’s unavoidable
Me: Tongue and paten
Them: You’re old-fashioned…
Or:
Me: What about particles?
Them: I don’t think Jesus hangs himself in the details.
Or…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top